title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Pr... | |
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a c... | |
They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero toleran... | |
Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide ... | |
Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not ... | |
Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints ov... | |
Economic and demographic changes will always impact crime rates and of course, these factors would have played their part in the noticeable improvement in New York. However, zero tolerance has proved successful in many instances and provides a more stable promise of crime reduction less susceptible to transient factors... | |
There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism by concrete and certain means. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty... | |
Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we hav... | |
There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0 There is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay. An examination of the main ‘success stories’ of zero tolerance reveal that not all success c... | |
Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far mor... | |
Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP, in the United States for example a 1994 report estimated ... | |
This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an... | |
This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads. Insurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance. Driving absent insurance means that there is an... | |
These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequence... | |
The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer. Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than... | |
It is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will even opt into this scheme. Illegal immigrants are notoriously paranoid about going to the state for any form of assistance as they are afraid of deportation. The vast majority of them would rather risk getting caught driving without a license then they would risk going t... | |
This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. Drivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America. Despite American feelings ... | |
The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down ... | |
There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving il... | |
This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America. This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result. It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses ... | |
This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants. Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America. Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed... | |
This rewards law-breaking. This policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified. There are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and i... | |
The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is ... | |
The policy itself has no malicious intent and is not aimed to harm different communities to a different level. An argument about the rich ignoring the one child policy is an argument for better regulation of the current policy, which is meant to be completely fair no matter a family’s status or wealth, not the abolitio... | |
The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite The one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout ... | |
The Chinese authorities outlaw forced abortions. The violations of human rights are outliers and rarely occur. When they do they are punished badly. Such violations are regrettable; however the one child policy carries a number of benefits for the vast majority of Chinese families. Since the implementation of the poli... | |
The one child policy skews gender demographics Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as ... | |
The Chinese authorities are getting better at preventing selective abortion of females since it was banned in 2005. Whilst the demographic changes resulting from the one child policy are regrettable, they are ultimately what the Chinese authorities are seeking from the one child policy. 40 million men who cannot marry ... | |
The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations The One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the... | |
The Chinese economy may well have grown anyway; correlation is not causation. It was not the one child policy that has caused China’s incredible economic growth but the opening up of the Chinese economy to the market. Moreover the economic benefits from the one child policy do not come without costs. “An associate pr... | |
Interventions and contraceptive techniques such as condoms and sex education have proven to be more effective than the one child policy in aiding population control. Thailand and Indonesia for example achieved the same ends as China in reduction of their population just using these methods of birth control and family p... | |
One child benefits women It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pre... | |
Single child families are economically efficient The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP. This has allowed the standard of living in China for the average Chinese citizen to improve significantly since the policy was ... | |
The one child policy is needed for population control The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1 The reality of the abolition of the one... | |
The benefits for women in this situation could easily be enforced via legislation, without the need for a one child policy to begin with. The gain from mothers who are able to work could easily be replicated through family planning and a greater focus on equality between genders in the country. As it is, the one child ... | |
Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future. | |
The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights. Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to ... | |
In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—all people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. The workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that only apply to legal migrants. Ratifying the Convention would thus not make much positive chan... | |
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries. Migrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international... | |
Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing. Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of th... | |
Migration is a problem; not migrant rights. Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing interna... | |
Even seriously talking about full ratification of the U.N. Convention would actually cause international tensions. This is especially true in the European Union, which has tried to avoid the issue as much as possible. Stanley Pignal, of the Financial Times, calls migration “among the most sensitive topics in any of its... | |
Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system that takes money from taxpayers in certain countries and gives it to people in other countries. Not all aspects of migration are bad, but in ... | |
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so Migrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions... | |
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so. The economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a glo... | |
Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems. Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Th... | |
The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country. States have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants,... | |
If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities. A state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintainin... | |
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. Th... | |
It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that thei... | |
States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty. Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratif... | |
While it is true that migrants are poorer than natives, or they would likely not be migrating to that country, it is not the case that they are costly for the receiving country. Immigrants come for a reason; to work. It therefore stands to reason that these people are going to be working and paying taxes. In the US in ... | |
The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions, have generally been based on very small samples, not more than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually supportive of t... | |
There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion. The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence,... | |
States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted c... | |
Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households. There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In ... | |
Because no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government... | |
Just because the government will protect people's right to have a family from outside interference, and will publicly fund the treatment of a medical condition, such as infertility, it doesn't mean the government has to give children to those who don't or are unable to have any in order to protect their right to a fami... | |
Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people. Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assu... | |
Gay people have the right to a family life. Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right... | |
Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for ever... | |
These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and... | |
The government's interest in protecting traditional families. Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environmen... | |
The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state. The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. ... | |
Gender roles. Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not ... | |
These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, com... | |
The glass ceiling is extremely variable. The two deciding and overlapping factors, being whether women have children and which profession they are in. Higher numbers of women now going to university may change the number of lawyers, judges, doctors etc in the future. Doctors, barristers, leading scientists, all now con... | |
Males Still Dominate the Top Positions Out of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women. [1] Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002. [2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the... | |
Most corporations, in almost every country on the earth will not even offer their male employees something close to paternity. [1] But, most countries mandate by law, that women get a set amount of maternity leave. The truth is that, the lack of any kind of paternity leave for the male, indicates that there is a "glass... | |
Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve Feminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abort... | |
Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the femini... | |
Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal Employers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternit... | |
Feminism is not about judging women for choices they make. It is about allowing women to make that choice. If we haven’t got to a point where all woman are given the choice either to stay in the home or advance equally in their career or do both then this is a point to indicate that feminism is still needed and relevan... | |
There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to of... | |
The Feminist Cause No Longer Appeals to Women Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hating humourlessness, and seeing it as a relic of the 1970s. Modern women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms, and they resent suggestions that they nee... | |
Now Damaging Gender Roles? There is certainly a case to be made that women, in modern-western society have completely shattered the traditional values and roles that are best suited to them. For example, it has always been the case that men have been the providers, the defenders of themselves, the household and the f... | |
Men Have Big Problems Too By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between th... | |
Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extre... | |
Paying housewives would not make much difference to images of women and family life, and could even make things worse rather than better. By paying housewives, monetizing the position of housewife and home-keeper, the state re-affirms the idea that the only true value a person can hold is an economic one and that the o... | |
Paying housewives promotes more positive images of women and family life Gender stereotypes dictate that the woman’s place is in the home and that that is an inferior position in the social hierarchy than that of the male’s corporate bread-winner status. The stereotype is particularly damaging to women’s expectations ... | |
It is highly unlikely that this can be implemented in any country where female empowerment is as restricted as is discussed. If women are as dependent and oppressed as the proposition suggests, the political will to pass such legislation will not exist. Even if a law were passed, the pay would be very low, and so the w... | |
Housewives are entitled to pay The philosophical basis of entitlement for pay is derived from the notion that if something comes into being as the product of an individual’s labor, then that individual is entitled to the profit and benefit of such a product because its existence was resultant of that individual’s labo... | |
Not all labor is rewarded with wages or pay despite the fact that goods and services are products of said labor. For example, voluntary and charity work are both types of labor that is not paid. The distinction is where the work is done and the obligations owed to people as a result. Home-keeping is a voluntary job tha... | |
Paying housewives for their work is an important form of economic empowerment. One of the most important factors of oppression of women’s rights, particularly in the developing world, is dependence [1] . Women are often confined to the home by force, lack of opportunity or social stigma, on behalf of their husbands. W... | |
There are many ways to implement this on a practical level. Wages can be created through tax exemptions as opposed to the creation of new streams of wages and wealth. Moreover, the prohibitive expense can be paid for by an increase in taxation. Home-keeping can be seen as a public good as it create good, strong homes ... | |
The job of housewives provides an essential service to society—to raise a healthy family—and so those who perform the job should be paid. Even if a product or service is not economically quantifiable, the person who provides it may have created something that otherwise would not exist through the exertion of their labo... | |
Paying housewives reduces social mobility By paying housewives for their work, you create negative stereotypes about families and women by commodifying the role of home-keeper. Paying housewives for their work re-enforces the very framework that is seen as oppressive on home-keepers. It creates a system in which women... | |
Paying housewives is financially impractical. On a very practical level, this policy could never be implemented. As much as housewives are valuable members of society, it is economically impossible to pay them wages. It is only possible to increase somebody’s pay if that person creates increased wealth. There is no di... | |
Payment and obligation works differently in public and in private. The economic sphere and the private (family) sphere have separate obligations and systems of contracts. The way in which the economic system works is that generally people are paid for their labor by those who benefit from it, either directly or indire... | |
Paying housewives a wage would improve not reduce social mobility. Many women would still choose to go to university and the vast majority who do will still want to work. Paying housewives will not prevent any women who wants to work from working. Rather it will simply provide another option for those who wish to devot... | |
What is best for the economy is making sure that government money is spent as efficiently as possible. This may mean taking some money away from spending on youth as well as providing more in some areas. Education for example can be changed to focus more specifically on skills needed for the workplace rather than learn... | |
Spending on youth is best for the economy Spending on young people is an investment. While there may be other objectives too, such as taking young people off the street to prevent trouble, when there is spending on young people this is almost always to ensure they have either a broader, or more focused skill base. Thi... | |
It seems a little unfair to blame baby boomers for their fortune in terms of demographics. They were simply lucky to be born when they were. Most countries are already considering the impact of aging; the pension age for example is being raised almost everywhere. And of course it is wrong to suggest that the youth are ... | |
The government must do what is in the long term interest of the county Typically businesses, and most people, think about the short term; how they are going to live or produce a profit over the next few years. This leaves the role of thinking across broader horizons to the government. Governments need to plan to ensur... | |
It is unclear that the long term interest of the country really means investing in youth. Instead it should mean anticipating the changes that are necessary to ensure future security, health, and prosperity for every citizen. This is what happens with investing in energy; we anticipate that if we don’t invest in it for... | |
Scaremongering is not the best way to create policy. Clearly leaving large numbers of unemployed young people could be dangerous but so could large numbers of unemployed of any age. Every government wants more economic growth and to solve unemployment but they should be focusing on how to bring the economy as a whole b... | |
The youth are getting a raw deal In most western countries the ‘baby boomers’ (those who were born between the end of the second world war and the mid-1960s) could be considered to have led a charmed life. They were the beneficiaries of free schooling and university education, then of an expanding economy that provide... | |
Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous Allowing high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment to continue could be disastrous. When people lose hope they are much more likely to turn to violence, or towards crime and drugs. There are clearly extreme examples of this; one cause of th... | |
In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a re... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.