mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.  By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right [1] . It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state [2] . Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial.  [1] Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011  [2] Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that past offenders are more likely to commit further offences [1] . Revealing past convictions could be a good indicator of how likely it is that the defendant could have committed a crime, particularly if it is a similar crime to one committed in the past. Acquitting a defendant of a crime which they had previously committed could easily create public outrage and discredit the justice system; it is only fair that past convictions should be taken into account alongside the rest of the evidence.  [1] Edwards, Richard, ‘Half of all criminals re-offend within a year’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2008.
law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy.  Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already caused trials to be cancelled in the past [1] because the judiciary recognises that media coverage can change people’s incentives and warp their priorities. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses and jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case [2] . If witnesses and jurors know that their public lives could be affected by how the rest of society perceives them through a court case, they might have an incentive to be more harsh or more lenient; public outrage when the criminal sentence does not match their own interpretations is likely to be laid on those who caused that sentence. This is particularly dangerous for America, where they have trial by jury [3] . Here, the jury has more control over the sentencing of criminals – which obviously becomes a problem if the jury has a vested interest in giving harsh sentences to offenders in order to gain public support. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.  At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources.  Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done.  1.  )  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes"
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous It is patronising to state the jurors cannot understand the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. However, knowledge of the defendant’s background might help to shed light on the case at hand and allow the jurors to view the wider picture when weighing up their verdict.
law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary.  If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK [1] and US [2] . However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal [3] , it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness [4] , but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 18/08/11  [4]  , accessed 18/08/11
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous While recidivism is obviously a problem, this motion fails to take into account any situation where an individual has previously committed a crime but is innocent of the crime going to trial. Given that conviction rates soar when previous convictions are disclosed [1] , this motion doesn’t rebalance the justice system to cater for the victims, but risks seriously prejudicing those who are innocent of the crime going to trial. A wrongful conviction is just as bad as a wrongful acquittal; the prejudicial effects on the jury’s ability to make a verdict [2] undermines the objectivity of the justice system, and seriously risks the possibility of a fair trial.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.  This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions [1] , this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation [2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution [3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles.  [1] Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’.  [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010  [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people.  Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases.  1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification?  2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous The more obvious and efficient solution to this problem is to ensure a clearer standard of when previous convictions may or may not be disclosed, so that judges may act by the same standards. There is a simple solution to this particular complication; it would be an overreaction to suddenly change the entire court process by allowing this motion.
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Revealing past convictions could actually be detrimental in providing an accurate character profile of the defendant or prosecution witness, particularly if the defendant has previously been convicted but has also had successful rehabilitation. This disclosure undermines a key principle of the justice system – rehabilitation and reintegration [1] – by undermining any possibility that they could have changed their lifestyle or altered their character. As such, while it might serve one point of court, it seriously undermines other principles of justice which should not be compromised for such a small benefit.  [1] law.jrank.org, ‘Rehabilitation – What is Rehabilitation?’
law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals [1] [2] . Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law [3] [4] . Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11  [3] in the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [4] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11
punishment house would make fines relative income Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions  Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1  Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems.  It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it.  Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances.  Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group.  1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012,
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged.  Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3  1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial”
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Trial by jury is not necessary to uphold principles of justice. As stated in response to Opp Argument 1, there are plenty of other checks in favour of the defence. We do not agree that removing trial by jury erodes at this principle: trial by jury may be important, but a judge can still presume innocence, treat evidence fairly etc. If juries are not necessary to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then removing them in specific circumstances should not undermine the integrity and justness of the court. Again, we often do not have trial by jury in the case of petty offences, suggesting that this right is not regarded as absolute.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Jury nullification is a bad thing, and just another reason why trial by jury is not always the best way to deliver justice. When juries nullify, they bypass the electoral process, invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections. This is unjust, because it means that a small, random group of individuals can ignore laws which have been approved by the majority of society. Even if a juror believes a law to be unjust, it is integral that he enforce that law, because that law represents the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. If a law is truly unjust, there are better avenues to change it: voting in new legislators, legally protesting, appealing the law in court etc. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that jury nullification will be used to protect rights; indeed racist juries frequently acquitted KKK members in the 1950s and 60s.1 The fact that there is no way to prevent jury nullification without forcing juries to justify their decisions (which would violate the principle that juries must be allowed to deliberate secretly) is just another reason why juries may not be the best way to deliver justice. 1Hiroshi Fukurai and Richard Krooth, "Race in the Jury Box"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.  It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a) a trial occurs and b) jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some First, juries are not necessarily fairer or more just than judges, and second, even if trial by jury is an important right, that does not make it an unlimited one. First, there are reasons to believe that juries are less suited than judges to make criminal convictions. See Prop Argument 5 for more detail. But second, even if we do not want to eliminate trial by jury, there are still particular circumstances where it makes most sense to defer to such judges' authority, as we explained in the Prop case. There are already plenty of checks to protect the innocent: for example most systems have right to appeal clauses, safeguards against double jeopardy, presumption of innocence etc. While juries may generally present an added benefit, we believe there are circumstances where having a jury presents too many concerns for it to be a viable option.
law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Juror involvement is made less likely by the proposition line that jurors’ faces will be blanked out during the broadcast. For witnesses, the potential to warp and distort the truth already exists; they could be trying to avoid a sentence, or to make sure that justice is done if they have been wronged. They are already emotionally involved. If anything, video footage of the trial could encourage them to temper their responses and make absolutely sure that they are accurate in order to avoid questioning by the media or incrimination for giving an inaccurate statement.