title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Even though it does effectively create impunity, this is not a unique phenomenon. Decisions on who to prosecute will always happen, and some form of bias against prosecuting powerful people is to some extent inevitable. So in practice not everyone is equal before the law. The ICC specifically builds in a way of deferr... | |
Legal precedent for prosecution of heads of government The prosecution of high ranking government officials is part of the Nuremberg precedent that international criminal law largely dates back to. Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Imperial Japan in the Second World War, was tried, convicted and executed as part of t... | |
Head of State immunity reduces the deterrent effect of international criminal law International criminal law, like any other form of criminal law, is supposed to be a deterrent. By giving a class of individuals impunity, these people cannot be deterred by International Criminal Law from committing some of the worst cr... | |
Impunity is repugnant to the rule of law A key principle of the rule of law is that everyone is subject to the law – even the agents of states [1] . It must apply equally to the most as well as the least powerful. This must apply to international criminal law as well as the domestic criminal law. It would be unjustif... | |
No head of state was successfully prosecuted by a partially international court until Charles Taylor was convicted by the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone, the first to go on trial was in 1994. None of the post WW2 Allied trials featured a significant head of state; Hitler was dead and the entire Japanese imperial... | |
The reason why the death penalty is so expensive – 13 executions since 1978 in California costing around $4bn [1] - is the “super due process” that is necessary in capital cases, especially with the large flaws in the US justice system. Blacker makes no coherent proposal on how he would modify the appeals system. Remo... | |
Could be cheaper While budget should not be the primary concern of the justice system, The death penalty, when applied properly, can be cheaper. A lethal injection, or a few bullets, costs far less than keeping a person incarcerated for a long time, especially if they need long term health or other care in old age. Th... | |
While Blecker proposes a three step test in a draft statute, it does not feature much legal certainty – it features a large amount of jury discretion, which was deemed to be a violation of the US constitution [1] . Any such elastic definition would allow prosecutors to make an argument that pretty much any case is with... | |
Necessary for punitive justice The concept of punishment is inherently based on retribution. “We don’t punish to prevent crime or remake criminals. We inflict pain-suffering, discomfort-to the degree they deserve to feel it.” [1] Retribution can be distinguished from revenge – retribution does not always seek to impos... | |
By keeping a person locked up for life, which may well be appropriate for the “worst of the worst”, they are incapacitated for life. It similarly satisfied any retributive instinct, providing a total punishment, a form of internal banishment and total civil death – if one considers retributive justice desirable. Moreo... | |
Those who are murdered are not some public resource – they are not our relatives. We may feel sorrow for the victims and their family but uninvolved members of society have no reason to demand punishment on account of them being members of ‘our family’. What of all those who do not feel such resentment, should society ... | |
Can be reserved for the worst of the worst For those who are concerned about some of the practical objections to the American death penalty, it is possible to restrict the death penalty to those most deserving of it: “the worst of the worst”, those like Anders Behring Breivik, Charles Manson and Harold Shipman. The de... | |
Killers must die to satisfy society Those who have damaged society by robbing it of one of its members must pay for their crime. Adam Smith argued “We feel that resentment which we imagine he ought to feel, and which he would feel, if in his cold and lifeless body there remained any consciousness of what passes upon e... | |
This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related. A reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first de... | |
The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society. There is an immense difference between a ... | |
Too many innocents killed Capital punishment in the US kills too many innocent people. Over 143 people who were innocent were exonerated from death row since 1973 [1] . One person executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna [2] . It is likely that many innocent people have been execute... | |
Who are the worst of the worst? Killing the worst of the worst is essentially arbitrary. Even with a list of aggravators balanced by mitigations the death penalty is hardly going to be left to just the very worst. In the case of Daryl Holton who killed his four children Blecker decides “I remain convinced, but not mor... | |
The death penalty is racist Like the rest of the American criminal justice system, capital punishment in America is institutionally racist: black men make up 6% of the US population as a whole but 40% of those on Death Row [1] . In the US, African-Americans and White people are murdered in almost equal numbers, but 80... | |
Hypocrisy Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.... | |
Regardless of the categorisation there are some who are worst of the worst. It is up to individual states and societies to determine who qualifies as the worst of the worst for them. | |
As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future. However, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capit... | |
The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. Th... | |
DNA evidence would reduce the risk of wrongful conviction The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases1. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensure... | |
There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence... | |
A DNA database would lead to more convictions, particularly in cases of violent crime Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and w... | |
The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, ... | |
A DNA database would reduce the time spent tracking down suspects A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10... | |
The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant thres... | |
Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is not unlawful, only retaining it indefinitely. New British proposals to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment are to ensure the DNA of the unconvicted remains on the database for just 6 years. The law has to be laid down in a set manner rather ... | |
DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence mus... | |
Having a DNA database should require individual consent The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When ... | |
Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is unlawful The European Court of Human Rights was quite clear when it stated that retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful1. The Strasbourg court made a unanimous decision that the UK keeping the DNA of the unconvicted on a da... | |
DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection, advantages that render any slight fallibility irrelevant. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of inter... | |
Although protecting children domestic abuse is of vital importance curfews are not the most appropriate way of doing so. Problems at home may be the reason the young person spends so much time out on the streets in the first place. If that is the case, it could be dangerous to force them to stay where they may be at ri... | |
Curfews also have an important role in the protection of vulnerable children The use of child curfews can help to protect vulnerable children. Although responsible parents do not let young children out in the streets after dark, not all parents are responsible and inevitably their children suffer, both from crime and ... | |
Curfews are not enforceable even if they are well known by residents and anyone can report those breaking curfew. It simply means that young people are trying to avoid the police so that they do not get fined. The police are only ever likely to catch a small number of those who are violating the curfew resulting in the... | |
It is best for children to be at home in the evening. There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night, so a curfew is not really a restriction upon their liberty. Where the child does have good reasons to be out they can be covered by the exceptions. They would be better off at home doing sc... | |
The main objective of curfews is usually crime prevention. Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. Particularly worrying is the rise of youth gangs who can terrorise urban areas and create a social climate in which criminality becomes a norm. Imposing youth curfews can help... | |
Curfews are largely ineffective in preventing crime. Curfews do not target the right times of day as most juvenile crime appears to take place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before working parents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews. There are many reports providing evidence... | |
Children in their mid-teens have many legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many will have part-time jobs, for example in fast-food restaurants or delivering newspapers. Others will wish to participate in activities such as church groups, youth clubs or school trip. Whilst there are clauses for allowing... | |
A number of alternative strategies exist which are likely to do more to reduce youth crime. For example, rather than a blanket curfew covering all young people, individual curfews could be imposed upon particular trouble-makers, perhaps involving electronic tagging, breaking up gangs without labelling an entire age-gro... | |
A curfew is practical. Very few children are going to be out late at night without an adult or very good reason. This helps make curfews enforceable as the police will be patrolling anyway, and any responsible adult can report children who are out after curfew. The curfew could therefore be for all young people, defin... | |
Curfews are most effective when used a short-term aid to other policing measures. Other schemes aimed at reducing youth crime are highly effective but work best in conjunction with curfews. As the National Crime Prevention Council states: ‘A curfew alone won’t stop crime. More preventive measures, including recreation... | |
Child curfews are an important form of zero tolerance policing, showing that a community will not allow an atmosphere of lawlessness to develop. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales, argues that: ‘“It would send out the message that we are serious that the criminal justice system has th... | |
Curfews are easy to police compared to other forms of crime prevention, and are therefore effective. Child curfews can help to the police to establish a climate of zero tolerance and to create a safer community for everyone. | |
Curfews compromise children's rights. Youth curfews infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Children have a right to freedom of movement and assembly which curfews directly undermine, by criminalising their simple presence in a public space. They are also subject to blanket discrimination on the grounds of age ... | |
Positive engagement would be more effective than curfews. Other successful schemes aim to work individually with young troublemakers, in order to cut their reoffending rate, for example by requiring them to meet with victims of crime so that they understand the consequences of their actions, and by pairing them with t... | |
Curfews are counter-productive. Imposing child curfews would actually be counter-productive, as it would increase juvenile offending by turning millions of generally law-abiding young people into criminals. The Executive director of D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates argues that ‘"This tells young people they're the pro... | |
Curfews are ineffective. Curfews are not an effective solution to the problem of youth crime; research in the USA suggests that there is no link between areas that achieved a reduction in juvenile crime and areas with youth curfews. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales points out that ... | |
Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from gang activity on the streets at night and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken ‘in the hope that we can stop t... | |
Curfews do not harmfully restrict childrens’ rights to participation in activities and actually supports their right to a safe home and neighbourhood environment: ‘The curfew law has several exceptions. Youths can be out after hours if they are with a parent or guardian or doing errands at a parent or guardian's direct... | |
While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’. [1] This reveals that the profile of the average crimin... | |
We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education. We are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a law-abid... | |
The opposition to this argument is that nothing can or should be gained through crime. There are many ways of making voices heard without resulting to criminal activity. None-violent measures such as bus boycotts, freedom rides , sit-ins and mass demonstrations were used during the African American Civil Rights Movemen... | |
People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities. In some impoverished families there is simply no possibility of work and in many countries where there is no welfare benefits this means that the family cannot afford food, shelter or healthcare. Even in some places... | |
Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest... | |
People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard. Some people, particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems. When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only way t... | |
This is ridiculous. Why is the drug dealer a drug dealer? Because he is poor and has few other prospects. He is not poor just because he is a criminal as something had to get him in to crime in the first place. In many cases that initial motivating factor was poverty or a lack of prospects. If it was true that the caus... | |
While the figures demonstrated in this argument clearly illustrate that these large scale crimes are more often committed by those who are not suffering from social deprivation, tax evasion constitutes a small percentage of the world wide crime rate, and thus should not be taken to prove that social deprivation is not ... | |
In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’. We live in a culture where success and personal achievement is measured on a material scale - what you own, how much you make, what car you drive, what clothes you wear. This means that it is the way society i... | |
The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation. While it is true that crime is correlated with people coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds this does not in itself prove that poverty itself is the cause of crime. A lack of education or bad parenting might be equally, if not more convinc... | |
Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals. Tax evasion is costing the developing world around $160 billion a year [1] to those who most need it (incidentally this is more than the entire global aid budget). These are huge, global crimes... | |
This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods, and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy backgrounds. In many socially deprived soci... | |
Minimum sentences have only a theoretical impact on crime rates; in reality they make no difference. The pro makes two major assumptions; first, that criminals have reasonably accurate perceptions of the legal code. Second, the pro assumes that harsh penalties have a psychological impact on potential criminals. Intervi... | |
Mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence. Deterrence works through several mechanisms; likelihood of getting caught, severity of punishment, and perceived public disapproval. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of severity as a deterrent. If potential criminals know a mild sentence is possibl... | |
Safety valves are simply a reflection of the problem with mandatory sentencing. Safety valves are proof that the inflexibility of minimum sentencing leads to injustice. Safety valves are a step in the right direction, but are themselves an inflexible form of relief. For example, safety valves often do not apply if the ... | |
Mandatory sentencing increases consistency in the justice system. Former Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” [1] Without mandates, judges may have radically different ideas of just sentences. Michael Simons gives the example of Mutt and Jim- two crimina... | |
Mandatory minimum sentences remove undue judicial discretion. Discretion allows for both intentional and unintentional bias. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case concerning alleged corruption when a West Virginia judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff that had donated over $3 million to the judge’s election campa... | |
Mandatory sentences do not eliminate undue discretion; they merely shift the power from judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors may decide whether or not to charge defendants for violations other than the main charge. For example, a prosecutor may add weapons possession to a charge for drug sales- this additional count can ... | |
Judges are capable of delivering consistency. Judges are trained professionals and must demonstrate competence in order to be appointed- they are unlikely to administer completely random sentences. In order to further reduce inconsistency, the Con supports government-issued sentencing guidelines so that judges are awar... | |
Imprisonment only yields the benefits of incapacitation if the offenders are a likely threat to society. If the criminal that is given an extensive prison sentence was unlikely to commit another crime, then his/her incapacitation did not actually protect society. Studies within prison populations demonstrate that most ... | |
Mandatory minimum sentencing can be designed to avoid injustices. The negative side effects of minimum sentencing guidelines can be avoided via “safety valves.” The U.S. federal government introduced safety valves in 1994; mandatory sentencing is suspended if the defendant meets certain criteria, such as being a low-l... | |
Minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of incapacitation. Incapacitation is one of the 4 basic reasons for punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences keep criminals out of society for a longer period of time than they might otherwise be in jail, thereby reducing their window of opportunity to commit crime. The crim... | |
Mandatory sentences need not be excessively harsh. The Pro supports mandatory sentences that account for a criminal’s prior history and the severity of the crime; mandatory sentences can be proportionate to the scope of the crime. A crime such as murder, which poses a serious threat to public safety, should have a grea... | |
Mandatory sentencing does not provide prosecutors any additional power to do anything unethical. “Stacking charges” is another way of saying the prosecutor charges the defendant for each crime he/she committed, meaning that the defendant is being held accountable for all of his/her actions. The Con fails to demonstrate... | |
Mandatory minimum sentences make juries reluctant to convict guilty defendants. The most publicized form of jury nullification is in the case of the death penalty, wherein jurors are reluctant to sentence a person to death. However, Nancy King of the University of Chicago finds that juries are increasingly likely to a... | |
Minimum mandatory sentences are unjust. In the United States, federal minimum sentences for narcotics-related offences have forced judges on countless occasions to deliver sentences of 20 year, 30 years, or even life imprisonment to offenders that were tangentially connected to the offense. Often, such offenders are l... | |
Minimum mandatory sentences reduce the chance of rehabilitation. Minimum sentences force minor criminals to spend more time in prison, thereby increasing their exposure to more hardened criminals. This exposure reduces their chance of rehabilitation- other inmates act as a “bad influence.” [1] Furthermore, studies of ... | |
Mandatory sentencing fills the system with “small fish.” As noted above in response to the Pro, most convicts are not high-repeat criminals; a study similar to the one mentioned above found that in a sample of a cohort of teenage boys in Philadelphia, 33% had engaged in delinquent behavior at some point, but 60% of th... | |
Mandatory sentences are fairer than judicial discretion. The Con assumes that individual judges will deliver fair and proportionate punishment. However, as is discussed in the Pro arguments, judges are susceptible to many forms of implicit and explicit bias. For example, studies consistently show that minorities receiv... | |
Mandatory sentencing gives prosecutors undue power. Prosecutors can stack charges, which they can use to scare a defendant into accepting a plea bargain. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch; they are directly answerable to elected officials (and are often elected themselves), whereas judges are generally more... | |
Minimum mandatory sentences increase the chance of rehabilitation. If a person receives a light punishment for his/her action, he/she sees that the action has a low cost. Conversely, if a person has firsthand experience with strong punishment for an action, they will be more reluctant to take that action in the future.... | |
1) There are checks against jury nullification. The judicial system can reduce the impact of jury nullification by explaining to juries that their responsibility is to determine the guilt of the defendant. The judge can explain that nullification is not a legally acceptable form of dissenting from a law that one percei... | |
The Second Amendment was not designed for only self defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense and hunting are the only legitimate reaso... | |
Assault weapons are not necessary for self defence or hunting. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg argues "We've got to really question whether military-style weapons with big magazines belong on the streets of America in this day and age.” [1] Police chiefs such as Ralph Godbee of Detroit argue "We're talking about w... | |
Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this. It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of th... | |
A ban would save lives Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide b... | |
It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun instead. Therefore to ban only certai... | |
Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing the number of assault weapons in the world. [1] Drugs cartels would simply find new routes to get the weapon... | |
Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved i... | |
An assault weapons ban would stop the manufacture of many of the deadliest guns. Yes a ban would not immediately take assault weapons off the streets but there would be significant long term benefits as highlighted by Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman "We ought to restore the assault weapons ban -- not to take anybody'... | |
There is a rational basis for banning assault weapons as they are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. This was even higher at five tim... | |
Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free s... | |
It is incoherent to ban some guns It is incoherent to attempt to ban assault weapons while allowing other weapons to remain on the streets. As professor Jacobs from New York University argues “Pistols are dangerous because they are easily carried and concealed; shotguns because they spray metal projectiles over a wide... | |
A ban on assault weapons would not work, it will simply encourage a black market It has already been demonstrated that most crime already takes place using other guns or even without firearms at all so it is illogical to think that this ban would make any difference to crime. For a start as the ban would not be retroa... | |
Assault weapons are not used in most crimes There is little point in banning a type of weapon that is not used in most violence; assault rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the united states at a time when gun violence is falling. [1] If assault weapons are not used in most crime then ther... | |
An assault weapons ban would violate the second amendment The Second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [1] would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This right clearly does not limit what arm... | |
Of course a ban will not completely eliminate these weapons but it would reduce the supply and make it much easier for the police to seize the weapons so taking them off the streets. It would also be a step in the right direction in attempting to change public perceptions and amend the American attitude. It is understa... | |
The point of an assault weapons ban is not to completely ban guns but to ban guns that can fire large numbers of bullets rapidly and have no purpose other than to shoot people. The ban targets those weapons that are not useful for self defence or hunting. The opposition argument is essentially that because some guns ar... | |
While the world is globalizing, it is still in the interest of states to retain their relative competitive advantages. After all, the first duty of a state is to its own citizens. By translating these works and offering them to academics, students, and professionals, the developed world serves to erode one of its only ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.