BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ...

Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years or so, and then only indirectly by voting for a political party. This is insufficient for the opinions of the people to be heard properly, and in certain circumstances civil disobedience is a powerful method of making the will of the public count if it is being ignored. Against powerful interest groups who dominate politics through their financial muscle and control of the media, civil disobedience is also the only way to get attention for a cause.
Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e.g. the campaign for Indian indepence). No...

Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e.g. the campaign for Indian indepence). Not every democracy has a written constitution or charter of rights, appeal to which allows the courts to override the will of the legislature (for example, the UK does not). Even in cases where a case could theoretically be taken through legal channels, the courts are often controlled by the same political elite as the government, and there is no guarantee of justice. And in any case, challenging an unjust law in court requires civil disobedience. Someone has to break that law deliberately, in order to be arrested and prosecuted for it, so that the case arrives in court in the first place.
If a certain law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle but obeyed in practice out of conce...

If a certain law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle but obeyed in practice out of concern for legality - it must be broken. Not to do so implicates us too in repression. National laws cannot be the ultimate authority - men and women are also under higher laws. It was established in the Nuremberg trials that sometimes international laws must override national ones. Many Christian thinkers (such as Martin Luther King) and other philosophers have argued that the law of God, or “natural law” is paramount, and that national laws which do not accord with it are unjust and should be resisted. Even under the theory of social contract, the state can be resisted if it becomes oppressive and so breaks its side of the contract.
Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other met...

Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other methods have failed. For example, Ghandi’s civil disobedience was instrumental in winning liberty for India, and Martin Luther King’s tactics won basic rights for black people in America. In 1998 rioters in Indonesia successfully protested against the despotic system of government that existed under the Suharto regime. In all of these cases there was no other avenue open to redress grievances; law breaking, whether Ganhdi’s non-violent marches or King’s encouragement of the burning of rate books, was the only way to protest effectively.
In actual fact, it is the conflict with the authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, ...

In actual fact, it is the conflict with the authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, and brings an issue to a wider audience. The suffragettes, the civil rights movement and the anti-Apartheid struggle are all examples of an eventually successful cause that won by its confrontation with authority, where more sedate methods would simply not have succeeded. In all these cases, any violence against people was not initiated by the protesters, but began because of the heavy-handed and violent response of their oppressors.
Given a choice, anarchy is to be preferred to despotism. But this is a false choice, as in the real...

Given a choice, anarchy is to be preferred to despotism. But this is a false choice, as in the real world campaigns of civil disobedience have not led to the breakdown of law and order generally, or the collapse of the state. Those who advocate civil disobedience are usually careful to set boundaries on their actions, setting out what kind of disobedience is justified and what is unjustifiable. Martin Luther King, for example, held that justice demanded that unjust laws (i.e. segregation laws) be broken, but that just laws (e.g. against trespass, violence against property or the person) must be upheld.
Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ...

In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking.
Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e.g. the campaign for Indian indepence). No...

Most democracies also allow appeal to the courts against laws which are obviously unjust. If the law can be shown to be in conflict with the country’s constitution or charter of rights, then courts can usually overturn it. People who are unhappy with such a law should take their struggle to the courts, rather than taking to the streets and undermining the rule of law itself.
If a certain law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle but obeyed in practice out of conce...

We must obey the law even if we think it is wrong, or anarchy will result. The widely-held idea of the “social contract” teaches that by living under a state we accept the benefits it brings us (for example protection, health care, education, etc.), and by accepting these benefits we consent to its laws. If individuals placed their own values, whatever they are based upon, over the collective laws of the state, the state would dissolve and none of its benefits would be available to any of us.
Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other met...

Peaceful protest is quite possible in any society, and there is no need to go further into actual law breaking to make a point. For example, the ‘Carnival against Capitalism’ in London in 1999 descended into self-indulgent violence and destruction of property in the city, achieving nothing but notoriety for its cause. The racist attacks on the Chinese in the Indonesian riots also demonstrate how civil disobedience can break down into lawlessness, and indeed can be counter-productive by associating the cause with terror and violence. Some historians argue that the illegal activities of the suffragettes in the UK in the early 20th century actually set back their cause.
In actual fact, it is the conflict with the authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, ...

Too often civil disobedience involves ‘productive violence’ directed against innocent members of the public, or against the police, often causing serious injuries. The Broadwater farm riots and the miner’s strike are both instances where groups have injured or killed policemen. Animal rights activists and anti-abortion campaigners have also been noted for their violence in the past. No cause is worth the sacrifice of innocent lives; protest must be peaceful or not at all.
Given a choice, anarchy is to be preferred to despotism. But this is a false choice, as in the real...

Even if a particular cause is just, those promoting it should not break the law. By doing so they set an example of illegality and contempt for law and order which others, with less worthy causes or no cause at all, will follow. Winning a change in the law is worthless, if obtaining it has destroyed the ability of the state, its police and its courts to uphold any law, just or unjust.
[US-specific] Plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Guaranteed rights like the right not to incrimi...

[US-specific] Plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Guaranteed rights like the right not to incriminate oneself (the famous fifth amendment) do not apply in the plea bargaining process. The right to fair trial (the Sixth) is undermined by the fact that the strength of the state’s case can be exaggerated to the defendant, as court rules on – for example – disclosing the prejudice of witnesses or weaknesses in testimony do not apply to the plea bargaining process. Whilst the Supreme Court very narrowly approved the practice, it was swayed by administrative considerations rather than legal principles and it was wrong to do so.
Plea bargaining is soft on crime. It means people aren’t properly punished for crimes they’ve commi...

In an ideal world, all cases would be heard in extensive trials – and purists would expect juries of the whole community. But we have to be practical; caseloads are overwhelming and we have to have methods that permit the system to function. We can save ultra-valuable court time by not holding needless trials. But to get people to agree to it, there has to be some incentive to plead, otherwise everyone would ‘give it a go’ no matter how guilty they are. It should be remembered that prosecutors can refuse to enter the plea bargaining process, ensuring that cases ‘go the distance’ for truly appalling crimes. etc.
In effect, both plea bargaining and discounting violate the accused’s right to a defence, especially...

The flip side of the argument that early guilty pleas should be rewarded for the benefit it extends to an overburdened system, is that failure to plead when guilty should be discouraged by harsher penalties. When a court finds you guilty, you are by definition guilty, so everyone punished by that harsher penalty is only getting what they deserve: they should have pleaded. We should remove the incentive for people ‘having a go’ when they’re guilty.
Plea bargaining and discounting encourage people to plead guilty when they are not. When someone is...

This is pretty unrealistic. The difference between plea-bargain and trial sentence is not so great that people will willingly opt for the unpleasantness of imprisonment, lifelong stigma, a criminal record, etc. for something they haven’t done. The argument also ignores an important legal principle: that you should never plead guilty to something you haven’t done. It is about more than a pragmatic calculation, separated from right and wrong: it is wrong to lie, and that is always made clear, at every point in the justice system.
[US-specific] Plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Guaranteed rights like the right not to incrimi...

[US-specific] The collective guardian of the Constitution – the Supreme Court – has judged plea bargaining to be consistent with it. The 1978 case of Bordenkircher v Hayes shows that ‘there is no element of punishment or retaliation [which are forbidden] so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer.’ It is demeaning to capable adults to suggest that they are not capable of understanding the consequences of accepting the contract that is plea bargaining, a contract from which the defendant gains considerable benefits. Look at this the other way: of course the defendant has a right to a fair trial, but why can’t he give up that right in return for benefits? Should the state really force the right upon him, which would be the effect of abolishing plea bargaining and discounts?
Plea bargaining is soft on crime. It means people aren’t properly punished for crimes they’ve commi...

Plea bargaining is soft on crime. It means people aren’t properly punished for crimes they’ve committed. The British practice of ‘discounting’ for a guilty plea is also soft on crime. A sentence should be a sentence: the fact that the guilty admit they’re guilty doesn’t change their guilt in any way. Both approaches reward the career criminal who is happy to ‘play the system’ and it results in sentences that are far more lenient than the perpetrators deserve.
In effect, both plea bargaining and discounting violate the accused’s right to a defence, especially...

In effect, both plea bargaining and discounting violate the accused’s right to a defence, especially to trial by jury. The state says, the same result – the finding that ‘x is guilty of y’ – will harm x more if he exercises his right to take his case to trial: so he shouldn’t do it. People shouldn’t be afraid of exercising fundamental rights.
Plea bargaining and discounting encourage people to plead guilty when they are not. When someone is...

Plea bargaining and discounting encourage people to plead guilty when they are not. When someone is faced with the offer of a discounted sentence for a lesser conviction (in a minimum security facility) before trial, compared with the threat of a full sentence (in a hellhole) for a greater conviction post-trial, a comparison put with all the persuasive powers of the state and framed by suited representatives of authority portraying their case as watertight and evoking the frightening unpleasantness of the latter compared to the relative pleasantness of the former, accused people who have done nothing often nevertheless ‘confess’, thinking (perhaps rightly) that they are only saving themselves from much worse consequences if they didn’t do so. As ever, the poorest and the least intellectually equipped are the most easily intimidated and the least likely to have proper representation, so they suffer most in this.
Plea bargaining has developed because trials are so expensive and laws are so complex. In the USA, ...

Plea bargaining has developed because trials are so expensive and laws are so complex. In the USA, there are 19 plea-bargain resolutions for every case that comes to trial; in effect, 95% of cases are tried under an extra-judicial system, free of all the court protections defendants should have. In the same way that torture developed in medieval England to produce confessions for crimes with very high standards of proof for which convictions could otherwise not be obtained, so too have plea bargains emerged to ensure convictions in cases in which so many legal protections surround the almost-certainly guilty that if the case comes to trial, acquittal might be the result. Its existence is a symptom of a problem in the trial system that should be fixed, rather than a healthy solution to it.
The barrier harms Israel’s international image and weakens its support in the USA, a crucial ally. ...

The barrier harms Israel’s international image and weakens its support in the USA, a crucial ally. The US has acted to ensure its loan guarantees cannot be used to pay for the wall’s construction. The wall stirs memories of the Berlin Wall of the Cold War, and global media coverage has mostly been negative. Stories of pregnant women dying on their way to hospital because of the war do Israel’s cause much damage in the international community.
Israel’s security wall is a breach of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) i...

The opinion of the ICJ is advisory and therefore largely symbolic. In this case the Court was asked by the General Assembly to comment on a resolution which was already anti-Israel, so the form of the request prejudged the decision. It is a shame the ICJ has allowed itself to be captured politically in this way. Moreover Israel does not acknowledge the automatic jurisdiction of the ICJ and is therefore not bound to implement its rulings. The Occupied Territories were never part of a recognised state, and so the various international conventions do not apply there. Finally, the Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinians says that disputes must be settled by negotiation, not by unilateral appeal to external bodies, so the PLO has broken its own commitments in going to the ICJ. For these reasons Israel boycotted the ICJ hearings. So did the United States and the European Union, both major players in the peace process; they too believe that the case could undermine the political peace talks.
Any short term security gain will be offset by growing Palestinian resentment against Israel, which ...

Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence and the protection of its people. The barrier is intended to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from crossing into Israel. Before the barrier was in place 900 Israelis died in such attacks. If there was no terror threat there would be no need for a barrier. Facts show that the fence has made it much harder for Palestinian terrorist groups to mount suicide attacks in Israel. For more than three years no Palestinian terrorists have been able to get through the barrier to attack civilians. A measure which has saved the lives of countless innocent people demands our support and should be completed as soon as possible.
The Security wall could weaken the Palestinian position at any peace negotiations as it creates new ...

The security barrier is only temporary and can therefore not affect any peace negotiations. Israel has made clear that it expects any border settlement to be negotiated with the Palestinians. The barrier can be moved or dismantled should there be a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. On the other hand, without security for Israelis, talks will never take place. By ensuring security, the barrier will actually bring a full peace settlement closer.
The security wall effectively means the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel. Palestinian ...

The security barrier merely connects Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Civilians in the West Bank settlements deserve as much protection against terrorist attacks as anyone else. While the estimates that half of the West Bank could be annexed are blown out of proportion, Israel acknowledges that the barrier does sometimes depart from the Green Line and therefore includes parts of the so-called Palestinian territory. Yet “the barrier is not intended as a political border between two entities, but merely as a hurdle between terrorists and their victims” as former Israeli defence minister Benjamin ben Eliezer has put it. Its exact route has been dictated only by security considerations, for example the need to prevent snipers having a clear line of sight on roads used by Israeli settlers.
The security wall hinders the everyday activities of Palestinians. A great number of Palestinians h...

The security barrier reduces tensions between the sides as Israelis and Palestinians no longer encounter the other that often and can learn to live on their own territories. After the wall is completed, 80% of Jewish settlers in the West Bank will be sheltered behind the barrier. In time, entry systems will become more routine - life will be better for Palestinians and they won’t have to go through so severe treatment. A system of tunnels and viaducts will connect all Palestinian territories and they won’t have to encounter tensions from Israeli settlers. The barrier will allow Israel to remove its heavy military presence from the West Bank, along with the checkpoints, road blocks and searches which made Palestinian life so difficult even before the barrier was started.
Even the Israeli High Court has called upon Israel’s government, that it should not provide security...

The main priority of Israeli government should be security for its people as well as the security of Palestinians. The barrier does cause some problems to Palestinians as well as Israelis but protection from the suicide attacks is of primary importance in Israel. Israel’s High Court agreed that a barrier was a legitimate means of providing security and that it served a real military need, as the government had argued. The barrier has been re-routed to take the Court’s concerns into account.
By carving up the West Bank, Israel is stopping the development of a workable Palestinian state. Th...

The Palestinian Authority has to show that it can be trusted to run a viable state before Israel relaxes its security measures. The corruption and ineptitude of Fatah have led to ten years of misrule and increased the people’s poverty. The government has also been unwilling to restrain terrorists affiliated to Fatah, and unable to crack down on Hamas and other militant groups. It has continued to pump out anti-Jewish propaganda through schools and the media. All this has contributed to the disaster of a Hamas victory in the parliamentary election. At present, Israel has no partner for peace, and must be free to protect its citizens in the best way it can.
The barrier harms Israel’s international image and weakens its support in the USA, a crucial ally. ...

The barrier does not harm Israel’s international position. The USA has accepted Israel’s right to build a security barrier and President Bush has also agreed that some Israeli settlements are facts on the ground which need to be respected in any future settlement. Some other countries are strongly anti-Israel and will use any excuse to criticise the Jewish state; they have not become more hostile since the barrier stopped suicide bombers killing hundreds of Israelis. In any case, there are plenty of precedents internationally for such a security barrier, for example the Peace Walls in Belfast, Northern Ireland, or the security fences erected by South Korea and India against potentially hostile neighbours.
Israel’s security wall is a breach of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) i...

Israel’s security wall is a breach of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague was asked by the United Nations General Assembly to consider the legality of the barrier and in July 2004 it ruled that the security wall was a breach of international laws. Specifically, it found that the Fourth Geneva Convention and international human rights conventions did apply in the Occupied Territories. The security wall breached the Geneva Convention because it assisted illegal settlements and its building injured private property owners. Human rights conventions are breached by the wall because it restricts freedom of movement and the right to an adequate standard of living, health and education. Finally, the Court ruled that the barrier’s route could allow Israel to annex territory, harming the Palestinians right to self-determination.
Any short term security gain will be offset by growing Palestinian resentment against Israel, which ...

Any short term security gain will be offset by growing Palestinian resentment against Israel, which could result in a greater number of suicide attacks in Israel. Israelis and Palestinians will need to learn to live side by side but building an 8 metre high wall sends a clear message to Palestinians that Israel is hostile and unwilling to find a permanent solution that would suit both nations. East Jerusalem in particular has been relatively peaceful during the second intifida, but the wall there will split communities, disrupt everyday life and declare that a shared sovereignty solution is no longer possible for the city both sides claim as their capital. It would be hard to find a better way to radicalise the inhabitants of East Jerusalem.
The Security wall could weaken the Palestinian position at any peace negotiations as it creates new ...

The Security wall could weaken the Palestinian position at any peace negotiations as it creates new facts on the ground favourable to Israel that will be hard to reverse. It would be harder to object to the wall if it followed the “Green Line” of the 1967 border between Israel and what are now the Occupied Territories. But although it follows the Green Line for some of its length (although always built on the Palestinian side), in many places the wall cuts deep into the Territories, looping around otherwise isolated Israeli settlements to connect them to Israel proper. The Israeli government may say that the wall is only a temporary measure, but in the Occupied Territories earlier “temporary measures”, such as Israeli settlements and military seizure of Palestinian land, have usually proved to be permanent. And who spends $1 billion on a “temporary measure”?