mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced.  It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.
addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west.  Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures.  1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006,
privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their It is simply not true that people are bothered by their personal information getting out, or at least they are unwilling to do anything about it. In a recent survey 85% of respondents said they were aware that they were being profiled by advertisers as they browse the Internet. [1] They know that this data is what companies use to enable sophisticated advertising directed at them and to determine what the market wants. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, as in the case with targeted advertising based on personal search data, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. Also, a policy of disclosure such as that mandated in the EU might be employed in which services inform users that their data will be collated and give them the option to leave the site before this occurs so as to ensure that individuals really are aware.  [1] Ives, D., “Anonymizer, Inc. Survey Finds Most Consumers Confused About Online Safety Measures”, Anonymizer, 19 October 2010,
addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public Reduces growth of tobacco  Less people smoking means less tobacco being purchased – something that would contribute to the reduction in the tobacco industry. The industry is known for its exploitative labour practices, from child labour (80,000 children in Malawi work in tobacco farming, can result in nicotine poisoning – 90% of what is grown is sold to American Big Tobacco 1 ) to extortionate loans. 2 Reducing the size of such an industry can only be a good thing.  1 Palitza, Kristin, “Child labour: tobacco’s smoking gun”, The Guardian, 14 September 2011,   2 Action on Smoking and Health, p3
business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a list of rights to which the United Nations has declared that all human beings should be entitled) states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"1. More than 50 studies carried out worldwide have found that people are at an increased risk of lung cancer if they work or live with somebody who smokes2. Given these very serious health risks, it goes against people's human rights to be exposed to second-hand smoke when they have not chosen to breathe it in. To avoid this happening, smoking should be banned in public places, so that non-smokers can be sure that they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke.  1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', General Assembly of the United Nations,   2 'Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking', World Health Organisation, Vol.83, 24 July 2002,
punishment house would make fines relative income Even if a fine is made proportional to income, you will not get the equality of impact you desire. This is because the impact is not proportional simply to income, but must take into account a number of other factors. For example, someone supporting a family will face a greater impact than someone who is not, because they have a smaller disposable income. Further, a fine based on income ignores overall wealth (i.e. how much money someone actually has: someone might have a lot of assets but not have a high income).  The proposition does not cater for these inequalities, which may well have a much greater skewing effect, and therefore the argument is being applied inconsistently.
punishment house would make fines relative income A flat rate is more just  A fine ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, not the income of the offender. It is fundamental that the justice system should treat all offenders equally; if two people commit the same crime in the same circumstances but one is richer than the other then they have caused the same amount of harm so should pay the same price for that harm. Having a richer person pay more implies that crimes by the rich are necessarily more harmful to society regardless of what the crime actually is.  Further, this system will cause anomalies, where rich people fined for small offences (e.g. littering) will have much larger fines than poorer people fined for more serious offences (e.g. speeding). This will make people question the fairness of the fines, which will negatively impact their relationship with the justice system.
punishment house would make fines relative income This motion will have no impact on that problem. Fines must be set at a low percentage of income so that the people earning the least do not find themselves going without essentials (a fine for speeding that caused you not to be able to heat your house in winter would seem, with good reason, disproportionate!)  Consequently, whether the fine is £60 or £6000, there will always be some to whom paying the fine is not a problem, and who will happily pay in order to flout the law.
punishment house would make fines relative income The rich are now also deterred  Another purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law.  This is especially the case when you consider the sorts of crimes that are punishable by fines, e.g. illicit parking and littering. These crimes have an indirect harm, and thus it is easy for the rich to consider that once they have paid the fine they have paid for the damage done, even though in reality this is not the case.1  1 Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. ‘A Fine is a Price’. Journal of Legal Studies., vol. 29 pp1-17
punishment house would make fines relative income Given, particularly, that it is those with the most money who are most likely to deem the fine ‘worth it’, this would be mitigated by the increased deterrent: the rich will now face substantially greater penalties.
punishment house would make fines relative income Whilst it is true that a crime ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, there is no reason why that must be the only factor. This motion does not remove the proportionality about which you are concerned, but merely adds an additional factor. If two people earn the same amount, but person A has committed a more serious crime, person A will still receive a larger fine.  Further, it is unclear why people would find this more unfair than a system in which all were impacted equally by the fines they receive.
punishment house would make fines relative income Only a small number of people will act like this. Some people, though rich, are nevertheless capable of seeing beyond self-interest, and will consider the fine to be fair.  This small harm is therefore easily outweighed by the improved perceptions of the justice system by those who currently believe it unfair that the rich can so easily buy their way out of trouble.
punishment house would make fines relative income Whilst this may well appease some sections of society, it comes at the cost of resentment from the rich.  This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich.  The problem is therefore very similar to the questions posed by taxing the rich more; it may be considered fairer by the rest of society but it is pointless if the rich all simply move elsewhere as they now perceive the justice system to be unfair.
punishment house would make fines relative income Creates the perception that fines are like taxes, rather than a punishment  If we detach fines from the crimes committed, people are more likely to see fines as unrelated to justice. Rather, they will see fines as another mechanism by which the government makes money, this will be especially the case if as in New Zealand the money goes into government coffers without being hypothecated.1  This is similar to the way in which some people in the UK see speed cameras as less about preventing speeding, and more about getting money from motorists with one poll showing 49% of people believe they are primarily about revenue raising.2  This is harmful because it decreases the probability of people who deem the fine ‘worth it’ nevertheless abstaining from the criminal act.  1 ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, New Zealand Police,   2 ‘Drivers conflicted over cameras’, IAM Driving Road Safety, 11 August 2010,
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Philosopher Peter Landry believes that it takes a whole group of specialists to determine what kind of punishment to mete out to criminals. [1] There is no hard and fast rule. Money spent on rehabilitation may cost a lot, but is well worth it, when you consider cuts to the rate of reoffending, leading to reduced expense related to those who reoffend and less crowded prisons. In Britain, it costs £140,000 a year to jail a young criminal, imagine if that money was spent on his or her rehabilitation instead? [2] Furthermore, in America, where measures like the ‘three-strike policy’ were introduced and rehabilitation discouraged, ‘more than four out of ten adult American offenders still return to prison within three years of their release’. [3] Retribution simply does not work, and it is certainly not saving the government any money.  [1] Landry, P. ‘On The Theory of Punishment’. Blupete, 2011 .  [2] Doyle, J., ‘£140,000: the annual cost of jailing a young criminal’. The Guardian, 1 March 2010.  [3] Pew Center on the States. State of Recidivism. The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2011, Washington, D.C., P.2.
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender  Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons. [1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.  [1] Women in Prison. Statistics. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Women in Prison .
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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.
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Rehabilitation Constitutes an Unjustifiable Further Expense  The evidence from all over the world suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated. It therefore makes economic sense to cut all rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their crimes and are kept off the streets where they are bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some deserving of a longer sentence only receive short sentences due to lack of time and space and some who have committed shorter sentences are given long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a message.  Currently, the government will continue to be gambling tax payers’ money on programs that will not give anything back into the society that it took from. Britain spends £45,000 a year on each of its prisoners and yet 50% will go on to re-offend, ‘which translates into a dead investment of £2 billion annually. [1] Rehabilitation programs should be scrapped and taxpayers asked only to pay the bare minimum to keep offenders off the streets. They can’t harm society if they are behind bars.  [1] Bois, N. D., ‘Retribution and Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice Policy’. Dale &amp; Co. 20 July 2011.
p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process  Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement.  Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence. [1]  [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at:
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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.
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public. Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public. A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness. Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita.
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.  Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office. It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity. [1] Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties. This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons.  [1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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.”
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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.
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity 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.
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity See argument above regarding other accountability mechanism. Jeopardizing future electoral success, harming one’s political party, and damage to one’s personal legacy are all meaningful checks on the behavior of politicians. To suggest that, in the absence of prosecutions, an under-used tool anyway, politicians will be able to abuse their station with impunity, is simply untrue.
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard  Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.