The Empty Chair Crisis 1965  In 1965 during the Empty Chair Crisis brought integration came to a halt and shifted the institutional balance of power away from the commission to the Council of Ministers, it shows that spillover will not always occur. [1] It was caused by President de Gaulle of France being in conflict with other member states, specifically Germany and Italy. France wanted a deal on the Common Agricultural Policy but was unwilling to agree to further integration through creating majority voting in the Council of Ministers. When France took on the Presidency the normal system of mediation was lost. Bonn and Rome were unwilling to give way. [2] De Gaulle pulled his ministers out of the Council of Ministers thus reasserting the power of national governments. This showed that states would not automatically be prepared to give up their national sovereignty and might of helped lead to the abandonment of Neo-functionalism in the 1970s.  [1] Moga, Teodor Lucian, ‘The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009 pp.796-807,  , p.799  [2] Ludlow, N. Piers, ‘De-commissioning the Empty Chair Crisis : the Community institutions and the crisis of 1965-6’, LSE Research Online, 2007,


nomic policy economy general international europe philosophy political

The assumption of the automaticity of Spill-over is wrong.  The core of Neo-functionalism that spill-over being the main driving force behind continuing integration assumed the automaticity of integration. Once integration has started it will be a self-continuing force that will eventually integrate the whole of Europe - is clearly wrong. Supranational functionalism 'assumed first, that national sovereignty, already devalued by events, could be chewed up leaf by leaf like an artichoke'. [1] The functional method of spill-over is very limited, its success in the relatively painless area in which it works relatively well lifts the participants to the level of issues to which it does not apply well any more. For example no common defence or foreign policy within the community project has been successful. This failure in high politics is fundamental, without a coordinated foreign and security policy the role of the EU in the world is open to question. Opposition too much further enlargement reduces the role the EU can play outside the union unless a common foreign policy can be agreed. [2]  [1] Hoffmann, S. ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe.’, Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1966, pp. 862-915, p882  [2] Pabst, Adrian, ‘The EU as a Security/Defence Community?’, Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, 2/3 July 2004,


Neo-functionalism has a liberal view of the international system; whereby agreements can be easily reached.  Actually the European Union has proven the exact opposite of the statement – “Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender” as they give more and more power to the united institutions of the European Union – the European Commission and the European Parliament. The most recent treaty, the Lisbon treaty, proves this as it gives more rights to the EU on account of national power Lisbon’ gives the European Parliament a much greater say in the EU’s decision-making process, it reduced national vetos, created a president and a representative for foreign affairs. [1]  [1] Europa, ‘Treaty of Lisbon: The Treaty at a glance’, Europa.eu,


Intergovernmentalism too has proved 'out of date'. It fails to pay enough attention to supranational institutions; its focus is too exclusively on big treaty negotiations and fails to understand to increasing importance of economic issues. Intergovernmentalism as a theory collapses in the view of actual integration taking place: the revival of integration from mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s Intergovernmentalism was supplanted by 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism' from the scholar Andrew Moravcsik in his work 'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach' (1993). [1]  [1] Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies (30th Anniversary Edition) (December 1993).


eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.  It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a) a trial occurs and b) jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.


Not only is trial by jury a very important check on the justice system, but evidence also suggests that juries are fair and effective. First of all, as explained in the Opparguments, trial by jury is an extremely important check in the criminal justice system. Eliminating it would be a grave threat to justice. But second, to address the more practical concerns raised by the Proposition, studies actually suggest that juries are fair and effective. Recent UK Ministry of Justice research found that juries tend to be objective and non-biased, and that cases based on the strongest evidence are also those cases resulting in the highest conviction rates.1  1Cheryl Thomas, "Are Juries Fair?"


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where it is impossible to recruit an impartial jury.  Especially in cases of nationalist conflict or terrorist attacks, it may be extremely difficult to have a non-biased jury. In Northern Island, for example, jurors may sympathize with violent offenders and acquit them despite a preponderance of evidence. Similarly, it can be a struggle to appoint non-biased juries for terrorism trials post 9/11. In 2003, the "Lackwana Six" were accused of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. The magistrate noted that "Understandably, the infamous, dastardly and tragic deeds and events of September 11, 2001 have caused a maelstrom of human emotions to ... create a human reservoir of strong emotional feelings such as fear, anxiety and hatred as well as a feeling of paranoia... These are strong emotions of a negative nature which, if not appropriately checked, cause the ability of one to properly reason to ... be blinded." Questions about jury impartiality have been raised in multiple similar cases, even leading some defendants to claim that they pled guilty out of resignation that the jury would inevitably be biased and refuse to acquit.1 The implication is that in some trials, juries may be unable to make impartial decisions, thus making the trial unfair. The only way for justice to be done, in such cases, is to allow a judge to decide the verdict.  1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues.  There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members (see Argument 2 for more detail). Second, terrorism may politicize the jury (see Argument 3 for more detail). Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


First, eliminating trial by jury may make other countries less willing to cooperate with us, reducing the amount of information we have about international terrorism. For example, the United States’ decision to eliminate juries from terrorism trials resulted in other countries being more reluctant to cooperate (e.g. Germany delayed the extradition of two suspected terrorists because of that decision). Second, eliminating trial by jury gives the democratic countries less of a moral high ground in advocating that other countries – often countries from which terrorists come – adopt liberal democratic structures (something which already established liberal democracies generally regard as being in their self interest). Third, refusing to grant trial by jury to suspected terrorists may make other countries less willing to grant our own citizens fair trials when they are abroad.


First, there are checks in place to help prevent biased decisions and second, the less objective nature of juries is not necessarily bad. First, in most jury systems, a judge can overturn a guilty verdict if s/he believes that the jury made a faulty decision1. Judges can also order retrials in cases of guilty verdicts, if they believe there were procedural errors. Furthermore, in most countries there is a phase of the jury selection process in which both the prosecution and defence can object to a juror; in many countries each side gets a specific number of these unconditional 'peremptory challenges.' That allows blatantly biased jurors to be excluded. Perhaps most importantly, at least with juries there are multiple people making the decision, as opposed to a sole judge: there is no reason to assume that a lone judge will be less biased, just because of his 'professional training.' But second, having a subjective body making the decision is not necessarily bad. We obviously don't want people to be swayed by unchecked prejudices, but one of the points of having a jury is that it allows all parts of the community to participate in the judicial process and provide input that disconnected and often homogenous government officials cannot. For example, the Diplock courts established in 1970s Northern Ireland eliminated juries, and along with them, jury bias. This resulted in higher conviction rates for violent offenders, but also had the negative effect of excluding the Catholic minority from the administration of justice (and judge bias remained, as evidence by the failure of the courts to eliminate the gap between Catholic and Protestant conviction rates).2  1Andrew D. Stine, P.A. "Can a Judge Overturn a Jury Vedict?"  2Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


Trial by jury is too important to sacrifice it for the sake of efficiency. As explained in the Opposition case, trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of just democratic courts. There are other ways to free up resources: perhaps if we put fewer people in prison we could spend more time and money ensuring that the right people got there. As Judge McQuillan wrote, "dedication, hard work, planning and resources are the means for dealing effectively and rationally with calendar delays."1  1Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"


Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"


Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources.  Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done.  1.  )  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes"


First, juries are not necessarily fairer or more just than judges, and second, even if trial by jury is an important right, that does not make it an unlimited one. First, there are reasons to believe that juries are less suited than judges to make criminal convictions. See Prop Argument 5 for more detail. But second, even if we do not want to eliminate trial by jury, there are still particular circumstances where it makes most sense to defer to such judges' authority, as we explained in the Prop case. There are already plenty of checks to protect the innocent: for example most systems have right to appeal clauses, safeguards against double jeopardy, presumption of innocence etc. While juries may generally present an added benefit, we believe there are circumstances where having a jury presents too many concerns for it to be a viable option.


Trial by jury is not necessary to uphold principles of justice. As stated in response to Opp Argument 1, there are plenty of other checks in favour of the defence. We do not agree that removing trial by jury erodes at this principle: trial by jury may be important, but a judge can still presume innocence, treat evidence fairly etc. If juries are not necessary to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then removing them in specific circumstances should not undermine the integrity and justness of the court. Again, we often do not have trial by jury in the case of petty offences, suggesting that this right is not regarded as absolute.


Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people.  Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases.  1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification?  2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification


Limiting trial by jury in some cases sets the stage for limiting it in other, unjustified, cases.  Humans are fallible, and so sometimes it is better to have absolute rules against certain actions, even if we recognize that in a perfect world, it might be better to allow such actions in very specific circumstances.1 It is for this reason, for example, that we never allow evidence obtained by illegal measures to be presented in court, even though such evidence would sometimes make it possible to convict. Similarly, even if removing trial by jury might be good in individual circumstances, it is too great a power to give to a fallible government which may misuse that authority. If there is a precedent of the right to trial by jury being removed in some circumstances, even if that removal is justified, it becomes much easier for corrupt governments to remove it for unjustified reasons, and it becomes correspondingly more difficult for us to condemn that decision as illegitimate.  1Brad Hooker, "Rule Consequentialism"


Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged.  Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3  1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial”


Protections offered in a court must be absolute in order for the court to be just.  A just adversarial court system is premised on absolutes: that the defence has certain absolute rights which check it against government corruption, and which ensure fair trials even at the expense of conviction. Indeed, it is for this reason that we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. The protections in place that ensure fair trials must always be upheld, or else the guarantee of fairness no longer exists. If the government can sometimes remove this right, even in clearly delineated circumstances, then the right is no longer absolute, and the presumption in favour of the defence is far weaker, undermining the justness of the entire system.


If the situations in which trial by jury can be limited are clearly delineated, governments cannot justify limiting it in unjustified circumstances. Saying that the government can sometimes limit trial by jury is not equivalent to giving it a pass to do so whenever it chooses. Obviously there would need to be clear criteria as to when the government could use its power to remove a jury: factors such as the level of security threat posed by the trial, the magnitude of the crime, the imminence of danger etc. would all need to be considered. Perhaps there could be an extra-governmental body to approve such decisions. It is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that allowing the removal of trial by jury in some cases will lead to the erosion of that right in general. Indeed, many countries already do limit the right to serious, as opposed to petty crimes, and the Opp has not presented any evidence that doing so has had negative results.


Jury nullification is a bad thing, and just another reason why trial by jury is not always the best way to deliver justice. When juries nullify, they bypass the electoral process, invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections. This is unjust, because it means that a small, random group of individuals can ignore laws which have been approved by the majority of society. Even if a juror believes a law to be unjust, it is integral that he enforce that law, because that law represents the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. If a law is truly unjust, there are better avenues to change it: voting in new legislators, legally protesting, appealing the law in court etc. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that jury nullification will be used to protect rights; indeed racist juries frequently acquitted KKK members in the 1950s and 60s.1 The fact that there is no way to prevent jury nullification without forcing juries to justify their decisions (which would violate the principle that juries must be allowed to deliberate secretly) is just another reason why juries may not be the best way to deliver justice. 1Hiroshi Fukurai and Richard Krooth, "Race in the Jury Box"


political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be

Terrorism, in the long term, has far less chances of success than other, peaceful means. It antagonises and angers the community that it targets. It polarises opinion and makes it more difficult for moderates on both sides to prevail and compromise. A lasting and peaceful settlement can only be won with the freely given consent of both parties to a conflict or disagreement. The examples given in this argument are of countries and areas that still counter much instability, and in countries such as Israel and Palestine a sustainable peaceful solution still seems far away. Moreover, the Oslo peace process is the result of long-term, diplomatic efforts on an international scale, and terrorism does not seem to have contributed directly to this process.


Terrorism can lead to discussion  In some cases, terrorism can result in the acknowledgement of certain groups. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. [1]  [1] Palestine Facts. (n.d.). Details of the Oslo Accords. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Palestine Facts:


Not all attention that follows terrorism is positive. After the 9/11 attacks, aid workers in Afghanistan were forced to cut off food supplies in the country, even though 7 to 8 million civilians were dependent on them. [1] The kind of terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones, and they are likely to be met with reactions of disgust and grief. This means that the international community is less likely to sympathize with their cause, which results in less support.  [1] Chomsky, N. (2001, October 18). Terrorism Works. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Media Monitors Network:


Consequentialism  Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. [1]  [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:


Legitimacy  In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.  Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place.  For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was:  “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [1]  [1] African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress:


Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. If this cannot happen inside the state, there are international courts such as the International Criminal Court in the The Hague, which handle cases such as war crimes and oppression. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering.


The end does not justify the means. Even in cases of oppression, it is better to persecute your interest through non-violent and legal means. There may be cases where only an act of terror will lead to a direct improvement of overall utility, but these cases are very rare. Often terrorist attacks are performed by extremist groups who have views that differ from the majority of the community they claim to represent. Most people prefer non-violent means, and the repercussions of violent terrorist acts, such as the invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban, will largely worsen the position of the marginalized in society.


States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be "justified" in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited "physical force" is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The "hard men" who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.


Terrorism can bring attention  Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world. [1] States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact.  [1] Tristam, P. (n.d.). The 1970 Palestinian Hijackings of Three Jets to Jordan. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from About.com:


Terrorism is relative  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.  A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?  There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.


In extreme cases, communities already live in very poor conditions, and terrorism can bring attention to their cause and provide an escape of their situation. By bringing attention to the poor conditions people are living in, and the oppression a community is suffering, you provide an opportunity for improvement. It can be that their condition can worsen on the short term, but that is justified if this means that there is a solution to their suffering on the long term.


In extreme cases, it is justified to harm others. It can be argued that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes that their government commits, because they support the regime by paying tax. Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions. [1]  Secondly, attacks on authorities can get rid of dictators or repressive regimes. Thirdly, commodities such as infrastructure can be used by the government for the promotion of certain groups and to marginalize others. During South African Apartheid, townships were created where black people were forced to live, and which had very little amenities, while the areas where white people lived had much better provisions. [2]  [1] Laden, O. B. (2002, November 24). Letter to America. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Observer:   [2] SouthAfrica.info. (n.d.). Tackling Apartheid. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from SouthAfrica.info:


Terrorism creates a negative abusable portrayal  Acts of terror will not lead to a deeper mutual understanding, but to alienation from the international community. People see acts of violence as a threat, and especially in the context of international terrorists attacks, the fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are open to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favour of the oppressing state, that has much more resources to spread its message. Not only can it say it uses violence against these terrorists groups to defend itself, but it can also paint an image of the terrorists as irrational, violent creatures. This plays easily into existing stereotypes of non-Westeners as being violent. In order to counter this scenario, it is wiser to resort to non-violent actions. This has the benefit of conveying a very clear message to the outside world that the people protesting are the victims, and not the perpetrators. For instance, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi were known for their civil disobedience and their political messages that went against the norm, but because of the peaceful nature of his protest, he was able to attract a lot of positive attention and followers. [1]  [1] BBC News. (1998, January 29). The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:


Corrupt states  States or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. Terrorist organisations have often a military and violent character. The sort of people who attracted to committing acts of terror often glorify illegitimate acts of violence and justify the possible harm done to civilians by proving their complicity or the outcome of the actions. More precisely, they have only the interest of their ideology or the minority they are supporting. When these people are put in a position of power, they are likely to follow the same lines as before, especially when they do not have a political background. They are likely to be ignorant of how political processes work, and will appoint people that have the ideology in other powerful positions. This will make the whole political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. As a result, level of corruption could rise, and in extreme cases people with other opinions can be persecuted. Iran went from a Westernizing state to an Islamic one, and is now hostile to dissidents. [1]  [1] BBC News. (2012). Iran Profile, Retrieved 17 February 2012 from BBC News:


Exacerbation of poor conditions  Terrorism creates a perpetual situation of poverty and anxiety within the community. Terrorism creates an unsafe situation for the local community, which has several consequences: firstly, people are less able to continue their daily actions, such as going to work or school of they are afraid of attacks. Secondly, people are less likely to save or to take risks such as setting up a business when they are uncertain about the their future. Thirdly, international companies are less likely to set up business in a location which is seen as unstable, and with the local market which has little to spend. This all lead to a continuation of poor conditions where many people live in poverty and anxiety, and see little opportunity than continuing the violence themselves. In Northern Ireland, the political violence which is present, combined with the high rates of poverty, creates a vicious circle where the unstable situation is continued. [1]  [1] Horgan, G. (2011, July 12). Equality of misery? Poverty and political violence in Northern Ireland. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Politico:


Harm to others is never legitimate  Even in cases of suppression and deprivation of human rights, it is not justified to harm others outside the law. Considering acts of terror, there are three possible targets: civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities and their representatives, and structures such as (government) buildings, cars etc. without any causalities. In the case of the first, it is illegitimate to kill innocent civilians because not only have these people not contributed to the terrorists' marginalization, which means that hurting them will not undo the cause of harm, but this also perpetuates the harm that was the cause for violence in the first place. In the case of the second target, the attack on authorities responsible for the marginalization might be removed in some cases (if there is one), but it more often results in backlash where supporters of the authorities act against the insurgents, resulting in more harm. This happened with the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerilla war with over 30.000 causalities. [1] Thirdly, attacking the infrastructure of a country means disabling the population for accessing their basic capacities such as accessing healthcare by destroying roads or hospitals. Regarding the fact that the population is innocent in the crimes of the government, this is unnecessary and harmful for the whole population.  [1] Washington Post. (1999). Who Are the Kurds? Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Washington Post:


States or institutions created in concession to terror can work, if the process of creation is handled with care and is done with the interests of the whole population at heart. It is true that some terrorist organisations have no political experience, but some have, and these organisations should have a say in the political process, in corporation with representatives of other groups. Modern South Africa is a state created as a result of terrorism, yet it is not a state that would be accused of conducting a violent foreign policy or excessive internal repression, especially when compared to other parts of the continent.


Terrorism can bring attention to certain causes and bring discussion. Images of violence will make much more of an impact than those of peaceful protest. With the modern media, the power of oppressive states to hide or twist the truth has significantly diminished, as anyone with a cellphone can tell their story. Also, with people taking their faith in their own hands, acts of terror such as sabotage can be seen as clever and resourceful.


ights punishment philosophy ethics life house believes capital punishment

States in the Global North already deal with other states with capital punishment in the Global North. Broader based changes to criminal justice system would be needed - if it is desirable for states to make those changes in the first place.  The solution for extradition is clear - diplomatic assurances before extradition that capital punishment will not be sought.


Justice co-operation  Crime does not stop at national borders. Therefore efforts to fight crime cannot, either. A country that abolishes capital punishment will be in a much better position to cooperate on justice issues internationally.  Many states, particularly ones in the Global North, have policies of not extraditing people to jeopardy of capital punishment. Not only could more people be extradited, foreign states may be more willing to provide broader based assistance and co-operation if they see that a state has made steps forward in criminal justice policy.  Some states have a policy of not extraditing to states where there is a risk of capital punishment: a particular clause on this is included in the US-Mexico extradition treaty, and it is the position of the European Court of Human Rights. [1]  [1] Soering v United Kingdom - available at


It should be for a state to independently determine its criminal justice policy. At any rate, there are some developed states that maintain capital punishment; they are hardly likely to impose diplomatic penalties on other states that do the same.  Capital punishment also doesn’t stop states being seen positively. Despite having even worse human rights violations (if you consider capital punishment as a human rights violation) - the US and US-aligned nations in Europe have very strong and positive relations with Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi Arabia’s gender segregation and lack of religious and political freedom.


Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,


If anything, abolition could be a seen as a distraction of progress. Even in retentionist criminal justice systems, only a small number of those who go through the criminal justice system are sentenced to death or executed. Behind the smokescreen of reform, things can be hidden. While Russia abolished capital punishment shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, politically motivated prosecutions continue, such as those of the members of Pussy Riot.  As for the rankings, correlation is not causation.


Diplomatic relations  European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments. [1]  This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences [2] .  [1] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011,   [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014,


A human rights violation, however many people it happens to, is a human rights violation. Capital punishment is the ultimate human rights violation.


Those well trodden arguments lead to an anti death penalty position, not a pro death penalty one. Deterrence cannot be measured, mistakes are made too often and issues of punishment (if punishment, rather than rehabilitation or incapacitation is a legitimate goal of a justice system, which it is not) are different between cultures. Evidence on cost shows it is more expensive than prison in the Global North.  With regards to crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court - the world’s leading authority on international criminal law - does not use capital punishment. Neither did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.


African values  Human rights are a concept that take on different conclusions and priorities when applied in different cultural contexts. Protecting the community as a whole, by removing dangerous offenders from circulation, and by a deterrence effect, capital punishment is a manifestation of a form of “African Values” that place more emphasis on the community over the individual than western legal tradition. Capital Punishment has traditionally used for the most serious crimes such as murder as well as some serious religious offenses which it was feared might bring serious consequences for the entire community. [1]  [1] Balogun, Oladele Abiodun, ‘A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional African Legal Culture: The Yoruba Example’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September 2009,  , p.47


Particular need in Africa  Capital punishment for particularly dangerous offenders is a practical solution for African nations with low quality prison systems, which, through either deliberate policy or basic underfunding, can have poor conditions, or poor security. In 2013, over a thousand prisoners escaped from a prison near Benghazi in Libya [1] . A similar escape with particularly dangerous offenders would be dangerous - a corpse can’t escape.  [1] Zway, Suliman Ali, “Amid protests, Inmates escape from Libyan prison”, New York Times, 27 July 2013,


Capital punishment is a comparatively small issue  Whatever the merits, capital punishment in Africa is a small issue. Capital punishment opponents should focus on China, which uses capital punishment in a secretive manner for all variety of offences and executes far more people than the rest of the world put together. [1]  If Western human rights groups genuinely want to improve human rights in Africa, there are a myriad of issues that affect many more people relating to good governance, political rights and socio-economic rights, rather than just focusing on a small number of individuals, generally convicted of particularly serious criminal offences.  [1] ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2012’, Amnesty International, April 2013,  , p.6


“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally  The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice. [1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa [2] .  Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for.  [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” -   [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012,


Practicality is not an excuse - capital punishment is still a human rights violation, whatever the circumstances.  The Libya prison escape, of course, was an unusual case - it was during a civil war.


The idea of a unified “African values” is as manifestly absurd as unified “European values”, or the “Asian values” used as an excuse by anti-democratic leaders such as Matahir Mohamed and Lee Kuan Kew, (heads of government of Malaysia and Singapore respectively in the 1980s), to reject political freedoms.  Even so, capital punishment can be seen as opposed to the “African value” of ubuntu - a broader concept of treating people with humanity. Religious leaders are often also against, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria described capital punishment as savagery and expressed its desire to join the “civilised world in ending the death penalty”. [1]  [1] Uduma, Uche, ‘Nigeria: Much Ado About the Return of Death Penalty’, Leadership, 14 July 2013,


international law philosophy political philosophy politics government house believes

The wrongs of colonial powers are by now far in the past. The great majority of people living in former colonies, or indigenous peoples in countries like the US or Australia, have no experience of that time and have not been directly affected by the injustices of colonialism. Making sure that everyone in society has equal rights and opportunities is nothing to do with self-determination.  improve this  Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.


Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.  In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes.


The principle of self-determination might seem a straightforward one but in practice it is rarely that simple.Firstly, in many countries, majority and minority groups live side-by-side, rather than in distinct territories. Upholding the right of such a minority to self-determination may not be possible without affecting the rights of the other inhabitants of that area. This damage might be direct – for example, if the people of Catalonia decide to secede from Spain, what will happen to the Spanish inhabitants of Catalonia? – or it may be indirect, as in the example of Palestine, whose independence has long been resisted by Israel on the grounds that it would constitute a threat to Israeli security.  Second, it is often difficult to agree, particularly in disputed areas, who falls under the definition of a “native” whose right to self-determination must be respected. For example, should people in Ireland have a say over the future of Northern Ireland, given that most of them consider it an integral part of their own country? Does the right of self-determination for Israelis extend to Jews who live in other countries, given that they have the right to settle in that nation if they choose to? Does it extend to non-Jewish Israelis, and if not, why not? These questions are hard to answer neutrally; to answer them involves making difficult judgements.


Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.  Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations.  For example, Australian government policy for many decades was to ignore Aboriginal rights, denying them full citizenship1 and removing children from their homes and relocating them with white families (the so-called "stolen generation"2). As a result many indigenous Australians no longer have a strong link to their native cultures and languages. The same is arguably true in places like Tibet, where traditional culture is being diluted over time through the deliberate policy of the Chinese government.  1 See "Collaborating for Indigenous Rights", National Museum of Australia 2 "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families", Australia Human Rights Commission, April 1997.


Forcible assimilation, as in the Australian case cited, is clearly wrong, but that does not mean that we should abandon the goal of integrating minorities into society without forfeiting their cultural, racial or religious differences. Placing undue importance on the right to self-determination may make such situations worse. Furthermore, in some situations, governments manipulate the idea of self-determination to suit their own ends. Many governments have pursued a policy of sending settlers from the majority race or religion into minority-dominated areas and then point at the difficulty of allowing such areas to implement political reforms or secede without massive social upheaval.  One example of this is Tibet, where the Chinese government has strongly encouraged ethnic Han Chinese settlers to relocate to that province with the aim of gradually reducing the impact and strength of Tibetan demands for self-government1.  1 Hessler, Peter. "Tibet through Chinese eyes", The Atlantic, February 1999.


It is true that many modern states have somewhat artificial or arbitrary boundaries. However, this applies to some or other extent to all states everywhere in the world; indeed, the nation state as we know it is a relatively modern construct, and no nation state is completely ethnically or culturally homogenous. There are certainly places in the world where minorities are oppressed, but insisting on self-determination as a universal human right often merely encourages separatism, racial tension and conflict.  Furthermore, self-determination is often used by states as a casus belli and used to justify interference in neighbour's affairs and even invasion – as in the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008, ostensibly over the treatment of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia 1, or Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 on the pretext that ethnic Germans in that area should belong to the German Reich 2. If we place too much emphasis on the importance of self-determination in all situations it may lead to worse international relations, not better. At any rate, it has not helped us solve problems in places such as Kashmir or the Falklands, which are still disputed.  Additionally, self-determination may not help us in cases such as that of the Falklands, where almost all the inhabitants are of British descent, since Argentina argues that they are in effect illegal settlers who have no right to be there in the first place.  Finally, the broader international context may mean that other interests or legal agreements must take precedence. For example, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 not out of any desire of Hong Kong Chinese to self-determination but simply because Britain’s 99-year lease on the bulk of the territory was due to expire.  1 Cornell, Svante: “War in Georgia, Jitters All Round”, Current History, October 2008.   2 “Sudetenland”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011.


Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.  Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements.  1 Western Sahara Case, 1975 International Court of Justice 12, 31. 2Critescu, A. and GrosEspiell, H. "The Right to Self-determination", United Nations, 1980 (not online, but widely cited


Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.  Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation.  Allowing ethnic or religious groups self-determination may help to reverse the harmful effect of artificial, poorly-drawn borders. If self-determination is universally accepted (and applied) by the international community as a key principle in such disputes, they may in future be easier to resolve.  Two examples; Kashmir, which straddles the line of partition drawn up by the British when granting independence to India and Pakistan in 19471; and the Falkland Islands, which are the object of dispute between the UK and Argentina, including a brief war in 19822. History, law geography all offer competing and incompatible views of who should rightfully own these territories. If we recognise the principle of self-determination as key, however, it is clear that it is the view of the inhabitants that should decide its future. Indeed, if this principle is ignored, such disputes will rumble on for many years to come.  1 "Kashmir: Run-up to Partition", Globalsecurity.org 2 "Falklands/Malvinas War",Globalsecurity.org For the Falkland Islanders' view of self-determination, see Falkland Island Government website, "Falklands call on UN Committee to uphold right to self-determination",


In many cass, it is not self-determination that causes tensions, but the lack of opportunity for minorities to choose their own future. Conflicts and civil wars generally take place not because people want self-determination but because they are not allowed it. In the Yugoslav example, if the Milosevic government had recognised the right of the country's component ethnic groups to self-determination, rather than seeking forcibly to suppress it, then there would have been no armed conflict. In contrast, by the time Montenegro sought to secede from Serbia, the now-democratic Serb government accepted their right to do so, and the split was carried out without bloodshed1.  1 "Montenegro declares independence", BBC News, 4 June 2006.


Minorities are often economically disadvantaged and politically marginalised; formal guarantees of equal rights, even where they exist, do not necessarily translate into real opportunities for citizens. And respect for individual rights, as important as it is, does not address issues of concern to the entire community, such as the teaching of minority languages in school, provision of facilities for religious worship, and so on. The best way to improve the situation of these minority populations is by respecting and promoting their right to self-determination. If not, they will remain second-class citizens in their own countries.


The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.  Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture.  For example, EU citizens enjoy many common rights, common European citizenship, freedom of movement between member states and so on. Minorities who fifty years ago might have taken up arms to "free" themselves from an oppressive nation state – such as Catholics in Northern Ireland – don’t need to do this now, because they have new rights against discrimination, guaranteed and enforced by international treaty.


Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.  If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country.


What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.  Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1.  1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011.


Many minorities live in states where international human rights law is applied inconsistently or indeed not at all. It may not make a life-changing difference to a French-speaking Belgian which side of the France – Belgium border they happen to be born, but to a Palestinian in the West Bank or a Tamil in Sri Lanka, their right to self-determination is absolutely crucial, because other rights may well be denied to them through direct or indirect state discrimination.  It is relatively easy for states to explain away individual human rights breaches, since these occur in all nations from time to time. It is much harder for them to justify denying an entire people their right to determine their own futures.


law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence

This is only an objection to particular cases of suicide; it cannot be made into a general case because some suicides really do only affect the individual – those in which there is no extended family or friendship group. And that an act is, on occasion, selfish is not sufficient grounds to prohibit it. Indeed, ostracising one’s friends or walking out on one’s family can upset people but we are hardly likely to deny people the liberty to make such individual, private life choices. Nobody has the right to force people to live in circumstances that cause them unhappiness. Suicide should be viewed in exactly the same way.  Moreover it should be remembered that an attempt to prosecute survivors or in some way to punish relatives of those who succeed is clearly not going to help leaving grieving relatives in a worse position. [1]  [1] Holt, ‘When Suicide was illegal’, 2011


Suicide is a selfish act that causes suffering to others  Suicide is an entirely selfish act that causes immense pain and suffering for those loved ones that are left behind. It is also cowardly; rather than facing your problems and being strong, you instead take the easy way out and kill yourself. It is important, therefore, to instil a strong sense of responsibility to one’s family and for one’s affairs and to do this by punishing those who try and fail to perpetrate this selfish and cowardly act.


Society can perfectly well spread the message that suicide is not a valid life choice without criminalizing and punishing those that have tried and failed to perpetrate it. Moreover, we have grave doubts about the practical use of anti-suicide legislation. It is highly dubious that people who are driven to contemplate suicide will be dissuaded by the knowledge that they would be breaking the law. The spectre of punishment only awaits those who fail to commit suicide. These people have already decided that their lives are not worth living; branding them criminal and punishing them is hardly likely to make them reconsider their decision.


Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,


The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted


Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity.


Prohibiting suicide sends the message that it is not an acceptable behaviour  Individual action is shaped by what norms and standards are set by society. By prohibiting suicide, society sends out a message that it is not an acceptable action. Legislation is a useful social tool, in that it proscribes the limits of individual action. And by failing to prohibit suicide, society fails to add the ultimate sanction of its laws into the balance of any decision whether or not to commit suicide. Many of those who have tried and failed to commit suicide never attempt it again. This suggests that many who kill themselves do so because of their particular short-term circumstances, perhaps while ill, suffering financial problems or under emotional stress, rather than through a considered and rational decision. More than 30% of suicides are precipitated by intimate partner problems, more than 10% by jobs problems and 10% by financial problems. [1] Given this, even a small deterrent will help to save many lives that are currently wasted needlessly.  [1] Canters for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Suicide: Data Sources’, 26 August 2011,


Suicide undermines the sanctity of the human body  Like abortion, euthanasia, cloning and genetic engineering, suicide undermines the sanctity and inviolability of the human body. It is legitimate to legislate against such actions because the sanctity of the human body is an intrinsic constituent part of the respect for human dignity, which is the sine qua non of social life in any country.


The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.


The law and is to protect the state and the people from each other and to help guide people into making the right decisions for the whole of society. The important thing is that society should make a stand for what it believes is right and against what it believes is wrong. And suicide is clearly a wrongful, misguided and wasteful act from the point of view of society and the state.


The right to life means a right to death  When we speak of the right to life it means more than merely the right to be alive, it encompasses the right to self-ownership, the notion that one’s life is one’s own and that you are not beholden to anyone else by the mere fact that you are alive. It follows from this that there can be no duty on anyone to live beyond a point of their own choosing, and there should be no attempt to interfere with suicidal behaviour whether by individuals or by the law. [1]  [1] Chobli, Michael, ‘Suicide’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward n. Zalta (ed.), Fall 2009,


We are all dying  Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die. Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes. We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice?


This is not the role of the criminal law  Criminal legislation is not the vehicle for society’s pronouncements on questions of how one should live one’s life. It instead involves the entirely practical exercise of ensuring that individuals are able to live freely and enjoy their freedom without fear of external interferences like theft, violence or murder. Criminal legislation should guarantee a safe space for autonomous individual action - like suicide.


The right to life is a positive protection against the state extinguishing that right and is limited largely to that context. A person can no more choose to give up their right to life than they can choose to give up their right to freedom from slavery.


rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting

It is accepted as a position of international criminal law that head of state immunity does not apply before international tribunals [1] . Any such immunity that Kenya had was waived by them joining the ICC, which they did voluntarily.  Even so, just because someone has a position of power does not mean they should have impunity from liability for very serious crimes.  [1] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), 14 February 2002,


Head of state immunity  Traditionally, heads of state have had immunity in foreign courts. This is for the normal functioning of diplomacy – so heads of state can engage in business at other states and travel to summits without the risk of harassment by vexatious claims in foreign courts, or foreign governments trying to attack the decisions of other governments in their own courts.  The ICC trying sitting heads of state would set a terrible precedent of a method of regime change – not even by foreign militaries, but by the ICC prosecutor. Regimes should change according to democratic mandate not foreign courts.


A previous Kenyan government, operating with a democratic mandate, ratified the Rome Statute. Therefore, there is no interference with Kenyan sovereignty: a Kenyan government legally and lawfully submitted Kenya to the jurisdiction of the ICC.  Besides, a “democratic mandate” would not stop the prosecution of a prosecution of someone for an offence committed prior to getting into office, which is what happened in Kenya. Neither is a “democratic mandate” a defence to perform crimes against humanity either in or out of office.


A delay is necessary for national security  Kenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals [1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps [2] .  Kenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa.  It is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial.  [1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011   [2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News,


Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink.  Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.


Interferes with a democratic mandate  Unlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters” [1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court.  This must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court.  [1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report,


Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,


Not every defendant is a head of state. While justice should aim to treat all defendants alike, there are some cases where things have to be changed in order to allow states to function.


Kenya needs the trial now  Without justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in.  Ethnic violence still goes on in Kenya [1] , and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts.  [1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012,


Just hold the trial by videolink  It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves.  Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial.  [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013,


Kenya would be better off without them  Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,


Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates  Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.  A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.


Even though all parties agree to this, it is not appropriate for the ICC to be trying a sitting head of state anyway. The ICC is accepting this by holding the trial by videolink – no other court would do such a thing.  While it sounds tempting to allow Kenyatta and Ruto to participate in their trial by Skype, they may not continue to participate and simply refuse to leave Kenya if they are convicted.


Kenya doesn’t need a trial. The Kenyan parliament voted against such a thing – the Kenyan people decided in 2013 that they want to give Kenyatta and Ruto a democratic mandate.  While there is a terror threat – something that Kenyatta and Ruto can deal with in their role as head of state – Kenya did not have post election violence in 2013, and ethnic conflict is not going on at a major level. Even if there is no justice, there is peace, which is more important.


th health general global law crime policing law general punishment house would

Simply arguing that because something is a 'tradition' that it should be legalized is a nonsensical argument. Traditions need to stand on their own merits, beyond the simple fact that people have done it in the past, as anyone would recognise that a great many things done in the past were not desirable, and therefore longevity does not equal desirability. Moreover, substances have never been legalized simply because some religions place spiritual connotations upon their use. For example, many members of the Rastafarian Movement and some Muslim Sufi groups claim that using cannabis has spiritual value and is important to understanding mystic truths, but cannabis has not been legalized as a result. [1] This is because, on balance, the harms of legalization outweigh our perception of its claimed benefits, and the same is true of the coca leaf. It is also important to note that the prized position of coca in Andean culture owes much to the lucrative nature of the international cocaine market, and thus this cultural value cannot be entirely 'unbundled' from cocaine use in the West. [2]  [1] Ernest, Abel. “A Comprehensive Guide to Cannabis Literature”. Greenwood Press. 1979.;  [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.


Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds  Coca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned. [1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.' [2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community. [3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [3] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.


Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. [1] . The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients. [2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products.  [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972.   [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.


Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.  The coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine. [1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.” [2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer. [3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [3] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.


Compulsive Coca chewing may compromise oral health. The wider cultivation of coca plants may make cocaine itself more readily available, and cocaine has clear health risks to its consumption. This debate must be seen in terms of the wider health risks and problems that actually occur if cultivation is legalized, not just a narrow understanding of the health risks in a theoretical vacuum.


Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states  Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away. [1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.” [2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest. [3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining. [4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic. [5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.


The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.


If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.  [1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.


Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy  The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.” [1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.” [2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse.  [1] M&C News. “Bolivia undermines global anti-drug efforts, UN warns”. M&C News. Jul 5, 2011.   [2] Associated Press. “U.S. to fight Bolivia on allowing coca-leaf chewing”. The Portland Press Herald. January 19 2011.


Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed  The original decision to ban coca chewing was based on evidence that this was indeed harmful to human health. A 1950 report elaborated by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC states that: "We believe that the daily, inveterate use of coca leaves by chewing ... is thoroughly noxious and therefore detrimental." [1] Therefore the risk of health harms should not be dismissed or undermined. Coca is also different to caffeine and other similar products in in its capacity to be diverted to highly potent, dangerous, and damaging use in cocaine. Therefore it has unique health considerations which make its prohibition acceptable.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.


Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine  Cocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.” [1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production. [2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.


With no other narcotic drug are the components parts of that drug banned in of themselves. For example, the raw component parts of crystal meth are not banned. These components are a variety of household cleaning compounds. [1] It is wrong therefore to suggest that it is impossible to have an effective anti-narcotics effort unless the component parts are banned, as this exact approach is successful taken in other areas.  [1] Associated Press. “New 'shake-and-bake' method for making crystal meth gets around drug laws but is no less dangerous”. NYDaily News. Tuesday, August 25th 2009.


crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous

The verdict of an individual trial should not be predicated on trials which have already been carried out and concluded. The evidence which is being ‘withheld’ here is in fact irrelevant to the case at hand. While these countries recognise that juries have great value as a representative of the people [1] , it is also important to recognise that people are vulnerable to bias – as shown by the huge increase in convictions when previous offences are disclosed [2] . The benefits of disclosing past convictions is outweighed by the benefits of the jury remaining impartial as far as possible, as this is the best way to reach a fair and just verdict.  [1] Tickner, Joel and Ketelsen, Lee, ‘Democracy and the Precautionary Principle’, The Networker, Vol. 6 No.3, May 2001  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003


Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.  It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend [1] , it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision [2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’ [3] . If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered.  [1] CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008.  [2] Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011.  [3] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.


If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.


Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.  At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.