BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties

The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention.  Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day.  To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively.  We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays.[1]  Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance.  The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months[2], amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo. [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-long-tradition-of-criticizing-presidential-vacations/243819/ [Accessed September 9, 2011] [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html [Accessed September 19, 2011]
In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.

The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians.  However, this benefit can be achieved through other means.  Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system.  While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct.   If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power.  Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part.  Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it.  While Nixon received a full pardon from his success,[1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid. [1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974, http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740061.htm [Accessed September 9, 2011]
Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.

As noted above, the political life is steeped in difficult decisions, and some of these are bound to result in choices that are at least potentially illegal.  The ability to prosecute politicians incentivizes political opponents to search out past actions by said politicians so as to immobilize them politically.  Such prosecutions are therefore not motivated by concern for justice, nor are they conducive to a well-functioning, multipartisan political system wherein representatives seek to work together to achieve their political ends.  In the most extreme cases, powerful politicians use prosecutions to immobilize their political opponents.
Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve.

The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust.  Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury?  While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.
Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office

Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account.  Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option.
Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.

No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant.  However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions.  That is exactly what immunity would deliver them.  A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking.  A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree.  Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases.  For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees[1][2].  Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society.  There is no legitimate need to give them more protection. [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/cia-officers-granted-immunity-from-torture-prosecution-update/16268/ [Accessed September 9, 2011] [2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=265 [Accessed September 9, 2011]
Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.

If we don’t want politicians hurting the dignity of the office, there is only one thing we can do: not elect politicians likely to commit crimes!  Of course, this is often impossible to tell in advance, but the dilemma remains: a crime has been committed, and that hurts the dignity of the office no matter what action we take.  One thing that’s worse than having an office’s holder raked over the coals is for them to get away with a behavior that otherwise warrants punishment.  See discussion below under “hurts the image of the office.”
Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard

The concept of retribution is a narrow and dubious foundation for justice.  A modern, civilized legal system should not be geared around delivering payback on behalf of victims, but rather around advancing the best consequences for the future.  For exactly this reason legal systems give several ways in which defendants can avoid punishment, even though they are technically guilty, if punishing them would have bad consequences; these include jury nullification and suspended sentences.
Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.

With regard to this issue, elections are unquestionably an effective alternative mechanism.  The act of a politician in a liberal democracy holding on to office for another term, by definition, requires public assent.  The citizenry has an out: don’t continue electing politicians who aren’t serving the public interest.  Regardless, politicians already have a plethora of motives, both legitimate and self-serving, to hold on to public office; this doesn’t move the barometer on incentives to run.  Most elections are at least modestly well contested precisely because many qualified candidates really want the position.
Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.

By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory.  Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force.  This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised.  This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources.  While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart.  There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off.  While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse.[1]  We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration.  Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry. [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection) http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=454 [Accessed 22 September 2011]
Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.

It does tremendous damage to the public perception of a given political position to see the holder of that position on trial for criminal acts.  Politicians are important role models for the populace at large, and shining light on everyone one of their misdeeds is not conducive to them playing such a role.  This hurts the ability of their successors who, though completely innocent, are stepping into an institution now tainted with the image of corruption or scandal.  Finally, the very process of prosecution can be damaging to the country, as citizens on opposing sides of the political spectrum disagree over the legitimacy of charges.  These effects all deal real damage to the political institutions necessary for the functioning of the state.
The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power.

It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state.  In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians.  Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping.  These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence.  There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians.
The citizens do not want to be ceded

Many of those living in Ceuta and Melilla do not want to join Morocco, to cede them would be unjust. Walzer, in his book Just and Unjust Wars, claims that the only people who should decide who has sovereignty over a territory are the population of said land1. If the people associate themselves with Spain, then it is only right that Spain continues to rule over them. This is the case with Ceuta and Mellia, where there is a nearly universal feeling of belonging to Spain2. Morocco and Spain should therefore respect the wishes of the population. 1) Walzer,M. ‘Just and Unjust wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations' 2) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’
The cities are a source of revenue for Spain

Ceuta and Melilla are economic assets to Spain; it is in Spain’s interest to maintain them. Spain was particularly damaged by the 2008 economic recession which left many of the richest countries in decline1. With no sign of rapid recovery in the near future, it is within Spain’s interests to hold on to two cities which have strong economies2. The ports of Cueta and Melilla are of particular importance as they provided a large portion of the cities’ income, catering to many luxurious boats. The low tax zones also encourage a lot of financial activity3. Spain’s economic position therefore dictates that they should not cede them. 1)      Cala,A. ‘Why is Morocco Picking a Fight with Spain?’ 15 August 2010 2)      Sotogrande, ‘Ceuta and Melilla’, data accessed 20 January 2014 Ibid
They have been Spanish possessions for centuries

The cities of Ceuta and Melilla have been an integral part of Spain’s territory and to cede them would be a compromise of territorial integrity. The two cities have been part of Spain for almost as long as the country has existed. The marriage of Isabelle I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon united two major regions of Spain in 1469. The conquest of Granada finally joined the South of the country with the North in 1492. The capture of Melilla was only five years later, and Ceuta was merged in to the country less than a century afterwards. These cities are an integral part of Spain and should therefore remain Spanish. 1) Snelling,N. ‘The history of Spain, Spain’s unification and elevation to world power’, Culture Spain, data accessed 21 January 2014
The dispute damages Morocco-Spain relations

The disagreements between Morocco and Spain over Ceuta and Melilla have had minimal impact on diplomacy between the two countries, which generally remains positive. Co-operation on counter-terrorism, counternarcotics and illegal immigration all continue to progress in a productive manner1. Joint operations between the two countries’ military forces continue on the strait of Gibraltar and a joint police panel has been proposed2, implying relations are still constructive. 1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011 2) Benmehdi,H. ‘Morocco, Spain partner against terrorism’
Decrease immigration to Spain

If Ceuta and Melilla were to be given to Morocco, then immigration would not halt. The higher standard of living in Spain would still attract immigrants who would face greater perils than restriction of movement and employment. Irregular migrants and refugees already attempt to travel from Morocco to Italy and Malta (the strait of Gibraltar is too well guarded)1 and numbers would only increase if the land route were dismantled. Hundreds of irregular migrants will hide on inadequate boats trying to reach Europe and thousands die every year in the attempt2. One boat which sunk off the Italian island of Lampedusa resulting in more than 300 deaths3. Despite these risks, high risk migration continues which that immigration numbers would continue even without a land border. 1)      Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011 2)      Herman,M. ‘From Africa to Europe: A Surprisingly Dangerous Journey for Migrants’, 3 December 2013 3)      BBC, ‘Italy to hold state funeral for shipwreck migrants’, 9 October 2013
Spain is being hypocritical

Spain claims that there is a difference between Gibraltar and its own territories. While Gibraltar is an overseas territory, otherwise known as a colony, Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain and maintain the same semi-autonomous status which other regions in Spain have1.  The United Nations maintains a similar view, recognising Gibraltar as an ‘overseas territory’ which is reviewed annually by the Committee on Decolonisation2. 1) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’ 10 August 2013 2) United Nations General Assembly, ‘2231 (XXI) Question of Gibraltar’, 20 December 1966
The citizens do not want to be ceded

The wishes of a population are often overlooked by governments when deciding upon territorial sovereignty. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to the German alliance. The majority of citizens were French, or preferred French to Prussian leadership1. This factor was disregarded however, as it usually is in the redrawing of boundaries. Morocco does not appear to have addressed this argument as they do not deem it relevant against their territorial interests.  Spain has also been hypocritical by its claim to respect the people’s decision on sovereignty, particularly while observing the situation in Catalonia. As of early 2014, the Spanish government has stated it will not allow any form of referendum concerning the independence of the Eastern Spanish state, despite the population’s wishes2. 1) Wikipedia, ‘Alsace-Lorraine’, date accessed 21 January 2014 2) Vilaweb, ‘The Spanish Government “will not allow” and “will not negotiate” on Catalonia’s self-determination vote’, 13 December 2013
The cities are a source of revenue for Spain

The financial future of the two cities is uncertain. It has cost copious sums of money to protect the border against immigrants who travel from as far as India to reach EU territory. In 2011, €30 million was spent on fortifying the border fences of Ceuta and Melilla1. Not only was this a financial burden, but it served to worsen relations with Morocco who temporarily halted trade with the cities in 2010, leaving Melilla’s market stalls empty. The development of the Moroccan ‘super-port’, known as the Tanger Med project also financially threatens the ports if Ceuta and Melilla2. Built on the straits of Gibraltar, it is designed to intercept shipping traffic which would usually go to Ceuta and Melilla. 1) Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011 2) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 June 2011
They have been Spanish possessions for centuries

While they were not a recognised state in the same sense as Spain is,[1] Berbers have lived in Morocco for thousands of years; making Ceuta and Melilla part of their history as well. The presence of the Berbers in Morocco can be traced back 4,000 years, with today’s Berbers maintaining a similar language and customs1. Their association with this territory means that many Berbers see these cities as their land and feel they have a stronger claim to it than Spain. 1)  Morris,C. ‘Who are the Morocco Berbers?’, Journey Beyond Travel, data accessed 21 January 2014 [1] This should not be surprising; our current notion of the state is a Western European invention.
The dispute damages Morocco-Spain relations

The dispute over the two cities only serves to harm co-operation between Morocco and Spain. Bilateral disagreements have prevented the resolution of other issues and generally heightened diplomatic tensions between these geographically close countries. When the Prime Minister and King of Spain both visited Morocco to resolve the Perejal crisis and Western Sahara issues, relations periodically improved. However a subsequent visit by the PM and King to Ceuta and Melilla in 2006 and 2007 reversed the progress made due to Moroccan outrage1. If Spain ceded these cities to Morocco then relations would improve, which could lead to increased co-operation on other issues. 1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011
Decrease immigration to Spain

The Spanish possession of Ceuta and Melilla has resulted in an influx of illegal immigrants. Due to their positioning and membership to the EU, the two cities are subject to numerous attempts by immigrants to gain access to Europe1. In Melilla this has resulted in a social experiment with dire implications. To discourage illegal immigration, non-Moroccans who illicitly gain access to the country will not be permitted to move on from the city. They are trapped in Melilla without legal rights and generally live in extremely poor conditions with no means of legal work2. If the Spanish relinquished control of the two cities then these then there would be no permeable land border for illegal immigrants to gain access to. 1) Ribas,X.  ‘The Border Fences of Cueta and Melilla. A Landscape for the Future’ 2) Davies,N. ‘Melilla: Europe’s dirty secret’, The Guardian, 17 April 2010
Spain is being hypocritical

Spain refusing to cede Cueta and Melilla to Morocco is inconsistent with its policy towards Gibraltar. Whilst the Spanish refuse to cede their two cities to Morocco, they expect the British to return the circumstantially similar Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a British overseas territory which is located in southern Spain, taken from the Spanish by an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1704. Spain asserts a claim to this territory as it was once part of its own lands, despite signing the Treaty of Utrecht and relinquishing the land ‘in perpetuity’1. The claim that a state should return exclaves which rightfully belong to the nation which originally owned them is therefore inconsistent with their policy towards Ceuta and Melilla2. If Spain expects to reclaim Gibraltar then they should also expect to relinquish control over Cueta and Melilla. 1)      ‘Treaty of Utrecht’ April 1713 2)      Tremlett,G. ‘A rocky relationship’ 14 January 2014
Africa is overtly prosecuted

All of the twenty-four people currently indicted are African. Of the fifteen cases currently sitting before the court, all are African[1]. This in and of itself points to a large disparity between Africa and the rest of the world. It is also not at all true that Africa is the only place worthy of investigation – atrocities have occurred in the Middle East, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and North Korea, among others since the inception of the court. This is clearly because these other cases have powerful backers in the form of permanent Security Council members. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the ICC feels more comfortable targeting Africa then other regions where it is likely to run into opposition from powerful members of the international community. [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014