BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As proved by the attacks on September 11, terrorists can do tremendous damage. If we are to protect...

The ends do not justify the means. The right to privacy is crucial in a democracy and should not be abridged, particularly as no evidence has been offered that warrantless surveillance is effective in fighting terrorism. Finally, as our own history has shown, we have no guarantee that the government will not violate privacy for its own ends. Look at what happened in the McCarthy era or during Watergate. To date, the government has not articulated the specific criteria it uses to determine which conversations to monitor – itself a reason to worry.
As proved by the attacks on September 11, terrorists can do tremendous damage. If we are to protect...

As proved by the attacks on September 11, terrorists can do tremendous damage. If we are to protect ourselves in the future, we may have to abridge the privacy of many individuals, however innocent they may ultimately prove to be. Simply put, you can never know who is a terrorist until after his or her privacy has been violated or an attack has occurred. In addition, why should the innocent be afraid if they have nothing to hide?
There is no constitutional right to privacy; the concept is mentioned neither in the original text o...

There is a Constitutional right to privacy, upheld by Supreme Court in decisions from the 1960s onwards. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable “search and seizure” and surely today this should be understood as applying to the search for and seizure of our private communications, as well interference with our physical property. This is not to say that privacy is an absolute right: a reasonable search is still allowable under the Constitution. But the executive should not be able to define for itself what is reasonable in an expansive and potentially arbitrary way. They should have to make a case out to an independent authority in order to justify their breach of privacy. In other words, they should obtain a warrant from a court first.
There is no constitutional right to privacy; the concept is mentioned neither in the original text o...

There is no constitutional right to privacy; the concept is mentioned neither in the original text of the Constitution nor in the Amendments to it. Instead the high value placed on privacy has come as a result of dubious judicial interpretations. The Supreme Court’s decisions in cases such as Roe vs Wade relied upon very loose and liberal interpretations of the wording of the Constitution and are among the worse excesses of judicial activism. In a different time, and with a very different set of justices on the current Supreme Court, so-called privacy rights are unlikely to be upheld, especially where they impede the authority of the president as commander-in-chief.
The problem with the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evid...

The problem with the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they’ve confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before.
Who are we protecting with this rule? People who were wrongly acquitted, as displayed by later blata...

Who are we protecting with this rule? People who were wrongly acquitted, as displayed by later blatant and obvious proof of guilt. The murderer whose voice couldn’t be identified on the tape; the rapist who couldn’t be identified because DNA testing wasn’t sufficiently developed at the time; the robber who couldn’t be identified because facial mapping technology didn’t exist to show their face beneath the mask. Why would the state be in their favour and against the victims that so deserve justice - why should victims suffer because evidence didn’t emerge until later?
When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they’ve clearly committed, it damages ou...

When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they’ve clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state’s right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. Victims deserve justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free.
Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times. DNA testing, voi...

Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose escape from punishment occurred only because of a lack of satisfactory evidence. For example, In 1963 when Hanratty stood trial for the A6 murder (a gruesome offence where the abused victim was shot in her car and left to die on the motorway), semen stains on the victim’s underwear could not be investigated using the technology of the day. He was convicted anyway on the facts, but if he hadn’t been, and thanks to advances in technology the sperm turns out later to be his (as it has), shouldn’t we use that evidence to obtain justice for those concerned? Some evidence couldn’t possibly have been used at the time of trial, because the technology doesn’t exist. Looked at now, it could demonstrate conclusive guilt. If such evidence exists, isn’t there a compulsion to use it? How can we ignore it?
All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it...

All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it’s not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The Presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge’s duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing will be greatly reduced and there will be very few retrials.
The problem with the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evid...

The most important thing a justice system can provide is a clear result. The proposition may argue that this will only apply to ‘exceptional’ cases - but the truth is that every case is potentially subject to revisitation, and closure is never available - not to the acquitted accused, not to victims, not to relatives. Innocent, acquitted people will never be sure that another prosecution might not happen in the future.Furthermore, ‘guilt’ is not verifiable in the same way in a second trial. When asked ‘what did you see?’ a witness is likely to reply, ‘what did I say last time?'. It’s no longer a true test of evidence; the evidence from the last trial is all presumed to be accurate and can’t be satisfactorily challenged.
When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they’ve clearly committed, it damages ou...

The rule of law will actually come to mean less if it exists in a perpetual state of potential overturn. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he ‘knows’ the accused, properly acquitted in a court of law, to be guilty nevertheless. That is the nature of the police force, because we ask them to search for guilt - unless we provide a rule saying when to stop investigating, it will simply continue and continue. Given that we are talking about a tiny proportion of cases, it is better to have the principle of finality - because the police will spend vast amounts of time and effort and money on case that are already resolved, to the detriment of crimes that will receive less attention.
Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times. DNA testing, voi...

The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…
All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it...

Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has been brought again, there will be a presumption that the accused is guilty because a higher court has already decided that the new evidence makes the acquitted defendant now look guilty after all, and so granted a retrial. The presumption of innocence will no longer exist.And unless the system is going to be overwhelmed with retrials like this, in which case it would be unworkable, then second trial capacity can only (and rightly) be directed towards ‘exceptional’ cases. Such cases are well known - like that of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. How could individuals facing trial again on the same charges, when in the glare of media attention it has been declared they should have been convicted at the first trial? How could they possibly expect a fair trial?
When a conviction appears tainted, we allow a retrial. Why not for an acquittal? We allow conviction...

Logically, within the court system there is a higher expectation upon the state - with all its vast powers - than on the individual, who has minimal power to investigate and obtain evidence in his defence, who personally stands to lose liberty on the decision to be made, and who therefore deserves extra protections. Part of this means that there is a burden of proof - the state must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal law - if doubt exists, then a conviction should be quashed. It’s disingenuous to say there should be parity between the parties here, since there is - quite rightly - no burden to prove beyond doubt on the accused.
Sharia law is unfair to women and incompatible with justice

The Taliban and Saudi Arabia are two extreme versions of Sharia law. Islam is actually a very fair and tolerant religion. It has only been made extreme by extremists and the danger here is that by not allowing Sharia we force young Muslims to choose between British society and their religion. For Muslims there can only be one winner and this will force moderates to come into contact with extremists and to become radicalised. When British law was imposed on colonial India women were stripped of their property and freedom's from their husbands, guardians etc. By removing Sharia law, women's rights were harmed. Indeed, it took 1300 years for 'western' states to catch up with Islamic law in respect to women's rights. A woman was able to divorce, own property, take part in politics and public life long before British and American women. However, one must accept that since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic jurisprudence has been in a heavy decline. It is here, that we are presented with an opportunity for Islamic jurisprudence to be developed and allowed to modernise by engaging with British law. There is an opportunity for both legal systems to engage and learn from one another. In relation to punishments imposed by Sharia - in Britain, the death penalty was officially repealed in 1998. The last executions took place in 1965. However, there are undoubtedly a growing number of people that would re-introduce the death penalty in Britain, regardless of Sharia. Nevertheless, the motion does not imply an imposition of Sharia over the entire British public nor over criminal law. The difference between secular western states and Muslim majority states is that Muslims have had a God-based/given legal system for 1400 years and on the whole Muslims are religious people that have been directed to live a certain way of life (thus, for example, the attitude to homosexuality). While Muslims and Jews have their own advanced legal systems, Christianity never fully developed its own independent one, and so the current legal system was developed in the wester world, although the basic tenants of Christian teaching are present within them.
Sharia Is God Law It is Fair and Just and it should be Implemented

Sharia will solve all the problems that the west have be they britian, america, anywhere. How dare u say that Sharia is harsh to women it gives more rights to women then any other legal system. Sharia up lifts a women. Either it be personal law, penal code, criminal law, commerical law, economic law Sharia encompesses all. Islam is a complete way of life there is no law in Islam which is against Human rights, women, animals etc. People should learn abot Islam before throwing accusations. If you study Saudia Arabia there hardly no problems, the crime rate is so low. America such a laught 'super power' has the highest crime rate. Similar problems with britain. Thats what happens when you have 'man made laws' they don't solve the problems that west have. People think Sharia is harsh, God has designed this law for us he Knows what is best for us no law is against humanity for example the wisdom behind God saying the punishment for stealing is cutting of hands; if this is adopted as a law of the land then anyone who thinks about stealing will think twice as he or she will know that if they steal there hands will be cut off so they will definitely think twice about stealing. Also if every muslim gave zakat islamic taxes there will be no poor people left in they world no one will die of hunger, thirst. If this law of giving Zakat was implememted than it will make it the law and any one who breaks the law should get punished as it happens in british law. Another islamic if any one commits rape they should be killed if this law was adpoted then anyone who thinks of commited such as evil crime of rape will certainly think twice before committing this crime they would know if I rape then I will be put to death. If I pose a question to you the reader if you mother, daughter,sister was raped what will you do? I pose this question to my friends not only did they say I will kill him they also said I beat, or torture him to death. So why the double standards if someone commits rape and they should be put to death why does it seam harsh for others and not you. There are so many other examples that I can give but It will take ages. I leave with the thought think carefully before you saomething about Sharia and Islam the solution for mankind.
Sharia law is unfair to women and incompatible with justice

Sharia law in Britain might not start out as the same Sharia law practised by the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia, but who’s to say it won't end up that way? Extreme Sharia law doesn’t allow for free speech, doesn’t treat women equally, treats gays as second-class and imposes some pretty brutal punishments. This is not the kind of law we want in Britain.
Other religions decide things their own way

Jewish law is entirely different to Sharia and is far more tolerant. We cannot allow Sharia any foothold in this country, for it might start out dealing with marital disputes but could easily end up with women being flogged for sitting too close to a man they’re not married to. Very many aspects of Sharia law are abhorrent to Britons and the idea it should be practised here is unthinkable. The 'For' argument says: "Jews have had their own Beth Din courts in Britain for centuries and have been quite able to find a way of co-existing with Britons." This says it all, really. Their attitude is wrong. If they want to live in Britain, they should become Britons, not aspire to just 'coexist' with them.
British Law for a British Country

Christian law has often been just as brutal and misogynistic as Islamic law. Allowing people to practice Sharia law whilst under the supervision of secular law will prevent harsh and cruel punishments from being installed, and the constant discussion amongst imams would allow Sharia law to evolve and adapt. Jewish law is based on rabbinical decision and the country’s own law, allowing adaptation and prevention of old and useless laws and customs, and simply changing British law to accommodate for Muslims would not solve the problem of expense and bureaucracy.
The muslim jurist should wake up

The muslim jurists are putting the name of Islam down they are to wrapped up in there selfish desires that they dont do what is best for the muslims they have to fight and stand up to the british governement and make the truth be heard. They should not whip out and applogise all the time stand up for what is the truth. If sharia law is adopted in britian the non-muslims will have no problems as sharia is designed for humans created by God. For example no non muslim will be forced to aspect Islam, they can drink in the privacy of there homes, they dress any way they like. The non muslims will see the postive changes in britan such such as accident resultings from drink driving will go down considerably, rape crime will go down, stealing will go down. There society will be a better and safer place to live. By seeing the muslims the non-muslims will see how correct Islam.
Other religions decide things their own way

Jews have had their own Beth Din courts in Britain for centuries and have been quite able to find a way of co-existing with Britons. Jewish courts deal with matters relating to Judaism only. Anything outside of that, anything subject to British law, is still tried by the British legal system. If anyone is flogged, that would count as common assault under existing British law and those responsible punished. This debate does not presume Sharia Law and any punishments given under it to be superior to or beyond existing domestic legislation.
SHARIA ESPECIALLY ISLAMIC CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD BE ADPOTED

1. Incorporating Shariah law would violate British Law an example being giving away your children to a man as you marry them or giving half your money, this is not right. If they do not wish to follow the laws of the country they live in then they should return home. 2. It would not solve the problems. Debt Problems? Nope. Infact would make it worse. Money? That's how a country is run. Also even if they did, Value Added Tax (VAT) would still apply to consumer goods. Shariah law would make the country worse if anything.
'Government approval' doesn't equal public approval.

And how would that be worse than the present situation? Most arbitrators of Sharia would be Muslim. And even if they are very western, they would still be less western than the present arbitrators of the British legal system. The idea is not to get All Muslims to come around, all Muslims are not the same(as you've pointed out, some are relatively liberal/conservative), the idea is to recruit 'anyone' willing to trust the government after a minor change, that familiarizes the Justice system to them. To argue that no such people/person exist/s is presumptuous. Such a change would mean that British society is not rigidly intolerant of the voice of the minority, making whites more accepting, less judgmental and the Muslim British minority feel more comfortable and less oppressed in its surroundings.
If a dispute does arise British law will overrule

As all public bodies have to adhere to Human Rights legislation, one aspect of which is a fair trial, all Sharia decisions will be suspect as the very nature of the procedure is often unfair. For example, the weight of the testimony given by a woman or non-Muslim is less than a Muslim man. Sharia courts will only be useful in business disputes between two male Muslims which is not the circumstance in which most people supporting this move would like them used. It is difficult to see a situation in, say, family law, where the Sharia court could give a different decision to what would have been the decision of secular family court and where that decision would be upheld.
GOES AGAINST BRITISH VALUES AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Rowan Williams, and indeed any sane person, did not and would not argue for the imposition of Sharia law on the entire British population. His argument was based upon the extension of current informal legal practices in certain areas of the UK where, for example, Sharia law is used in regards to marriage, divorce and commercial agreements/disagreements between Muslims. This is a growing field due to its success and support from Muslims that do not wish to undergo the time consuming, convoluted and expensive English legal system. The motion does not call for the abolition of English law, but rather the adoption of a supplementary system within civil law. Therefore, freedom of religion is not jeopardised and a referendum is unnecessary. A referendum would in fact be a tyranny of the majority as the answer would undoubtedly be a ‘no’ due to the lack of knowledge and fear mongering that would go and does go hand in hand with this contentious and misunderstood topic. Democracies exist to protect minority rights within a state and not to enforce the majority view. Moreover, the death penalty in Britain was only fully repealed in 1998 by the Human Rights Act, section 21(5), and initially in 1965 for murder. There has not been a long standing jurisprudential and legal framework for the abolition of capital punishment anyway. The suggestion that ‘it would force law from one religion upon’ another is absurd if only applied to the 2 million Muslims in the UK. The adoption of Sharia does not automatically void the United Kingdom’s commitment to European Union law and the ECHR; indeed the very notion that human rights and civil liberties have no link to Sharia is offensive to 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence. Human rights and civil liberties were introduced through Islamic law long before Locke, Mills et al developed legal principles such as the rule of law and non-retroactivity. Finally, if we consider the practices of a number of Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, we see that there exists various legal divisions that deal with non-Muslims, in addition to the Sharia based law for Muslims, and the criminal code that is applied to all citizens. Therefore, the adoption of sharia law within the UK does not go against British values, and certainly not the freedom of religion.
SHARIA ESPECIALLY ISLAMIC CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD BE ADPOTED

We know that some parts of Sharia are adopted by British people for Muslims such as family law including, divorce, marriage, commercial law etc. but still Sharia is not excepted by British law for example if you get married in under Islamic law you still have to get married the English way marriage registry, also to get divorced according to the British law. This is not incorporating Sharia into British law is it now? British government knows that if they adopt Sharia as a while it will solve all their problems which they don't like. If Tobacco market was stopped they will lose all the money, if drinking was stopped they will have no money etc. It is all money, money, money. For them. If interest was stopped they will die.