BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Having a DNA database should require individual consent

The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives a service in return. In being compelled to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents and they will certainly not know the possible ways the information may be used1. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal. 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News: improve this
A DNA database would lead to more convictions, particularly in cases of violent crime

The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry; evidence collected by a UK Parliamentary Commission suggests DNA matching led to crime detection in as little as 0.3% of cases1. Ultimately, unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament: improve this
DNA evidence would reduce the risk of wrongful conviction

The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in 'non-suspect' cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified. It is also important to keep claims regarding the efficacy of DNA matching in context, Chief Constable Sims of the British Metropolitan Police stated that of '4.9 million crimes reported each year, of which 1.3 million are 'detected' (lead to charges)' only 33,000 involve DNA matching1. 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:
A DNA database would reduce the time spent tracking down suspects

There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. Moreover, there is the possibility that not only the police, but also the jury, will be blinded by science. It seems unlikely that juries will be able to comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own. improve this
Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is unlawful

Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is not unlawful, only retaining it indefinitely. New British proposals to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment are to ensure the DNA of the unconvicted remains on the database for just 6 years. The law has to be laid down in a set manner rather than imprecise terms. Loopholes are often found but in the long run, they are what create a fair and just legal system. We cannot have loose laws, everything must turn on the wording. The ruling stated that the DNA of the innocent could not be saved indefinitely, so the British government is proposing that this DNA only be kept on the system for 6 years. They have done what the Court has asked them to do, to take away the permanency; a DNA database remains. improve this
DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions

DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection, advantages that render any slight fallibility irrelevant. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel 'polymerase chain reaction' (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed notwithstanding contamination from oil, water or acid in the crime scene environment. The innocent and the accused should appreciate a novel fingerprinting technique that is both objective and accurate. Lastly, fears of wrongful conviction are misguided, a 2002 study found only 'two cases worldwide'1. 1 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: improve this
Having a DNA database should require individual consent

The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'2. Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day2. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. 1 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer: 2 National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation: improve this
A DNA database would lead to more convictions, particularly in cases of violent crime

Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator1. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified. Studies support this assertion; 'the overall detection rate for crimes of 23.5% rises to 38% where DNA is successfully recovered'2. Furthermore, in the United States, the number of reported rapes dropped to its lowest level in two decades due in large part to the use of DNA evidence3 1 Weathersbee, F. (1999, March 1). National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Institute of Justice:  2 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:  3 McGreal, C. (2009, October 8). Number of reported rapes in US drops to lowest level in two decades. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:
DNA evidence would reduce the risk of wrongful conviction

The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases1. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensures suspects are not called in for unnecessary and stressful questioning. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases of death row inmates being released on the grounds of DNA evidence, unavailable when they were first convicted. A DNA database would not merely render wrong verdicts right, but prevent such verdicts ever being made. 1 U.S. Department of Justice. (1996, June). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice: improve this
Punishment is good

Retributive theories of justice accept that the reason why a criminal justice exists is to punish offenders – society declaring its rejection of crime by inflicting deliberately unpleasant punishments. Prisons do not reflect this – a prisoner is a prisoner, and prison officers generally do not care about what offence they are convicted of. Their motivation for doing this being to make the prison easier to administrate.[1] “The past counts”. If we are making prisoners stay in prison we should make them feel as if they are being punished. This means deprivation of more than just the liberty to move from the prison but also of other luxuries. [1] Blecker, p.103
Differences in treatment are already accepted

Differences between different categories of prisoner are already accepted in the criminal justice system – prisoners are generally kept in different conditions due to factors such as escape risk and other factors. For example the UK has open prisons which offer the freedom to move around within the prison and the system is aimed at reintegration so freedoms like alcohol are allowed, as are home visits.[1] Once it is accepted that not all prisons and not all prisoners are treated the same then a difference in treatment based on the crime committed makes sense. If that is the case, it could be calibrated that those serving certain sentences for certain offences should be held in certain conditions – for example, in Connecticut (a state that has abolished the Death Penalty so LWOP is the greatest penalty imposed) those serving life without parole are now denied contact visits and are given no more than two hours of recreation per day[2]. [1] James, Erwin, ‘Why life in an open prison is no holiday camp’, The Guardian, 13 January 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jan/13/open-prison-no-holiday-camp [2] Blecker, p.230
Harsher conditions are a deterrent

Worse prison conditions for particular offences would act as a deterrent. If people, in prisons generally and in society as a whole, see that those who are convicted of particularly bad crimes will be deterred from committing those worse crimes. If prison is simply a holding place that prevents people inside from committing crime then it is failing in creating deterrence; criminals sometimes feel it is better to commit a crime when released in order to get back into prison.[1] Katz, Levitt, and Shustorovich using death rates show how harsh prison conditions are likely to mean lower crime rates overall – though a doubling of the death rate only reduces the crime rate by a few percentage points.[2] [1] Blecker, p.68 [2] Katz, Lawrence et al., ‘Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.5, No.2, 2003 http://bus.lsu.edu/mocan/kls_aler.pdf, p.340
Punishment is not purpose of prison

Prison itself already has punishment value: the loss of liberty and exclusion from society. However, punishment is not the purpose of prison. This is accepted in the US, where state prison systems do not claim punishment is a goal: see California[1], New York[2] and Nevada (“Protect the public by confining convicted felons according to the law, while keeping staff and inmates safe.“)[3]. Similarly, the UK’s Ministry of Justice does not list “punishment” as a priority of HM Prison Service[4]. Instead the aim is to prevent crime by holding prisoners, and to rehabilitate criminals so that when they are released they are able to reintegrate into society without reoffending. [1] California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, ‘Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals’, CA.gov, accessed 6/2/2014 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/About_CDCR/vision-mission-values.html [2] Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, ‘The Departmental Mission’, NY.gov, accessed 6/2/2014, http://www.doccs.ny.gov/mission.html [3] Nevada Department of Corrections, ‘Mission Statement’, NV.gov, accessed 6/2/2014 http://www.doc.nv.gov/?q=node/192 [4] HM Prison Service, ‘About HM Prison Service’, justice.gov.uk, accessed 6/2/2014, http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmps
A tiered system already exists

To some extent, prisoners will be categorized according to the offences they have committed. For example, those convicted of offences like armed robbery and many murders will start of at a higher level on the security system, which will mean restrictions in terms of activities, prison work and association with other prisoners. A person convicted of a sex offence against children, or anything else particularly notorious, would be likely to be placed in some sort of protective custody. In the UK, this is done under Rule 45 of the Prison Rules[1]. [1] England and Wales prison rules, available from http://www.insidetime.org/resources/Rules/English-Prison-Rules-2010.pdf, rule 45
Harsh punishment is counterproductive

Punishment for its own sake achieves nothing practical. When putting people in prison we need to look to the future, not to the past. However, harsher prison conditions can act in a way that makes individuals more likely to reoffend[1]. This is because those who have suffered harsh conditions do not become prepared for life outside; they do not learn the necessary skills that would bring them a job when released. Harsher prison conditions also breed mental health problems; isolation in supermax prisons has been observed to cause anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, and self mutilation – one study has found isolation in a secure housing unit caused 88% of prisoners to suffer from irrational anger and 91% anxiety.[2] It is notable that the opposite is also the case the Bastøy prison in Norway, derided by some for its supposedly “soft” conditions, has a reoffending rate less than a quarter of that of the European average[3]. [1] Chen, 2007 [2] Haney, Craig, ‘Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement’, Crime & Delinquency, Vol.49, No.1, January 2003, http://www.supermaxed.com/NewSupermaxMaterials/Haney-MentalHealthIssues.pdf, pp.133-4 [3] James, Erwin, ‘Bastoy: The Norwegian prision that works’, The Guardian, 4 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/04/bastoy-norwegian-prison-works
Punishment is good

This is all based on the vengeance-fuelled concept of “retributive justice”. This is not a model of thinking that has much merit. Imprisonment in the criminal justice works by deterring individuals from crime (prison always will be a deterrent), and incapacitating criminals, making them unable to commit crimes due to the fact they are in prison. The intent of prison is to prevent crime, not to impose harsh conditions of punishment. Imprisonment with legitimate utilitarian goals is acceptable. Simply inflicting conditions on people for no practical reason is mere sadism.
Differences in treatment are already accepted

The reasons for different categories is for escape risk – escape being the antithesis of a utilitarian purpose of prison, that of incapacitation. Those who are unlikely to seek to escape – prisoners serving short sentences or near the end of their sentence so have little reason to risk having their sentence extended – are those kept in more comfortable conditions. The measure in Connecticut meanwhile is a last minute political fudge, and one brought in solely to appease those who demand irrational justice policies such as retributivism.
Harsher conditions are a deterrent

Prison itself is already a deterrent.  Harsher prison conditions do not prevent recidivism, and could actually make convicts more likely to reoffend when released. Chen and Shapiro estimate that if all inmates were housed in above minimum security facilities there would be “an increase in the crimes committed by former convicts of approximately 82 per 100,000 Americans” – this would be higher than the reduction of 58 crimes per 100,000 found by Katz et al. as a result of deterring those outside prison[1]. [1] Chen, M. Keith, and Shapiro, Jesse M., ‘Do Harsher Prision Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.9, No.1, 2007 http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/keith.chen/papers/Final_ALER07.pdf
Punishment is not purpose of prison

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.
The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia

When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities[1]. If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project. [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013
Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia

The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands[1]. If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created[2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to[3]. In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future. [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013 [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013 [3] Ibid
Environmental Benefits of the GERD

GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors[1]. Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13
Egypt and Sudan will have their legal rights infringed

The two downstream countries have a combined claim to a majority of the River Nile’s water. Through the Nile Waters Agreement, an old colonial treaty, Egypt and Sudan are owed 48 billion m³ and 4 billion m³ of water from the Nile respectively[1]. Each country also has a veto on any upriver activity. Both of these rights are known but ignored by the Ethiopian government, in violation of an internationally recognised treaty. This has led Egypt to be particularly prominent in claiming that their rights are being abused as 70 billion m³ of water from the Blue Nile (which they are dependent on) is used by the Ethiopians. This is a violation of the Nile Rivers Agreement and demonstrates Ethiopia’s poor position to justify the GERD construction. [1] Azikiwe,A. Water and the Geopolitics of the Nile Valley: Egypt confronts Ethiopia, GlobalResearch.ca
Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam

Ethiopia’s decision to become an energy hub has led to the construction of unnecessary dams in the face of viable alternatives.  Ethiopia has already constructed nine dams which produce more energy than the country consumes[1]. A significant disadvantage of these dams is that droughts can lower their energy output which, combined with lower river levels for nine months of the year, results in the dams being ineffective[2]. The Ethiopian government has already announced plans for a geothermal plant being built for 2018 to offset the disadvantages of the current dams[3]. The geothermal plant costs $0.7 billion less than the hydroelectric dam, and the company constructing it claim it will produce twice as much energy as the hydroelectric dam when the latter is at its peak[4]. It would be more viable, therefore, to invest in thermal energy rather than another hydroelectric project. [1] US Energy Information Administration ‘Ethiopia’ 30 April 2013 [2] International Rivers ‘Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts say’ 5 September 2013 [3] Wikipedia ‘Energy in Ethiopia’ data accessed 11/12/13 [4] Maasho,A. ‘Ethiopia to get $4billion investment for leap into geothermal power’, Reuters, 24 October 2013