Needle exchanges cause crime  Needle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before.  This can either lead to the aforementioned criminals working together and causing more problems, or it can lead to violence between rival criminals and their gangs.  Further, the simple gathering of criminals in a single area can also serve to attract other criminals to the same area to possibly reap benefits. This often comes in the form of prostitution, which thrives in areas of high crime and weaker police presence.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.


th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges

Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour  Needle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument.  Further, it is principally wrong that the state should help those who choose to take drugs to begin with. In doing so these people are choosing to firstly harm themselves and secondly cause harm to society as well as contravene the law. The state should exist in such a way that should someone contravene the law they be punished, not rewarded with extra supplies from the taxpayer with no further strings.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle  exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.


Most studies indicate that needle exchanges do not increase drug use. This is corroborated by studies in Amsterdam and New Haven, Connecticut. In fact, one programme in San Francisco resulted in decreased drug use in the community owing to the links that were tied with the drug using community. Further reasons for this are also outlined within the third argument on proposition.1  1. "Interventions To Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors". National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement". February 11-13, 1997.


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.


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


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.


Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment  The purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week.  Therefore, if you make fines proportional to the income someone has, all people feel the impact of the punishment equally, rather than the poor facing a punishment with a harsher impact on them than on the rich.


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.


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,


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.


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.


The rich will resent this  The rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1  This may well increase the extent to which they break the law, because if you perceive the law to be applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider it to be making an accurate assessment of whether an action is right or wrong in any given situation.  That is, in situations where you are unlikely to be caught committing a crime, the deterrent is clearly not the possible punishment (which you won’t face, because you won’t be caught). Rather, the deterrent is the extent to which you believe the illegal action to be morally wrong. If you believe a law is applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider the prohibited action to be actually, morally wrong, and therefore more likely to commit that act.  1 Cianfrocca, Francis, ‘Wealth Creation Under Attack’, Commentary, June 2009,


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,


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.


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.


human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain

When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society are paramount.  In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting.  Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states’ leaders, but also by arbiters (judges) and its people.


Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaida do not respect the rights of individuals and the only way to fight fire is with fire  Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities.  By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens’ safety and they should use all tools possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction.  In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as torture, to protect their citizens.


The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice – it doesn’t work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true  In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation.


In the event of an imminent attack it is only reasonable to use force to find information  If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible.  If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives


What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?  If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.


Time is of the essence in a crisis. When confronted with extremists who see a virtue in their own death, extraordinary methods may be required.  The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden somewhere in Manhattan, it’s vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast.  Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take place in a framework of days or weeks.


No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it is simply impractical to apply those standards.  The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do.  The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought, however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality.


It is perfectly possible to put legal structures in place that allow for judicial overview of the interrogation techniques used. In most Western countries – the most common targets of modern terrorism – there are already legal frameworks for judicial approval of the extension of detention periods and so forth on an emergency basis. The same form of oversight could be used here and exactly the same principle of retrospective appeal could apply to ensure that the capacity was not misused.


Introducing the use of violence into the justice system means that liberties that have taken centuries to secure are lost  The principle that all people are presumed innocent and, as a result, should not be abused either physically or mentally by officers of the state is one that took centuries- not to mention a great deal of blood and sweat- to establish. In the words of British Chief Justice Phillips this respect for human rights is, in and of itself, “a vital part in the fight against terror”, as if terrorism is to be defeated states that ascribe to such principles must show that they remain true to them in order to win the ideological battle.  Using torture on suspected terrorist would be to tear apart that basic principle in response to crimes, which, it has been noted, are on nothing like the scale of the industrialised warfare of the twentieth century, would be a massively damaging step. Regardless of the scale of the crime the individual must have protections against false accusation and punishment, this means that a fair trial is necessary in order to determine innocence or guilt.


If legal principles are abandoned then there is little point in defending the liberties that democratic governments say they are so keen to defend  If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient.  The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the actions of a few fanatics


Allowing torture under any circumstances will allow the prospect of its routine use  The advantage of a complete ban on torture is that it leaves no room for doubt, no possibility for confusion, no need to apply personal judgement. Under the status quo, it is simply illegal to use force or the threat of force to solicit information from a suspect, regardless of the charge.  The moment that becomes something other than a complete ban then it puts an intolerable pressure on security officials to decide when it is justified and when it is not.  The experience of Abu Grahib demonstrates how the use of abusive treatment can become routine, even trivial, all too quickly. If it is acceptable to use torture to prevent mass-murder, then why not murder? If for murder than why not rape? And so on.


The era of battlefield warfare has passed. The war on terror may be a new form of combat, but the results are no less serious. Were a terrorist flying a military bomber aircraft to deliver a payload of death and destruction on one of the world’s major cities, nobody would think twice about shooting it down, killing the crew and preventing the bombing.  There is no meaningful way in which the example above is morally different from leaving a bomb in a station or on a subway train. Societies have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary. The combatants involved in this process consider themselves to be at war and revel in the fatalities they cause. It is only sensible for states to treat these individuals as though that war were a reality in the more traditional meaning of the word.


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


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


Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India [1] , and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11


People should have a right of access to justice.  Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors.  [1]  , accessed 05/08/11  [2]  , accessed 05/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11.


When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial.


Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards.  Placing cameras into courtrooms encourages the judiciary and lawyers to increase their efficiency and have high standards of behaviour, because they are aware that it will be carried outside of the courtroom by public viewing. The introductions of cameras to the Houses of Parliament in the UK resulted in significantly improved standards of debate, greater punctuality, and greater attendance of MPs [1] . We can expect this same principle to continue in courtrooms when cameras are put in place.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11


For the families of defendants, incriminating evidence of the defendant comes out anyway – the emotional problems are still there under the status quo, whether or not the trials are televised. For the victims, often a reason why cases are dropped or the victims decide not to testify is the idea that their case is not seen as important, or will not make a difference [1] . Giving a public focus to this cases, and emphasising public outrage against rape, sexual assault and other serious crimes, endorses victims’ rights and makes them see that justice for this crimes is incredibly important. Perhaps this is the best step towards encouraging more people to make a difference by coming forward to testify.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11


It is unlikely that people will use court cases as a form of entertainment; if the entire case is televised, then a lot of the case will be ‘boring’ discussion of applying law and legal theory [1] , rather than doling out punishment Judge Judy-style. Even if a few people do try to use it as entertainment, the potential benefit to wider society as they can literally see how their legal system works to protect them outweighs the very small number of people who might group court cases and reality television shows together. Furthermore, if somebody is convicted of a serious crime like murder, their chances of rehabilitation are already slim (and convicts often re-offend), whether it is televised or not [2] . Indeed, some would argue that they have forfeited their right to rehabilitation by committing murder in the first place [3] . However, if they were acquitted of a serious crime on television, future employers could be more likely to accept them as they could see exactly how the court progressed and arrived at that conclusion, rather than having it shrouded in mystery which could breed suspicion.  [1] Transcript of a court case:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11


Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case.  Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11


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


Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family  Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them [2] [3] . The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience [4] , to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11  [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court  , accessed 19/08/11


This turns court cases into entertainment, rather than legitimate legal proceedings.  Several television shows, such as ‘Judge Judy’, assert the style of a legal courtroom [1] . These shows are based on entertainment value from scrutinising the accused and defendant; it would be dangerous to remove a barrier which currently separates genuine legal proceedings from entertainment by televising them. The risk that the public would see them as one and the same is increased by an incident where a man really did believe that the Judge Judy trial was a real trial [2] . The trial of Casey Anthony in Florida, where cameras are allowed, escalated into a media frenzy where legal justice became unimportant in comparison to television ratings [3] . Court cases, then, are at risk of not being taken seriously and used instead for the public to satisfy their curiosity into other peoples’ lives. Televising court cases also immediately undermines some fundamental principles of the justice system, such as rehabilitation. If somebody is convicted of a crime on national television, his or her anonymity or chance of future employment is severely compromised. The rights of the victims, their families, and the defendants should be placed ahead society’s assumed ‘right’ to sensationalist portrayals of the courtroom.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11


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.


Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question.


speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.


Protection of Minors  We need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials. While this would be a restriction on the freedom of speech it should be something that the government is responsible for and we would all agree needs some kind of restriction or regulation.


The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.  Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.


The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done  "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." [1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others.  Likewise, in the US (and many other countries) there is no protection for ‘false commercial speech’ (i.e. misrepresentation) and the contents of adverts can be regulated in order to ensure that they are truthful and do not deceive consumers. [2] On that basis, restrictions can be placed on how tobacco products may be advertised, and people may be prevented from promoting illegal and fraudulent tax advice.  [1] U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919,  [2] U.S. Supreme Court, Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly, AG of Massachusetts, 533 U.S. 525, 200


The argument leads to a slippery slope. It is one thing to regulate speech on matters that are objectively verifiable, quite another to restrict the permissible scope of opinion and expression. Even then, the state should be extremely cautious about declaring a state of objective fact. People taking advice on matters such as tax always take the risk that that advice may turn out to be bad, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter that the government should intervene in.


Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.  If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.


It may be necessary in the interests of national security  The Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. This has happened in almost all states during times of war, during the second world war the United States even had a government department dedicated to it; The Office of Censorship. [1]  [1] Hanyok, Robert J., ‘Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and The American Press and Radio in World War II’, Studies in Intelligence, Vol 46, No. 3,


Holocaust Denial  Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection.  Both scientific creationism and Holocaust denial have serious, and dangerous, hidden agendas. Deniers of the Nanjing Massacre believe that the Japanese did nothing wrong in the Second World War and continue to claim that it was a war of liberation against western colonialism - feeding Japanese militarism today. Holocaust deniers, in claiming that a Jewish conspiracy is responsible for the widespread belief that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, are closely allied to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. We should not allow such views the legitimacy which being debated gives them.


Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.  It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.


Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms  Whatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind.  It is a matter of the upmost individual liberty that one’s thoughts and feelings are one’s own, and that individuals are free to express those thoughts and feelings openly. A prohibition on this liberty is a harm of incalculable value – it strikes right to the core of what it means to be in individual person.


Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs  Free speech is not merely a ‘nice thing to have’, it is a mechanism which brings real, tangible benefits to society by allowing people to challenge orthodoxy. States that do not allow orthodox beliefs to be challenged stagnate and decline.  Reducing restrictions on free speech to ‘special exceptions’ frustrates the whole point because it is precisely those special exceptions where established truth needs to be challenged. This is not restricted to matters of pure opinion – the modern scientific process relies upon professionals being able to vehemently disagree on matters of crucial fact. “Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.” [1]  [1] Sarewitz, Daniel, ‘The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree’, Nature, Vol 487, No.7, 5 October 2011,


Liberty is an intangible right – restrictions on liberty can be equally intangible and entirely transitory based on the circumstances.  What we know though is that real harm is derived from defaming an individual’s reputation, broadcasting racist abuse and shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. It is wrong to ignore real, tangible harm in favour of preventing fanciful and intangible harms.


th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs

Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,


Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs  Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000. [1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. [2]  [1] Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working?’, parliament.uk, 22 May 2002,   [2] Travis, Alan, ‘Cannabis use down since legal change’, The Guardian, 26th October 2007,


The law is hypocritical  In most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not. [1] The same should be true of drugs.  [1] Professor David Nutt, ‘Drug Harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis’, The Lancet, Vol 376, Issue 9752, pp. 1558-1565, 6th November 2010,


If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’,


Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure.  To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs:  “Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure.  Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage.  Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1]  [1] Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, ‘Effects of Alcohol and Drugs on your Health’, University of North Carolina,


Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability  The Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords. [1] The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.  [1] Mexico under siege, The drug war on our doorstep, Los Angeles Times , 27 September 2011,


People should be free to take drugs  Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.


Legal drugs would increase tax revenue  In 2009-2010, the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK was £10.5 billion. [1] If the state legalizes drugs, it can tax them and use the revenue from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tax Revenue From Tobacco’, accessed 16th June 2011 -


This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs. [1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children. [2]  This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms.  Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement.  [1] BBC News, ‘Drugs cost society £18.8bn’, 12 February 2002,   [2] National Drug Intelligence Center, ‘The Impact of Drugs on Society’, National Drug Threat Assessment 2006, January 2006,


Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations.


Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well.


Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010,


Drugs are safer when legal  Currently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs. [1]  At least when drugs are legalised the state can regulate their sale to make sure that they are clean and not cut with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users.  [1] Drugscope, ‘How Pure Are Street Drugs?’, updated January 2005,


Legalisation reduces crime  The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate.  [1] Kington, Tom, ‘Italian police raids reveal how an 80-year-old gangster held sway over the feared Calabrian mafia’, The Observer, 18 July 2010,


In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale.


Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.  The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.


More people will take drugs if they are legal  Considering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. [1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason. [2]  [1] UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009,   [2] NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics, ‘Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis use?’, 23 August 2001,  $file/mr_cjb58.pdf


Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive  Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.


Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use  The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers.  However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation – just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.


When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it.  [1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002,   [2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010,


crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more

Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of coincidence. As the case of Husng Guangyu shows, despite being Chinas richest man he still committed crimes involving illegal business dealing, insider trading and bribery and was then sentenced to 14 years. This was rightly given in order as a just punishment for the cost of the crimes he had committed and to deter others from such practices. [1] Crime is the result of choices made by the individual, and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate society’s rules. To say otherwise (i.e. to say that criminals are merely the product of their unfortunate circumstances) would be an insult to human autonomy - the liberalist idea that our judicial system is based on, in saying that individuals are given the power to make their own decisions freely and this should be interfered with in as little as possible. It would be to deny the possibility of human actors making good decisions in the face of hardship.  Retributivism alone best recognises the offender’s status as a moral agent, by asking that he take responsibility for what he has done, rather than to make excuses for it. It appeals to an inherent sense of right and wrong, and in this way is the most respectful to humanity because it recognises that persons are indeed fundamentally capable of moral deliberation, no matter what their personal circumstances are.  [1] Jingqiong, Wang and Zhu Zhe, ‘Former richest man gets 14 years in prison’, China Daily, 19 May 2010.


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 .


Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment  Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society.  An example can be taken from the aftermath of the London rioters, where 170 riot offenders under 18 are now in custody without firstly understanding the causes of the riots nor the reasons of why these people offended. [1]  The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact it is because retribution places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote the safety of the public, and to protect individuals from the victimisation of crime. The public agrees; a 2008 poll of British citizens found 82% ‘thought rehabilitation was as important, or more important than punishment as a criterion when sentencing criminals’. [2] Such a model of punishment is therefore a more enlightened approach in a modern day criminal justice system. Our current system which focuses more on retribution does not have the possibility of seeking to prevent reoffending by curing the offender of their desire to reoffend.  [1] Malik, Shiv, ‘UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed children’, guardian.co.uk, 8 September 2011.  [2] Directgov. Rehabilitation versus punishment - judge for yourself. 1 July 2008 .


A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should treat the offending conduct as wrong. The purpose of punishment is to show disapproval for the offender’s wrongdoing, and to clearly condemn his criminal actions. This is what was and is being done with the offenders of the August riots, the most common example is of an the two men who attempted to organise riots using Facebook, both were sentenced to four years and shows societies disgust in the events of the riots and acts as a message for future. [1]  A prison sentence is as much a punishment for the offender as a symbol of the reaction of society. Society creates law as an expression of the type of society we are aiming to create. This is why we punish; we punish to censure (retribution), we do not punish merely to help a person change for the better (rehabilitation). We still have to punish a robber or a murderer, even if he is truly sorry and even if he would really, really never offend again and even if we could somehow tell that for certain. This is because justice, and not rehabilitation, makes sense as the justification for punishment.  Why is justice and censure (‘retribution’) so important? Because unless the criminal justice system responds to persons who have violated society’s rules by communicating, through punishment, the censure of that offending conduct, the system will fail to show society that it takes its own rules (and the breach of them) seriously. There are other important reasons as well: such as to convey to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged. Punishment, in other words, may be justified by the aim of achieving ‘justice’ and ‘desert’, and not by the aim of rehabilitation.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, Haroon Siddique and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Facebook cases trigger criticism of ‘disproportionate’ riot sentences’, guardian.co.uk, 17 August 2011 .


The expense of re-offenders re-entering the system is also an expense that our prison system cannot afford. A system such as counselling for released prisoners would prove to be inexpensive when weighed against the benefits of decreased crime, and all the costs involved in that (public damage, judicial costs and prison costs). Given that many organisations work in rehabilitation programs in prisons for very little, if any, payment such a system could easily be established for counselling.  A complete system of rehabilitation and post-release counselling, to access these programs, should be paired with increased awareness programs in schools and welfare support. However, this system of combating crime is not complete without a comprehensive system of rehabilitation. If we truly want to protect society and reform criminals then we must invest more time, effort and funding into a system that can achieve this. Incarceration on its own is not working and it is time for change. An addition to the rehabilitation programme was aired on the UK television in November 2011, a new scheme where the offender meets their victim(s) in order to understand their actions have consequences. This type of programme can show visible changes or responses of the offenders as they agree to talk about their feelings and show remorse.


The needs of society are not being met by those who reoffend due to lack of rehabilitation. The fact that two thirds of offenders subsequently re-offend with two years [1] suggests that the prison system does little to encourage people to stay on the right side of the law. Clearly, the threat of prison is not enough alone and needs to be supplemented by other schemes.  Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop important skills: it is especially clear in the case of non-violent offenders that criminal behaviour often stems from a perceived lack of alternatives. Offenders often lack educational qualifications and skills. Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop necessary skills for future employment through the provision of courses and education. The UK offers courses in bricklaying, hairdressing, gardening and teaching sport and fitness. [2]  These people can then contribute back into society rather than a purely retributive model which just takes from a system. [3]  [1] Souper, M., ‘Principles of sentencing – reoffending rates’, Sixth Form Law .  [2] Directgov, ‘Education, training and working in prison’ .  [3] Jonathan Aitken wrote an opinion column for ‘The Independent’ website in which he criticised the current legal setup for criminal prosecution and suggested that reforming the system of rehabilitation in the UK would help to reduce rates of re-offending. This if of the greatest importance not only to the individual but for the safety of society.


Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work  While some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release. [1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work.  [1] Stanford, P., ‘The road to redemption: Does the rehabilitation of prisoners work?’, The Independent, 23 August 2007.


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 & Co. 20 July 2011.


How Would One Know a System of Rehabilitation Is Really Working  The question “does it work” must be joined by the second question: “even if it does work, how can you tell, with each individual offender, when it has worked?” How would we check if this system is really working? Tagging prisoners? Free counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life? These measures would require huge administration costs and then the question follows would it even be feasible to enforce such a system?  The root of criminality exists before exposure to the prison system; otherwise criminals would have no reason to be there in the first place. What may be more sensible is to analyse the root causes of what makes criminals offend in the first instance and introduce reform to counteract it, for example the economic crisis. [1]  Some have cited the education system as failing to instil a sense of morality in people. Others suggest that a lack of welfare leads individuals to lose faith in society and therefore be unwilling to follow the law. Assuming that the right time to change people’s outlook on society is after they have offended is naïve – criminal urges are better ‘nipped in the bud’.  It could be argued that criminal mentalities are inherent within certain individuals, either due to their inborn psyche or their upbringing. If one accepts this, then basic rehabilitation into society is going to do little to stop re-offending, whereas incarceration will keep them in a position where they cannot offend. Allowing them easy passage back into the world, with minimal supervision, could provide a gateway for them to commit more serious crimes.  [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘Police face years of public disorder, former Met chief warns’, guardian.co.uk, 6 December 2011.


Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society  The primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons. [1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender.  In addition a more retributive approach serves society through the message it conveys. Most modern defences of retribution would emphasize its role in reinforcing the moral values of society and expressing the public's outrage at certain crimes. Rehabilitation therefore weakens the strong message of disgust as to the offender’s actions that a traditional prison sentence symbolises and the deterrent that it thus provides.  [1] Chang, K. O. ‘Lock up repeat offenders for life’. Jamaica Gleaner, 17 September 2006 .


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.


If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-offending why do we not seize this opportunity? Rehabilitative programs provide such an opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and reach differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some better than others, but this is someone that will have to determined case by case. As some methods with work better than others depending on attitudes, values etc.  The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards, massive.  Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite technique whose effectiveness can be precisely measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may not work, others however might. What the opposition to this argues is what we've deemed rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward. However, this is illogical; as we speak, new methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective. For example, if somebody proves that high-speel monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not mean that transportation is absolutely and fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove an infinite set of hypotheses.


law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished

If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.


It blocks a significant amount of evidence  A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.


The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.


Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations  Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death.  In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.


It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients  If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.


It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included. [1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court.  [1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/5/11


It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’


This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged [1]  [1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07  accessed 18/05/11


It places excessive moral burden on solicitors  With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.


The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance  One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent [1] . In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated.  [1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010,  accessed 18/05/11


The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege.


Surely the best way to ensure justice is to let the truth be known. By allowing the communication between an attorney and their client to be privileged, the system is catering for a system of arbitrary loopholes and cleverly worded arguments. These are the tools that a solicitor/ attorney would have in order to protect the interests of their client in the face of information they may not wish to divulge to the opponent. This only caters for an adversarial system whereby two parties oppose each other and they each have lawyers to assist them. Surely a better system would be one that encouraged open communication of the truth in order for the court to establish the most just outcome.


It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case  An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”. [1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice.  [1] Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11


Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately  In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications. [1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 [2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances.  [1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11  [2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007,


It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence  In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained.


All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard.


human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise

The ICC does not offer lasting peace to victims, but can instead re-open old wounds. 'It is by no means clear that 'justice' as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes' argues John Bolton. The ICC deals with individual criminals and specific crimes in a vacuum, it is unable to appreciate the, albeit paradoxical, notion that it may be in the best interests of the resolution of conflict for the perpetrators to go unpunished and victims to forego reparations. 'Circumstances differ, and circumstances matter'1 the ICC in offering lasting peace to victims of war crimes is unable to weigh the circumstances in the manner of an ad hoc tribunal tailored to the specific conflict.  1 Bolton, J. (2002, November 12). The United States and the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from


The ICC offers justice to victims of war crimes.  The ICC offers a multilateral means by which international law can be brought to bear on the perpetrators of war crimes. As Amnesty International argues, 'the ICC ensures that those who commit serious human rights violations are held accountable. Justice helps promote lasting peace, enables victims to rebuild their lives and sends a strong message that perpetrators of serious international crimes will not go unpunished'. Furthermore, and for the first time, the ICC has the power to order a criminal to pay reparations to a victim who has suffered as a result of their crimes. Such reparations may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. Judges are able to order such reparations whether the victims have been able to apply for them or not. Though reparations will often not be sufficient on their own for lasting peace, they are a step in the right direction and only made possible by the establishment of the ICC.


The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to 'asymmetric challenges' to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC.


The ICC allows for the prosecution of war criminals.  Law-abiding states like the United States that have yet to ratify the ICC should have nothing to fear if they behave lawfully. The Prosecutor of the ICC is only concerned with the most grave offences and it defies belief that the US would approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that could attract the jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the discretion of the Prosecutor is not unchecked. The Statute requires that the approval of three judges sitting in a pre-trial chamber be obtained before an arrest warrant can be issued or proceedings initiated. Moreover, there is no harm to the interests of the US in being subjected to a mere preliminary investigation. In fact, it is preferable that spurious accusations are briefly examined and shown to be baseless, than that these accusations be allowed to raise doubts about the credibility of a State's actions and the impartiality of the Tribunal in question. The US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is evident ; the US troops forming part of the KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo could equally be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICTY. The US is prepared for its forces to operate under the scrutiny of the ICTY since it reasonably does not expect its members to commit the very crimes they are deployed to prevent.


The ICC's ability to prosecute war criminals is both overstated and simplistic. It has no force of its own, and must rely on its member states to hand over criminals wanted for prosecution. This leads to cases like that of Serbia, where wanted war criminals like Ratko Mladic are believed to have been hidden with the complicity of the regime until finally handed over in 2011. The absence of a force or any coercive means to bring suspects to trial also leads to situations like that in Libya, whereby Colonel Gaddafi is wanted by the ICC but the prosecution's case is germane if he manages his grip on power. Furthermore, it relies on external funding to operate, and can only sustain cases so long as financial support exists to see them through.


The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law.  Upon signing the Rome Statute in 1996, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that 'the establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law'1. Such statements demonstrate the impact the Court could potentially have, as a body that simultaneously cherishes sovereignty and protects national courts whilst offering a means by which criminals in states unable or unwilling to prosecute will still be brought to justice. As the natural and permanent heir to the process started at Nuremberg in the wake of World War II2, the ICC ensures that the reach of law is now universal; war criminals, either in national or international courts, will be forced to trial as a result of the principle of universal jurisdiction1. The deterrent effect of such a court is obvious and a warning to those who felt they were operating in anarchic legal environments.  1 Amnesty International. (2007, September). Fact Sheet: International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011  2 Crossland, D. (2005, November 23). Nuremberg Trials a Tough Act to Follow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Spiegel International


The ICC does not have too much authority, merely the necessary authority to be useful as an institution. It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law, the ICC's existence will not alter that nor lead to charges for legitimate actions. It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for bona fide reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the service member of a State seeking to protect the population. Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms.


The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.  1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine:


It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial.  The ICC may well lead to the political prosecution of war criminals, but that is not necessarily the most effective means to peace, or lasting peace for victims. As U.S. policy papers have pointed out, despots like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein did not consult lawyers over potential legal ramifications before they committed their respective human rights violations1. Furthermore, the impact on an oppressed population of a long, protracted trial of their fallen dictator is not always therapeutic for it can dredge up events of particularly melancholic qualities and grants the dictator a platform to continue his psychological control over his population.  1 Elsea, J. K. (2006). U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court. Congressional Research Service, p. 22.


The ICC fails to prevent atrocities.  The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague. The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes.


The novel crime of aggression leads to the prosecution of those seeking to protect human rights.  The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of 'aggression' under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory.


The ICC has too much authority.  The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American service members and senior military and political strategists will be subject to charges for legitimate military action. Any State has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor also has the power to commence an investigation ex proprio motu. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the phantom of political prosecution has already materialised in the preliminary investigation mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the course of 'Operation Allied Force'. The Prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the ex post facto support of the Security Council, and that had been directed against a military infrastructure effecting a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. This grim precedent suggests that a Prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate any other good faith and successful military actions across the globe.


It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start.