A number of alternative strategies exist which are likely to do more to reduce youth crime. For example, rather than a blanket curfew covering all young people, individual curfews could be imposed upon particular trouble-makers, perhaps involving electronic tagging, breaking up gangs without labelling an entire age-group as criminal. A Scottish scheme puts plenty of police officers on the streets at night with a brief to engage with young people, deterring crime while steering them towards a range of youth activities available at clubs set up by the local council.


A curfew is practical.  Very few children are going to be out late at night without an adult or very good reason. This helps make curfews enforceable as the police will be patrolling anyway, and any responsible adult can report children who are out after curfew. The curfew could therefore be for all young people, defined as those under the age of 18, beginning at 10pm on both weeknights and weekends and ending at sunrise, with the exceptions like those noted in the introduction. Curfew violations are punishable by fines and penalty assessments. In Los Angeles these total $675, and violations may also result in community service and driver's license restrictions. The amount can vary with Philadelphia only having a $250 fine. 1  1. Findlaw


Curfews are most effective when used a short-term aid to other policing measures.  Other schemes aimed at reducing youth crime are highly effective but work best in conjunction with curfews. As the National Crime Prevention Council states: ‘A curfew alone won’t stop crime. More preventive measures, including recreational activities and job opportunities, are needed to reach out to young people and keep them from committing crimes.’ 1 In areas with a whole culture of lawlessness a curfew takes the basically law-abiding majority off the streets, allowing the police to engage with the most difficult element. Curfews are a tool in the struggle to improve lives in run-down areas; they often used for relatively short periods of a few weeks or months in order to bring a situation under control so that other measures can be put in place and given a chance to work.


Child curfews are an important form of zero tolerance policing, showing that a community will not allow an atmosphere of lawlessness to develop. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales, argues that: ‘“It would send out the message that we are serious that the criminal justice system has the power to impose immediate sanctions for bad behaviour and that “no” will mean “no”. At the moment no is negotiable.1”The idea of zero tolerance comes from the theory that if low-level crimes, like graffiti-spraying, window breaking and drug-dealing (all common juvenile offences) are not acted against swiftly and effectively by the police, then a permissive atmosphere is created where violence and other serious crimes flourish and law and order breaks down entirely.  1. McKeever, 2009


Curfews are easy to police compared to other forms of crime prevention, and are therefore effective. Child curfews can help to the police to establish a climate of zero tolerance and to create a safer community for everyone.


Curfews compromise children's rights.  Youth curfews infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Children have a right to freedom of movement and assembly which curfews directly undermine, by criminalising their simple presence in a public space. They are also subject to blanket discrimination on the grounds of age and the underlying assumption that all young people are potential law-breakers. It has been established in US law in the 1976 case of Missouri v Danforth that everyone has full constitutional rights regardless of age. Thus, curfews violate the fifth amendment which guarantees a right to free movement and due process. Comparable legal principles exist in most liberal states, and there is no reason to treat children as having less substantive rights to free movement. 1  Youth curfews have great potential for abuse, raising civil rights issues. Evidence from U.S. cities suggests that police arrest far more black children than white for curfew violations. Curfews will tend to be imposed upon poor areas in inner cities with few places for children to amuse themselves safely and within the law, compounding social exclusion with physical exclusion from public spaces. These problems will also be made worse by the inevitable deterioration in relations between the police and the young people subject to the curfew.  1. Vissing, Y. (2011). Curfews. In: Chambliss, W., eds. Juvenile Crime and Justice. London, SAGE publications, Ch. 5. P.62


Positive engagement would be more effective than curfews.  Other successful schemes aim to work individually with young troublemakers, in order to cut their reoffending rate, for example by requiring them to meet with victims of crime so that they understand the consequences of their actions, and by pairing them with trained mentors. Overall, governments need to ensure good educational opportunities and employment prospects in order to bring optimism to communities where youngsters feel that their futures are pretty hopeless.  Rather than trying to scare kids into good behaviour, why don’t we offer them a better life? Most areas with anti-social behaviour problems are poor, with bad schools, few jobs and little for kids to do with themselves. With little hope for the future, no wonder some kids go off the rails. So instead of threatening punishment, we should invest in better schools, places for kids to play and socialise, and the chance of a job.1  1. The Observer, 2004


Curfews are counter-productive.  Imposing child curfews would actually be counter-productive, as it would increase juvenile offending by turning millions of generally law-abiding young people into criminals. The Executive director of D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates argues that ‘"This tells young people they're the problem, not part of the solution".’ 1Already in the USA, more children are charged with curfew offences than with any other crime. Yet once children acquire a criminal record they cross a psychological boundary, making it much more likely that they will perceive themselves as criminal and have much less respect for the law in general, leading to more serious forms of offending. At the same time a criminal record harms their opportunities in employment and so increases the social deprivation and desperation which breed crime.  1. Dvorak and Greenwell, 2006


Curfews are ineffective.  Curfews are not an effective solution to the problem of youth crime; research in the USA suggests that there is no link between areas that achieved a reduction in juvenile crime and areas with youth curfews. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales points out that curfews are an unrealistic scheme: ‘It is fantasy to believe the police could impose an immediate sanction for somebody to stay in their home for four weeks without any kind of due process.’ 1Although some places did see a reduction in youth crime, this often had more to do with other strategies, such as zero-tolerance policing.  1. McKeever, 2009


Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from gang activity on the streets at night and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken ‘in the hope that we can stop them from getting so far into trouble that they end up in the criminal justice system.1’ By spending more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and youth clubs, which curfews make a more attractive option for bored youngsters, greater self-esteem and discipline can be developed.  1. BBC News, 2009,


Curfews do not harmfully restrict childrens’ rights to participation in activities and actually supports their right to a safe home and neighbourhood environment: ‘The curfew law has several exceptions. Youths can be out after hours if they are with a parent or guardian or doing errands at a parent or guardian's direction. They also can be at work or attending an official school, religious or recreational activity.’ 1If family breakdown means parents lose control, and in cases where parents can’t be bothered, then the police should step in. If the state has the right to take children away from cruel parents to protect them, then it also has the right to protect everyone else from dangerous youths. Most importantly, we can trust the police not to abuse this power. Our police are sworn to uphold the law and protect people, and trained to respect everyone’s rights.  1. Dvorak and Greenwell, 2006


While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’. [1] This reveals that the profile of the average criminal is a male between the ages of 15 and 25. After the age of 25, the majority of criminals desist. Presuming that this pressure of social deprivation affects everyone in society in the same way, more steps need to be taken in order to explain why predominantly males between the ages of 15 and 25 seem to respond to it in this manner. This further goes to suggest that perhaps social deprivation is not a primary cause, but that factors such as age and gender play as much of a part in the likelihood of criminal activity.  [1] Bottoms, Professor Sir Antony E., ‘Crime prevention for youth at risk: some theoretical concerns’, Resource Material Series, No.68, 129th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, pp.21-34.


We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.  We are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a law-abiding citizen and acquiring the respect toward the law our society demands. Children from poor backgrounds are more likely to be raised in environments where such distinctions are blurred, where they are exposed to negative role models within their family or community. They may also experience very erratic or low-quality schooling, This may be because the schools have inadequate levels of funding or supplies, the classes are more likely to have disruptive children or that better teachers are more sought after and thus go to other schools. As a result, they might become desensitized to crime, or violence as a result of being exposed to it on a regular basis. They might then start to view crime not as against social order but as a part of it and that will make them more likely to break the law themselves.


The opposition to this argument is that nothing can or should be gained through crime. There are many ways of making voices heard without resulting to criminal activity. None-violent measures such as bus boycotts, freedom rides , sit-ins and mass demonstrations were used during the African American Civil Rights Movement . This movement succeeded in bringing about legislative change, and making separate seats, drinking fountains, and schools for African Americans illegal. Another example is the 2003 Women of Libya mass Action for Peace, [1] or the more current (2011) uprisings in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. To use an example of the Tunisian uprisings, the people spoke out against huge unemployment and government corruption. Thus though many of the protesters were from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, criminal acts were not taken and yet they still achieved the freedom that followed from the 24-year-ruling president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fleeing the country a month later. [2] Therefore that people feel crime is the only outlet they have cannot be a reason to support the idea that social deprivation is the primary cause of criminal activity.  [1] Ekiyor, Thelma Aremiebi, and Gbowee, Leymah Roberta, ‘Woman’s Peace Activism in West Africa The WIPNET Experience, People Building Peace.  [2] Alexander, Christopher, ‘Tunisia’s protest wave: where it comes from and what it means’, The Middle East Channel ForeignPolicy.com, 3 January 2011.


People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.  In some impoverished families there is simply no possibility of work and in many countries where there is no welfare benefits this means that the family cannot afford food, shelter or healthcare. Even in some places where there are benefits, this is often not enough to cover the family’s way (for example healthcare is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US) [1] and thus some members of the family may be driven to desperate measures in order to be able to afford provisions. If no other options are open to them this desperation can result in measures such as theft, drug dealing or blackmail (See appendix). Furthermore often extreme poverty is linked to substance abuse, often as a respite from these terrible conditions. This in turn breeds more crime as people have to fund their addictions. However in this case it seems clear that it is the desperation of poverty that causes these people to commit crimes. Many people believe racism, and therefore crimes such as incitement to racial hatred or ‘hate crimes’, are more likely to occur in areas of social deprivation. The theory suggests that a mix of poverty, unemployment and segregation causes’ high tension can cause a ‘scapegoat’ culture on either, and indeed both, sides.  [1] Tamkins, Theresa, ‘Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies’, CNN Health, 5 June 2009,


Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself.  Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". [1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973,


People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.  Some people, particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems. When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only way they can have their frustrations heard. One example of this would be the Brixton riots in 1981 (See Appendix). [1] In some states where government criticism is itself against the law, breaking the law is in fact the only way to have your feeling heard. However, this is of particular importance to those from socially deprived back grounds for three reasons, firstly they are often the ones most ignored by their government and secondly they are the ones who would benefit most if society were to change. Finally, for some people from poor social or economic backgrounds, crime is the only outlet they have to vent their anger or frustration as all other options have been blocked for them.  [1] BBC News, ‘Brixton riots: Archive’, 10 April 2011.


This is ridiculous. Why is the drug dealer a drug dealer? Because he is poor and has few other prospects. He is not poor just because he is a criminal as something had to get him in to crime in the first place. In many cases that initial motivating factor was poverty or a lack of prospects. If it was true that the causation was reversed then there would be much more social mobility because those who started poor and deprived but wanted to work and were fundamentally honest would be socially mobile.


While the figures demonstrated in this argument clearly illustrate that these large scale crimes are more often committed by those who are not suffering from social deprivation, tax evasion constitutes a small percentage of the world wide crime rate, and thus should not be taken to prove that social deprivation is not the primary source of crime.


In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.  We live in a culture where success and personal achievement is measured on a material scale - what you own, how much you make, what car you drive, what clothes you wear. This means that it is the way society is structured to make us crave material objects which is the primary cause of crime. As society values wealth and material goods over everything else people might turn to crime in order to acquire these much-vaunted markers of personal achievement, to which they feel entitled. Seeing no other avenue for personal and financial success, they might easily choose to get involved in illegal but somewhat profitable activities — like drug dealing, theft or burglary, running prostitution rings, racketeering, etc. However if society was to value traits such as honesty, hard work or loyalty over personal holdings then perhaps the levels of crime would not be so high.


The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.  While it is true that crime is correlated with people coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds this does not in itself prove that poverty itself is the cause of crime. A lack of education or bad parenting might be equally, if not more convincing explanations for both phenomena. The causation may even be reversed, with those who indulge in violent behaviour and who seek illegal short-cuts to success rather than being prepared to hold down a steady job being more likely to end up poor. For example, recent studies have found that street-level drug dealers make less than the minimum wage. [1] So poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. In order to tackle crime, therefore, we don’t need to eradicate poverty, but improve people’s internalization of social norms through law enforcement and education.  [1] Levitt, Steven D. and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, ‘An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's Finances’, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6592, (1998).


Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.  Tax evasion is costing the developing world around $160 billion a year [1] to those who most need it (incidentally this is more than the entire global aid budget). These are huge, global crimes that have effects of billions of people. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to illustrate how some of the tax evaders can cause poverty, illness and even death to others; as the money they do not pay in tax can therefore not be used for road safety, pensions, healthcare, world aid or many other institutions (that the tax evaders are still able to make use of). This illustrates how the crime of tax evasion can have serious consequences. In the US the most common tax evader is a male, under 50 and of the highest earning bracket. Globally the most common tax evaders are large multi-national companies. This illustrates that these large scale crimes are not being committed by those from deprived backgrounds, but rather from the greed of the wealthy to have more wealth.  [1] Christian Aid, ‘Christian Aid urges G20 to crach down on tax dodging pinstripe ‘pirates’, 3 September 2009.


This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods, and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy backgrounds. In many socially deprived societies, the lack of education and resources invested in the younger generation mean that the poverty cycle continues to define how well these young people will do as adults. The family they are born into is still the biggest predictor of a person’s life trajectory. If social mobility is not a truly viable option for young people from impoverished backgrounds to succeed, they may see crime as the only way to reach the material goods that so commonly are associated with personal achievement. One current example of this is the riots that occurred in major cities throughout the UK in 2011. Perhaps one of the most notable acts of the riots was the looting, particularly as the majority of looting was from high street stores not for necessities or for high end goods, but rather for average things the looters wanted. Zoe Williams explains the riots as such ‘this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it’. [1] Therefore in this case criminality is caused by consumerism as the opposition argument two suggests, but this is compounded by the cyclical nature of social deprivation that looks unlikely to be solved.  [1] Williams, Zoe, ‘The UK riots: the psychology of looting’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011.


Minimum sentences have only a theoretical impact on crime rates; in reality they make no difference. The pro makes two major assumptions; first, that criminals have reasonably accurate perceptions of the legal code. Second, the pro assumes that harsh penalties have a psychological impact on potential criminals. Interviews with convicted felons found that a mere 22% even thought they knew what the punishment would be. Another 18% did not know at all, and more than a third reported that they had not thought about punishment at all at the time of the crime. [1] Thus minimum sentences are not sufficiently well publicized to have a significant deterrent effect. Furthermore, substantial evidence demonstrates that additional severity has a relatively small deterrent effect. Criminals respond much more to the chance of getting caught rather than the consequences that occur if they get caught; if a criminal’s chance of getting caught is 10%, the deterrent effect is virtually zero. [2] Thus mandatory sentences do not have a substantial deterrent effect.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 178.  [2] Western, 179.


Mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence.  Deterrence works through several mechanisms; likelihood of getting caught, severity of punishment, and perceived public disapproval. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of severity as a deterrent. If potential criminals know a mild sentence is possible, they are more likely to commit crime in the hopes that they may charm a judge into sympathetically lowering their sentence. By establishing a set minimum punishment, a potential criminal with any knowledge of the penal code knows that, if caught, he/she will face a substantial punishment for his/her crime. The pro need not demonstrate that every, or even a strong majority, of would-be criminals will be deterred by mandatory minimum sentences; so long as the mandate has a reasonable deterrent effect, it will reduce crime and therefore improve the overall standard of living.


Safety valves are simply a reflection of the problem with mandatory sentencing. Safety valves are proof that the inflexibility of minimum sentencing leads to injustice. Safety valves are a step in the right direction, but are themselves an inflexible form of relief. For example, safety valves often do not apply if the defendant has a history of more than one very minor offense, such as passing a bad check. [1] The better way to reduce the injustice of mandatory minimum sentences would be to eliminate the system and allow judicial discretion.  [1] “Federal Mandatory Minimum Reforms: Improve and Expand the Federal ‘Safety Valve,’” Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress, 2008. [


Mandatory sentencing increases consistency in the justice system.  Former Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” [1] Without mandates, judges may have radically different ideas of just sentences. Michael Simons gives the example of Mutt and Jim- two criminals of identical background who commit the same crime. Judge Lenient sentences Mutt, while Judge Harsh sentences Jeff. Mutt might receive one day in prison while Jeff receives a sentence of twenty-five years. [2] While such an extreme is unlikely, it is noteworthy that the legal system emphasizes the importance of consistency. Consistent precedent is essential because citizens need to be able to make decisions knowing the legal consequences of their actions. Mandatory sentencing need not be overly harsh, but there should be some sort of rigidity to establish reliability in the legal system.  [1] Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 83, (1992).   [2] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 926.


Mandatory minimum sentences remove undue judicial discretion.  Discretion allows for both intentional and unintentional bias. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case concerning alleged corruption when a West Virginia judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff that had donated over $3 million to the judge’s election campaign. [1] Though this case is not directly linked to minimum sentences, it demonstrates that judicial corruption is an issue in the legal system today; mandatory sentencing reduces the discretion that allows unethical judicial action. Furthermore, judges may attempt to be impartial, but data shows that humans are inclined to be more sympathetic towards particular groups. For example, female defendants are less likely to receive a death sentence than male defendants, while defendants in general are seven times more likely to receive the death penalty if the victim is female; scholars suggest that these disparities are caused by societal perceptions that women need greater protection rather than any actual difference in the severity of the crime. [2] Thus even decisions that seem impartial are often not. Strict sentencing mandates are more likely to yield just decisions because they are less vulnerable to individual bias.  [1] Dahlia Lithwick, “The Great Caperton Caper: The Supreme Court Talks About Judicial Bias. Kinda,” Slate, June 8, 2009.  [2] “Studies: Gender Bias in Death Sentencing,” Death Penalty Information Center, 2011.


Mandatory sentences do not eliminate undue discretion; they merely shift the power from judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors may decide whether or not to charge defendants for violations other than the main charge. For example, a prosecutor may add weapons possession to a charge for drug sales- this additional count can drastically increase the defendant’s sentence. In the United States, defendants often cooperate with prosecutors and provide information in order to avoid such hefty sentences. Michael Simmons explains, “[…] A cooperation departure is usually the only significant sentencing factor over which a defendant has any control and– because the average cooperation departure cuts a defendant’s sentence in half- it is often a defendant’s only hope for a reduced sentence. Thus, it is not surprising that cooperation departures have fundamentally changed federal prosecutions.” [1] Prosecutors may wield this power to coerce defendants into accepting a plea bargain in cases where they might reasonably be acquitted at trial. Because prosecutors are part of the executive branch, they are more susceptible to political influence than federal judges, who are often appointed, not elected. Thus for a balance of power, it is better to allow judges to have discretion.  Debaters might instead argue that mandatory sentences are not an effective means of subduing corrupt judges, as a judge has many venues for disrupting a trial.  [1] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 935.


Judges are capable of delivering consistency. Judges are trained professionals and must demonstrate competence in order to be appointed- they are unlikely to administer completely random sentences. In order to further reduce inconsistency, the Con supports government-issued sentencing guidelines so that judges are aware of the precedent concerning sentencing for a particular crime, so long as these guidelines are not compulsory. In the unusual occurrence that a judge administers an unjustly harsh sentence, defendants may appeal their case to a higher court. Thus judicial discretion is unlikely to result in widespread inconsistent sentencing.


Imprisonment only yields the benefits of incapacitation if the offenders are a likely threat to society. If the criminal that is given an extensive prison sentence was unlikely to commit another crime, then his/her incapacitation did not actually protect society. Studies within prison populations demonstrate that most offenders commit relatively little crime, while a core group commits a large portion of the crime. For example, a Rand Corporation survey found that half of all burglars committed fewer than six crimes per year, while the top 10% committed over two hundred. [1] Thus society is not particularly well serve when the bottom half of burglars face long prison sentences; few burglaries are avoided, and these criminals will now have more difficulty rejoining society.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 178.


Mandatory minimum sentencing can be designed to avoid injustices.  The negative side effects of minimum sentencing guidelines can be avoided via “safety valves.” The U.S. federal government introduced safety valves in 1994; mandatory sentencing is suspended if the defendant meets certain criteria, such as being a low-level participant or having no prior criminal history. The safety valve allows flexibility so that low-risk offenders do not receive excessively harsh punishment. Thus mandatory sentencing guidelines have enough flexibility to recognize varying circumstances, while retaining enough rigidity to deliver consistent punishment.


Minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of incapacitation.  Incapacitation is one of the 4 basic reasons for punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences keep criminals out of society for a longer period of time than they might otherwise be in jail, thereby reducing their window of opportunity to commit crime. The criminal justice system is obligated to refrain from cruel or unusual punishment, but its main purpose is to protect society from law-breakers through various means of preventing and punishing illegal activity. Mandatory minimum sentences should be proportionate to the severity of the crime, thus satisfying the requirement of humane punishment. Thus mandatory minimum sentencing is a just method of protecting the public.


Mandatory sentences need not be excessively harsh. The Pro supports mandatory sentences that account for a criminal’s prior history and the severity of the crime; mandatory sentences can be proportionate to the scope of the crime. A crime such as murder, which poses a serious threat to public safety, should have a greater minimum punishment than petty theft. But by arguing that we should not have minimum sentences for low-level criminals, the con is essentially arguing that we should not imprison offenders unless they singlehandedly pose a dire threat to society at large. All crimes are violations of the law; if the government ignores crime on the basis that the offense is “not that serious,” it signals that laws against such offenses are not legitimate and may be ignored. Thus mandatory minimum sentences are relevant and beneficial to reducing low-level crime.


Mandatory sentencing does not provide prosecutors any additional power to do anything unethical. “Stacking charges” is another way of saying the prosecutor charges the defendant for each crime he/she committed, meaning that the defendant is being held accountable for all of his/her actions. The Con fails to demonstrate why this is problematic. Furthermore, having democratic checks ensures that the prosecution will not bring trumped-up charges. First, a jury will dismiss such charges, and possibly dismiss all charges if they feel the prosecutor is being abusive. Second, the public is unlikely to respond positively to a district attorney that wastes time and resources on putting low-level criminals in prison for long sentences rather than focusing on serious threats to public safety. Thus the ability to “stack charges” is unlikely to have an adverse impact on justice.


Mandatory minimum sentences make juries reluctant to convict guilty defendants.  The most publicized form of jury nullification is in the case of the death penalty, wherein jurors are reluctant to sentence a person to death. However, Nancy King of the University of Chicago finds that juries are increasingly likely to acquit if a defendant might receive an unduly harsh sentence under mandatory sentencing laws or “three-strike” laws. [1] This kind of jury nullification has two implications. First, it is harmful because defendants that are guilty and ought to go to prison (albeit not for the term demanded by sentencing laws) are not held accountable for their actions at all. Second, jury nullification (a contested practice in and of itself) is a signal in a democratic society that the public considers current legislation to be unjust. Thus the jury nullification demonstrates public opposition to the unintentionally unjust consequences of mandatory sentencing.  [1] Nancy King, “Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside the Jury Room and Outside the Courtroom,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1998, 438.


Minimum mandatory sentences are unjust.  In the United States, federal minimum sentences for narcotics-related offences have forced judges on countless occasions to deliver sentences of 20 year, 30 years, or even life imprisonment to offenders that were tangentially connected to the offense. Often, such offenders are low-income young adults that turn to drug sales for a month or two out of desperation. [1] Sometimes defendants find themselves entangled in drug busts because they are living with family members that are involved in the drug trade. [2] In a well-publicized case, Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana because he was also in possession of a firearm. [3] All criminals are not the same; there are significant differences in the level of threat that individuals pose to society, as well as the likelihood of rehabilitation. Rigid mandatory sentences are unjust because they inevitably lead to numerous cases of disproportionate punishment. These harsh punishments consequently have disastrous impacts on the individuals, as well as their family and community.  [1] “DeJarion Echols,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [2] “Hamedah Hasan,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [3] “Weldon Angelos,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.


Minimum mandatory sentences reduce the chance of rehabilitation.  Minimum sentences force minor criminals to spend more time in prison, thereby increasing their exposure to more hardened criminals. This exposure reduces their chance of rehabilitation- other inmates act as a “bad influence.” [1] Furthermore, studies of labor market participation demonstrate that the more time a person spends outside the labor force, the more their human capital (i.e. marketable skills) deteriorate; their chance of finding well-paid work decreases with more time outside the labor force. [2] Longer prison sentences keep people from working, thereby keeping them in a cycle of unemployment that leads them back into crime.  [1] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 8.   [2] Francine Blau, Mariannne Ferber, and Anne Winkler, The Economics of Women, Men, and Work, 5th Edition, Pearson, NJ, 2006.


Mandatory sentencing fills the system with “small fish.”  As noted above in response to the Pro, most convicts are not high-repeat criminals; a study similar to the one mentioned above found that in a sample of a cohort of teenage boys in Philadelphia, 33% had engaged in delinquent behavior at some point, but 60% of the crime was committed by a group of recidivists that made up only 7% of the population. [1] Harsh punishments for all offenders have led to an overcrowded prison system; overcrowding decreases safety within prisons and reduces the chance of rehabilitation because prisons have fewer resources per prisoner to provide educational and work training. [2] By filling the system with “small fish,” the Pro reduce the prison system’s ability to address serious threats to society.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 176.  [2] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 6. [


Mandatory sentences are fairer than judicial discretion. The Con assumes that individual judges will deliver fair and proportionate punishment. However, as is discussed in the Pro arguments, judges are susceptible to many forms of implicit and explicit bias. For example, studies consistently show that minorities receive longer sentences than whites in the U.S. for comparable offenses. Mandatory sentencing eliminates the danger of individual partiality and replaces it with consistent standards. The Pro advocates a well-defined set of sentencing standards that account for factors such as prior history and cooperation so as to avoid the injustices discussed in the Con’s argument. The Pro acknowledges that sentencing standards may be imperfect, however, the flaws of these imperfections are outweighed by the elimination of personal judicial bias.


Mandatory sentencing gives prosecutors undue power.  Prosecutors can stack charges, which they can use to scare a defendant into accepting a plea bargain. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch; they are directly answerable to elected officials (and are often elected themselves), whereas judges are generally more removed from political influence. Politicians often promote themselves as being “tough on crime.” [1] In order to make good on this claim, they may pressure prosecutors to increase conviction rates, get longer sentences, etc. Thus political pressure may lead prosecutors to handle cases in a way that makes them more popular with the public, rather than one which gives the criminal their fair due. Because judges are less susceptible to public pressure, it is safer to entrust discretion to them.  [1] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 923.


Minimum mandatory sentences increase the chance of rehabilitation. If a person receives a light punishment for his/her action, he/she sees that the action has a low cost. Conversely, if a person has firsthand experience with strong punishment for an action, they will be more reluctant to take that action in the future. Furthermore, prisons have literacy and work training programs to benefit criminals; the majority of (American) prisoners are functionally illiterate. [1] If these criminals are in prison for a short period of time, they will not be able to reap the benefits of these rehabilitating programs. Thus longer sentences (within reason) can actually be beneficial to inmates.  [1] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 85.


1) There are checks against jury nullification. The judicial system can reduce the impact of jury nullification by explaining to juries that their responsibility is to determine the guilt of the defendant. The judge can explain that nullification is not a legally acceptable form of dissenting from a law that one perceives as unjust. While King makes the observations noted by the Pro, she also notes that prosecutors may dismiss potential jurors that admit they will consider the severity of the punishment. [1]  (2) A careful jury is a good jury. When juries are reluctant to convict because of the death penalty, they are often asking themselves, “am I so sure that this person committed this crime that I am willing to bet their life on it?” Such hesitation is beneficial to the justice system- it reduces the number of wrongful convictions. Similarly, mandatory minimum sentences make juries realize the significance of their decisions. While this may allow some lucky criminals to evade justice, it also prevents innocent civilians from suffering punishments they do not deserve.  [1] Nancy King, “Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside the Jury Room and Outside the Courtroom,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1998,435.


The Second Amendment was not designed for only self defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun then why should the state get to decide what weapons someone should use when hunting or defending themselves? That a gun may not be the best choice for these activities does not mean that it should not be a possible choice.


Assault weapons are not necessary for self defence or hunting.  As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg argues "We've got to really question whether military-style weapons with big magazines belong on the streets of America in this day and age.” [1] Police chiefs such as Ralph Godbee of Detroit argue "We're talking about weapons that are made for war… you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute.” [2] In a self defense scenario the person defending themselves need to have enough ammunition to provide deterrence, however they would have to be unwise to take on several assailants so there should be little need to have more than 10 rounds in the magazine. Law enforcement expert Leonard J. Supenski has testified “because of potential harm to others in the household, passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard” as in self defense, the defenders will often fire until they have expended all the bullets in their magazine. To use an assault weapon would to spray an assailant with bullets from an assault weapon would be using disproportionate force that will not only harm the assailant but will likely hit anyone else nearby.  Even those who are against an assault weapons ban such as David Kopel concede that for the most part these are not useful weapons for hunting. These weapons are “intended to wound rather than to kill” so would certainly not be useful in taking down a deer. Moreover he also concedes “a hunter will carry only a few rounds” so the large capacity magazine is also useless for sport. [3]  [1] Simpson, Connor, ‘Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Assault Weapons’, the Atlantic Wire, 16 December 2012,   [2] Jackson, Jesse, ‘Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons’, Huffington Post, 3 August 2012,   [3] Kopel, David B., ‘Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition’, Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol.20, 1994 pp.381-417, p.393,


Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.  It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for different things.


A ban would save lives  Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves [1] . Murder by gunfire particularly affects children, in total well over a million Americans have died in this manner and 80 people continue to be shot in the states every day. So some form of gun control is necessary and a ban on assault weapons is a good starting point.  Out of 62 mass murders since 1982 almost half the weapons used, 67 out of 142, were semi-automatic handguns and more than 30 were assault weapons. [2] The period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 with the exception of 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre (which notably involved a semi-automatic produced before the ban), was also a peaceful period in terms of numbers of mass shootings. [3] While assault weapons are responsible for a relatively small amount of total gun deaths in the USA that is not a good reason for not banning them; any life saved is worthwhile. Taking the low estimate of 1% of deaths from assault weapons that still means 90-100 people a year while the high 7% [4] means 630-700 lives that could be saved.  Australia shows the advantages on implementing restrictions on guns (in Australia’s case much stricter than anything being contemplated in this debate so the effect would not be as pronounced). In the wake of a mass shooting in Port Arthur in 1996 strict gun laws were implemented. An evaluation by the Australian National University found laws saved $500 million and halved the number of people killed by guns saving 200 lives every year. [5]  [1] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’ The Telegraph 16 December 2012,   [2] Follman, Mark, et al., ‘A Guide to Mass Shootings in America’, Mother Jones, 15 December 2012,   [3] Wang, Sam, ‘Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?’, Princeton Election Consortium, 14 December 2012,   [4] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012,   [5] Peters, Rebecca, ‘Will Sandy Hook massacre be America’s tipping point’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December 2012,


It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun instead. Therefore to ban only certain types of guns does not address the issue satisfactorily because it does not take into consideration that any gun can kill.


Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing the number of assault weapons in the world. [1] Drugs cartels would simply find new routes to get the weapons they need, after all they are already dealing in illegal activities making the guns they want illegal on both sides of the border rather than just one is unlikely to stop them.  [1] Falconer, Bruce, ‘Semiautomatic for the people’, Mother Jones, July/August 2008,


Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security  Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. [1] Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals.  Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention. [2]  Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun. [3]  [1] Keating, Ruth, ‘This House would arm the police’, Peter Squires ed., Debatabase, 2011,   [2] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012,   [3] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’, The Telegraph, 16 December 2012,


An assault weapons ban would stop the manufacture of many of the deadliest guns.  Yes a ban would not immediately take assault weapons off the streets but there would be significant long term benefits as highlighted by Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman "We ought to restore the assault weapons ban -- not to take anybody's guns away that they have now, but to stop the manufacturing of these weapons." [1] The ban would stop manufacturers from making the weapons and with the legislation improved from the 1994 version it would be possible to prevent the cosmetic changes that were made to keep guns on the market. [2] This would mean that prices both in the USA and globally would increase as there would be less supply. One positive result might also be help to change the United States’ position on the arms trade treaty which would further restrict global supply. [3] This would answer Mexican calls to cut off the supply of guns into the country that helps make the drugs violence in the country so deadly both by meaning less of the weapons are made and by helping to cut off the route through which weapons get into Mexico. [4] A ban on assault weapons would not fix Mexico but it would deprive arms smugglers of the closest, easiest and cheapest place to buy the arms used by the drugs cartels. [5]  [1] Jamieson, Dave, ‘Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy Calls For Tougher Gun Controls’, The Huffington Post, 16 December 2012,   [2] Epstein, Edward, ‘NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein / Assault weapons ban renewal in doubt’, SFGate, 28 June 2004,   [3] Urquhart, Conal, ‘Arms trade treaty failure is disappointing, says William Hague’, guardian.co.uk, 28 July 2012,   [4] ‘Mexico urges U.S. to review gun laws after Colorado shooting’, Reuters, 21 July 2012,   [5] Chertoff, Emily, ‘Regulating U.S.-Made Assault Weapons: The International Case’, The Atlantic, 19 December 2012,


There is a rational basis for banning assault weapons as they are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. This was even higher at five times as likely for those who had been charged with two or more serious violent offenses. [1] This means those purchasing assault weapons intend for them to be used for violent ends.  It is true that assault weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes, although 1% is disputable in Miami for example 15 out of 79 homicides in 2006 involved assault weapons, [2] but the opposition ignore that large capacity magazines are used in a much higher percentage of crimes; between 14 and 26% before the 1994 ban. [3]  [1] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.17   [2] Associated Press, ‘Assault-weapon attacks on rise in Miami area’, MSNBC, 14 September 2007,   [3] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.18


Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of mass murder without reloading.


It is incoherent to ban some guns  It is incoherent to attempt to ban assault weapons while allowing other weapons to remain on the streets. As professor Jacobs from New York University argues “Pistols are dangerous because they are easily carried and concealed; shotguns because they spray metal projectiles over a wide area; certain hunting rifles because they fire large calibre bullets, and certain "sniper rifles" because they are accurate over great distances. Assault rifles are not remarkable by any of these criteria.” [1] Indeed the previous ban simply used a list of guns that were banned rather than a specific definition that could then be applied universally showing the difficulty of classifying these weapons. [2] It should also be remembered that this will not affect assault weapons that are already legal in the United States so this would not even be banning all assault weapons so would leave millions in private hands, while it might be argued there is some slight difference between an assault weapon and another gun there is certainly no difference betweena a new and an old assault weapon.  [1] Kopel, David B., ‘Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition’, Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol.20, 1994 pp.381-417, p.404,   [2] Kobayashi, Bruce H., and Olson, Joseph E., ‘In Re 101 California Street: A legal and economic analysis of strict liability for the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons”’, Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol.8 No.1, 1997,


A ban on assault weapons would not work, it will simply encourage a black market  It has already been demonstrated that most crime already takes place using other guns or even without firearms at all so it is illogical to think that this ban would make any difference to crime. For a start as the ban would not be retroactive large numbers of assault weapons would remain legally in the United States. It would create a black market in the weapons which would enrich organised crime which would simply mean that those who are intending to use those guns for ill have access to them while those who want them for self defense don’t. [1] As a response to Obama’s reelection some gun owners are already purchasing more guns and bullets, in some cases with the intention of selling them on the black market should a ban come into force. [2] It is clear therefore that the ban would do little to reduce the number of assault weapons in the United States and would likely even do little to impact on their availability.  [1] Wohlferd, Clark A., ‘Much ado about not very much: The expiration of the assault weapons ban as an act of legislative responsibility’, Legislation and Public Policy, vol.8, 2005, pp.471-484, p.480   [2] Hagler, Frank, ‘Gun Sales at Record High: Sales Soar Over Fear of the Black President’, Policy Mic, November 2012,


Assault weapons are not used in most crimes  There is little point in banning a type of weapon that is not used in most violence; assault rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the united states at a time when gun violence is falling. [1] If assault weapons are not used in most crime then there is no rational basis for banning them. When the previous assault weapons ban expired in 2004 far from there being an increase in crime as predicted the number of murders declined by 3.6%. [2]  [1] La Jeunesse, William, ‘Debate answer on assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama’, Fox News, 1 November 2012,   [2] Lott, John R., ‘The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban’, Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2005,


An assault weapons ban would violate the second amendment  The Second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [1] would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This right clearly does not limit what arms a citizen may bear. The ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller clearly reaffirmed that the government can’t ban certain classes of arms and also that this right is not connected with service in a militia.  [1] ‘Second Amendment – Bearing Arms’, Findlaw,


Of course a ban will not completely eliminate these weapons but it would reduce the supply and make it much easier for the police to seize the weapons so taking them off the streets. It would also be a step in the right direction in attempting to change public perceptions and amend the American attitude. It is understated just how relaxed American laws are in comparison to the rest of the world, even states such as Switzerland and Israel that are often highlighted by the NRA as being model states that allow gun ownership with few resulting shootings are much more restrictive than the USA. [1]  There is no reason to think that a black market is somehow going to result in more of these weapons being available so the fact that it will exist after a ban is not a reason not to go ahead with the ban. It is not ideal that a ban is not retroactive so leaving a large number of such guns in private hands but this number will slowly diminish over time rather than continuing to rise as it would under the status quo.  [1] Rosenbaum, Janet, ‘A League of Our Own’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2012,


The point of an assault weapons ban is not to completely ban guns but to ban guns that can fire large numbers of bullets rapidly and have no purpose other than to shoot people. The ban targets those weapons that are not useful for self defence or hunting. The opposition argument is essentially that because some guns are legal all guns should be legal; the line has to be drawn somewhere and there is little reason why the line at assault weapons is less logical than a line that allows some grenade launchers and shotguns while banning others? [1] Since this line is clearly arbitrary then we should move to the only non-arbitrary line, a full ban, a move towards which this ban is a step towards.  [1] Laurence, Charles, ‘Semi-automatics and grenade launchers are legal again in US’, The Telegraph, 19 September 2004,


While the world is globalizing, it is still in the interest of states to retain their relative competitive advantages. After all, the first duty of a state is to its own citizens. By translating these works and offering them to academics, students, and professionals, the developed world serves to erode one of its only advantages over the cheaper labour and industrial production markets of the developing world. The developed world relies on its advantage in technology particularly to maintain its position in the world and to have a competitive edge. Giving that edge up, which giving access to their information more readily does, is to increase the pace at which the developed world will be outmatched.


Translation gives access to students to learn valuable information and develop their human capital and to become academically and economically competitive  The ability to access the wealth of knowledge being generated in the developed world would greatly impact the ability of students and budding academics in the developing world to develop their human capital and keep abreast of the most recent developments in the various fields of academic research. Lag is a serious problem in an academic world where the knowledge base is constantly developing and expanding. In many of the sciences, particularly those focused on high technology, information rapidly becomes obsolete as new developments supplant the old. The lag that occurs because developing countries' academics and professionals cannot readily access this new information results in their always being behind the curve. [1] Coupled with the fact that they possess fewer resources than their developed world counterparts, developing world institutions are locked in a constant game of catch-up they have found difficult, if not impossible, to break free of. By subsidizing this translation effort, students in these countries are able to learn with the most up-to-date information, academics are able to work with and build upon the most relevant areas of research, and professionals can keep with the curve of knowledge to remain competitive in an ever more global marketplace. An example of what can happen to a country cut off from the global stream of knowledge can be found in the Soviet Union. For decades Soviet academics were cut off from the rest of the world, and the result was a significant stunting of their academic development. [2] This translation would be a major boon for all the academic and professional bodies in developing countries.  [1] Hide, W., ‘I Can No Longer Work for a System that Puts Profit Over Access to Research’, The Guardian. 2012.   [2] Shuster, S. “Putin’s PhD: Can a Plagiarism Probe Upend Russian Politics?”. Time. 28 February 2013,


This translation effort does not pave the future with gold. Intellectual property law still persists and these countries would still be forced to deal with the technologies' originators in the developed world. By instead striving to engage on an even footing without special provisions and charity of translation, developing countries' academics can more effectively win the respect and cooperation of their developed world counterparts. In so doing they gain greater access to, and participation in, the developments of the more technologically advanced countries. They should strive to do so as equals, not supplicants.


Translation allows greater participation by academics in global academia and global marketplace of ideas  Communication in academia is necessary to effectively engage with the work of their colleagues elsewhere in the world, and in sciences in particular there has become a lingua franca in English. [1] Any academic without the language is at a severe disadvantage. Institutions and governments of the Global North have the resources and wherewithal to translate any research that might strike their fancy. The same is not true for states and universities in the Global South which have far more limited financial and human capital resources. By subsidizing the translation of academic literature into the languages of developing countries the developed world can expand the reach and impact of its institutions' research. Enabling access to all the best academic research in multiple languages will mean greater cross-pollination of ideas and knowledge. Newton is supposed to have said we “stand upon the shoulders of giants” as all ideas are ultimately built upon a foundation of past work. [2] Language is often a barrier to understanding so translation helps to broaden the shoulders upon which academics stand.  By subsidizing the publication of their work into other significant languages, institutions can have a powerful impact on improving their own reputation and academic impact. Academic rankings such as the rankings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, [3] and the Times Higher Education magazine [4] include research and paper citations as part of the criteria. Just as importantly it opens the door to an improved free flowing dialogue between academics around the world. This is particularly important today as the developing world becomes a centre of economic and scientific development. [5] This translation project will serve to aid in the development of relations between research institutes, such as in the case of American institutions developing partnerships with Chinese and Indian universities.  [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116,   [2] Yong, Ed, ‘Why humans stand on giant shoulders, but chimps and monkeys don’t’, Discover, 1 March 2012,   [3] ‘Ranking Methodology’, Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2012,   [4] Baty, Phil, ‘World University Rankings subject tables: Robust, transparent and sophisticated’, Times Higher Education, 16 September 2010,   [5] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012,


Translating academic work for the developed world will not succeed in creating a dialogue between developed and developing world because the effort is inherently unidirectional. The developing world academics will be able to use the translated work, but will lack the ability to respond in a way that could be readily understood or accepted by their developed world counterparts. The only way to become a truly respected academic community is to engage with the global academic world on an even footing, even if that means devoting more resources to learning the dominant global academic languages, particularly English. This is what is currently happening and is what should be the trend for the future. [1] So long as they rely on subsidized work, the academics of the developing world remain subject and subordinate to those of the developed world.  [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116,


Translation expands the knowledge base of citizens to help solve local problems  It is often the case that science and technology produced in the developed world finds its greatest application in the developing world. Sometimes new developments are meant for such use, as was the case with Norman Borlaug's engineering of dwarf wheat in order to end the Indian food crisis. Other times it is serendipitous, as academic work not meant of practical use, or tools that could not be best applied in developed world economies find ready application elsewhere, as citizens of the developing world turn the technologies to their needs. [1] By translating academic journals into the languages of developing countries, academics and governments can open a gold mine of ideas and innovation. The developing world still mostly lacks the infrastructure for large scale research and relies heavily on research produced in the developed world for its sustenance. Having access to the body of academic literature makes these countries less dependent on the academic mainstream, or to the few who can translate the work themselves. Having access to this research allows developing countries to study work done in the developed world and look at how the advances may be applicable to them. The more people are able to engage in this study the more likely it is that other uses for the research will be found.  [1] Global Health Innovation Blog. ‘The East Meets West Foundation: Expanding Organizational Capacity”. Stanford Graduate School of Business. 18 October 2012,


In the status quo there is already some translation, due largely to current demands and academic relationships. Even if translation of all academic work the world over could not be translated into every conceivable language, expanding the number of articles and number of languages is certainly a good thing. While cost will limit the extent of the policy, it is still worth pursuing to further open the world of academic discourse.


If it is true that people cannot easily get jobs in the developed world for lack of language skills then there will surely still be a pressure to learn the language or languages of international discourse. What this policy offers is access by a much wider audience to the various benefits that expanded academic knowledge can offer. It will expand the developing world's knowledge base and not in any way diminish the desire to learn English and other dominant languages. It should be remembered that it is not just academics that use academic papers; students do as well, as do professionals in everyday life. Clearly there cannot be an expectation that everyone learns English to be able to access research. While there may be fewer languages in academic use there is not such a narrowing of language for everyone else.


The West has no particular obligation to undergo such a sweeping policy  Governments and academic institutions have no special duty to give full access to all information that they generate and publish in academic journals to anyone who might want it. If they want to make their research public that is their prerogative, but it does not follow that they should then be expected to translate that work into an endless stream of different languages. If there is a desire by governments and institutions to aid in the academic development of the developing world, there are other ways to go about it than indiscriminately publishing their results and research into developing world languages. Taking on promising students through scholarships, or developing strategic partnerships with institutions in the global south are more targeted, less piecemeal means of sharing the body of global knowledge for example the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funds junior scientists from the developing world working in their labs. [1] States owe their first duty to their own citizens, and when the research they produce is not only made available to citizens of other countries but translated at some expense, they are not serving that duty well. It will prove to be a fairly ineffective education policy.  [1] ‘Building Research Capacity in Developing Nations’, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 114, No. 10, October 2006,


It is prohibitively expensive to translate everything and difficult to prioritize what to translate  Ultimately any policy of translation of academic work must rely on a degree of prioritization on the part of the translators since there is no way that all academic work of any kind could be translated into other major languages, let alone into all the multitude of languages extant in the world today. In 2009, for example, the number of published research papers on science and technology exceeded 700,000. [1] That is a gigantic amount of research. Translating all of these articles seems to be an obvious waste of time and resources for any government or institution to pursue and increasingly so when one considers the more than 30,000 languages in current use today. Translations today currently exist for articles and research that is considered useful. Any blanket policy is infeasible. The end result will be only a small number of articles translated into a finite number of languages. This is the status quo. Expanding it only serves to further confuse the academic community and to divert useful energies away from positive research to the quixotic task of translation.  [1] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012,


It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations  A proliferation of languages in academia will serve to fracture the interrelations of academics, not unify them. As more and more academics and innovators interested in new academic developments find it possible to obtain information wholly in their native languages, then the impetus toward unification in a primary language of academia and commerce will be slowed or entirely thwarted. Through history there have been movements toward this sort of linguistic unity, because it reduces the physical and temporal costs of information exchange; for example scholars throughout Early Modern Europe communicated in Latin. [1] This policy serves only to dampen this movement, which will, even if helpful to people in the short-run, serve to limit the capacity of developing world academics to engage with the developed world. Today English has become the definitive language of both international academic discourse and commerce. In France for example, a country known for its protective stance towards its language, journals have been changing to publishing in English rather than French; the journal Research in Virology changed in 1989 as almost 100% of their articles were submitted in English compared to only 15% in 1973. [2]  The trend towards one language is a positive one, because it has meant more movers and shakers in various countries have all been able to better and more quickly understand one another's desires and actions leading to more profitable and peaceful outcomes generally. [3] Also important is the fact that while academics and other interested parties in the developing world may be able to grapple with academic work more effectively once translated for them, they now have a greater disadvantage due to the enervating effects this translation produces. Without the positive impetus to learn the major language or languages of international discourse, developing world academics will never be able to get posts and lectureships at institutions in the developed world, or to take part in joint research in real time. The convergence of language ultimately serves to promote common understanding, which means people from the developing world can more effectively move between their home country and others. It also helps build a common lexicon of terms that will be more robust for international use, as opposed to translations, which are often imperfect due to divergences of linguistic concepts and thus susceptible to mistake.  [1] Koenigsberger, H. G., Mosse, George L., and Bowler, G. Q., Europe in the Sixteenth Century, London, 2nd Edn, 1989, p.377  [2] Garfield, Eugene, ‘The English Language: The Lingua Franca Of International Science’, The Ceisntist, 15 May 1989,   [3] Bakopoulos, D. ‘English as Universal Academic Language: Good or Bad?’. The University Record, 1997, Available:


Wealthy states do feel an obligation to less fortunate countries, as is demonstrated through their frequent use of aid and loans to poorer governments. This is a way to help countries stop being dependent on aid and hand-outs and instead develop their own human capital and livelihood by being able to engage with the cutting edge of technology and research.


The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. The increase in numbers would require a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. As well as these direct costs there is also a huge amount of losses that a country would face. Young people who leave school and enter the workforce contribute to the economy through taxes and contributions to pensions which the country would no longer receive if people remained in school. It is impossible to spend more while also earning less. This means that raising the school leaving age is not something that countries can afford to do because they won’t have the money to cover the short term cost even if there are some long term gains.


Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society’s future  Increasing the school leaving age means that society will produce a workforce that is higher skilled, attracts more investment to the country, and earns more money. A study for the UK government estimated the economic benefit was £2.4billion for each year group that has 18 as the leaving age rather than 16[4]. When there is more money in the economy more taxes are paid, this means the extra cost of keeping people in school will be covered by these taxes. In some countries the cost of keeping young people in school will, at first, be difficult to manage. However, in many countries a large majority of people voluntarily choose to remain in education longer than they have to. In the UK for example 84% of pupils in year 10 stated that they would remain in education after the age of 16 [5].


Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above not everyone will get the same out of school just because they are there for the same amount of time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go to university before finding a job.


More Education Brings More Opportunities  More education allows young people to develop greater skills so provides more options when they do leave education. It has been shown many times that those people who have more education find jobs easier and are more likely to find work that is satisfying. Extra education for young people also has a positive effect for the economy of a country. The impact of longer education is higher levels of productivity and earnings in later years. This is because longer in education helps workers to become more specialized, in todays ‘knowledge economy’ analytical thinking is highly valued and this is something that is increasingly taught from 16 to 18. Raising the leaving age has in the past had a significant impact on grades. The previous increase in the school leaving age in England, by a year to 16 in 1972, resulted in an improvement worth one grade higher in two subjects. The result is many fewer people leaving with no qualifications. [3]


If schools are failing to teach children basic skills by the time they are 16 it makes no sense to make them stay at school for an extra two years. If the children are forced to sit in the classroom for longer it does not necessarily mean that the results of education will change. Forcing young people to remain in school against their wishes is a reinforcement of the failure of the educational system. If climbing a mountain on your hands and knees is not working then simply doing it for longer makes no difference. The same is true of education: there is no point in keeping students who are failing in schools for longer periods when there is no evidence to show that they will succeed, instead something new needs to be tried.


Raising the school leaving age promotes equal opportunities  Making sure that everyone gets the same amount of time at school promotes equality. At the moment leaving school early is linked to economic and social disadvantage: those from poorer areas and families are more likely to leave school early than those from wealthier families. Parents who left school at a young age are also more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [6]. Forcing all children to stay in school longer will help break this cycle of disadvantage.[7]


Leaving school early is not necessary. Instead, what is needed is government help to ensure that if young people remain in school then they can afford to do so. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is a real need to use the extra years to teach them the basics. There could also be certain people who have special circumstances which mean they do not need to stay in school. For example, in Britain, under 18’s that are caring for parents, relatives are exempt from extra schooling. [13]


UK statistics show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave school at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education." [9]


Not All Skills are Best Learnt in a Classroom Environment  Practical skills (for example, carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on the job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both of these routes place young people into contact with professionals in these areas and give them access to a wider range of tools, materials, and experiences than they would have access to in school. For many young people who want to work in these areas there is no need for them to stay in school for extra time. Forcing those who would rather learn on the job to remain in school is simply wasting their time by depriving them of taking that route for a few more years. This means that it will take much longer to produce highly skilled workers in these practical areas. This is why the UK along with raising its school leaving age allowed the option of taking an apprenticeship as an alternative to continuing in school.


There Are Cases Where Leaving School Early is Necessary  Working at an early age can be an advantage in certain circumstances. Many families, particularly in countries with little welfare, need their children to bring income into the household. Working at an earlier age can help these families to survive. Furthermore, anyone who is having difficulties getting educational qualifications can gain an advantage by leaving school and gaining work experience. If they are forced to stay in school then they will simply lose two years. The British government recognized this and introduced 21 000 extra apprenticeships in 2009. This was an attempt to make sure that those who are not suited to school learning do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. [12]


Forced Education Achieves Little  Being in school does not guarantee that a student is actually learning. If the student lacks interest or ability then the extra time spent in school is unlikely to benefit them, especially if they would not have chosen to be there. This applies even more to the problem of how to deal with those who are disruptive. If they are excluded from school then they are disadvantaged for a longer period of their life. However, if they are included then they continue to disrupt the learning of other students. As Henry Phibbs argues: “Increasing the school leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence." [8]


Practical skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have practical skills schools. For example, in Germany, ‘vocational schools’ (schools which teach practical skills) have been around since the 19th century. In these schools students spend part of their time in practical training and part of their time ‘on the job’. These schools are attended until the age of 18[10], and have been lauded for training highly skilled workers for German manufacturing[11]. It is therefore possible to create a system which is flexible and gives students the option to train in different ways while still staying in school until 18.


On the contrary, poetry is helpful to teaching English. Learning poetry involves chanting, exploration of syllables and vowel sounds. As the pupils chant the syllables, they read the letters that go into making that sound and so spelling will be improved. Reading poetry aloud improves reading ability because the student is vocalising the building blocks that form certain sounds to make words. Public speaking ability will also be improved from a vocal exploration of poetry.


In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.  It is like asking a student who cannot count to solve a highly complex algebraic equation; completely impossible because the groundwork remains a nemesis. If the pupils cannot understand the basics of reading, writing and grammar, they will certainly struggle to with more complex concepts fundamental to the study of poetry such as similies, personifications, metaphors and extended metaphors. Let us take the UK as an example, for it is a country in which many students do not make progress in basic English. A report in 2011 voiced concern at the number of school children struggling with English and the published some horrifying statistics; "Hundreds of thousands of pupils are falling behind in the basics after starting secondary school, official figures suggest … three in 10 are not making enough progress in English, according to Department for Education data.160,000 did not make enough progress in English.”1  1Press Association, “Many secondary school pupils failing to meet expectations, report reveals”, guardian.co.uk, 9 June 2011,  , accessed 1 September 2011


Musicians have for some time been awarded poet status. The artist and their personal lifestyle choices can and must be regarded equally. Bob Dylan was originally described thus; "He sounded like a lung cancer victim singing Woody Gutherie. Now he's a Rolling Stone singing Emmanuel Kant" (page 36, Uncut Legends [magazine] #1: Dylan, September 2003). In 1992, he was described as "as good as Keats" (Ibid). If Bob Dylan can graduate from folk to electric to poet status, modern day musicians must also be allowed to follow suite; to gain the recognition they deserve and become similarly promoted. The poet and their personal lifestyle choices is separable from the poetry they produce. Dylan Thomas, Wales' national poet who is greatly and proudly upheld was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his impressive poetry any less credible. We must not sanitise all the great artists, but accept that the great art they offer as artists forgives them their wrongdoing as people. If we applied the policy of disregarding the art of every artist who has ever done wrong, we would soon lose many canonised ones and several of those who are held in very high esteem.


Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated  If top academics and those highly informed about the subject take issue with poetry, school pupils cannot be expected to fathom it. On December 7th, 2007, The Guardian, a British newspaper affiliated to the Left, noted that this ambiguous identity of poetry renders it very difficult to teach;"But until education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and - for teenagers - increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles".1 The canonised poets and their poetry are concerned with adult life experiences, e.g. love, life, work, history and politics, solitude, loneliness, etc. For this reason, widely acclaimed poetry is deep and requires an adult mind and mature emotional depth to understand, or at least draw something from, this famous poetry. 1 Sampson, Fiona, "Poetry is not a tool for teaching other things", guardian.co.uk Books Blog, 7 December 2007, 1 September 2011


While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. Poems that require more mature minds to understand can, and should, be used to stretch students to teach about these contexts as well as about the kind of imagry and analogy used in the poems. Using more difficult poems to stretch puplils will ensure they keep improving.


It is unthinkable that a school pupil does not know who his/her national poet is. English school pupils should be familiar with William Shakespeare, Scottish school pupils with Robert Burns and Welsh pupils with Dylan Thomas, Irish ones with James Joyce. Familiarity with one's own national poet is a basic.


The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.  Given that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; "Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) "poetry". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, "Why rap should be taught in schools", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011


In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.  In the UK, The Labour Party introduced The Literacy Hour, a programme that meant schools were obliged to dedicate more time to basic literacy (and numeracy) upon their election in 1997. However, as the aforementioned statistics have shown, all that has increased is the number of pupils failing in this basic subject. There are 5 million illiterate people in Scotland alone. All we know is that more time does need to be spent learning the basic literacy and numeracy. Appreciating literature and poetry, the artistic side of the English language, cannot be addressed until learners have fully understood and grasped the tools of reading, writing and vowel sounds that allow for fiction and poetry to be produced. We need an educational programme that recognises reading and writing as a matter of urgency and literary and poetry appreciation as a luxury in order to reduce the number of illiterate pupils.


In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.


Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language and a standard 'look, cover, write, check' method for learning spelling and expanding vocabulary is effective, for it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem- unconventional, even strange concepts typical of poetry may well be too demanding for the pupil, whose priority is to learn writing and reading. They can still learn reading through the cultural means of reading novels, in which the extended prose used by the author is far easier to follow.


It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.  War poetry, although foreign to our own experiences of peacetime, enables us as readers to gain insight into the minds of the terrified men who fought for our freedom. Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the war. In his poem Mental Cases, he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland, where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another WW1 poet) were treated for the condition; "Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows" (lines 1-2)1In our time of peace, we will never be able to fully empathise with their terrifying experiences, or successfully decode every observation, but we must read some of their poetry in order to appreciate the true and full horrors of war. We must do this out of respect for those who died for our freedom, and as such war poetry must be taught in schools. 1 Owen Owen, Wilfred, "Mental Cases", Wilfred Owen,accessed 1 September 2011.


Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.  We want cultured people to graduate from high schools. It is undesirable that all high school graduates, who are an educated group of people, will have no knowledge of art and no desire to ever immerse themselves in anything cultural such as a museum, or art gallery. This is what will happen if poetry and other art subjects are not respected in schools. As it is, English literature is the only cultural subject that is compulsory at GCSE level. Because it is the only obligatory cultural GCSE subject, as much culture must be channelled into it as possible i.e. novels and much poetry.


Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.  It is fundamental that education teaches students about the human condition in order to enable an understanding of humanity. High school students must therefore gain awareness of not only human ideas but also an awareness of how humans choose to express these ideas, which means they must learn about art. One of the ways in which humans choose to express their emotions is through literature, language and speech- poetry. For example, many Victorian poets such as William Wordsworth and Sir Walter Scott, who spent much time in the Lake District, turned to writing nature poetry, such as Wordsworth's famous poem Daffodils, because they wanted to "see into the life of things",1 and the best way to both investigate and express this was through nature poetry. 1 Lefebure, Molly, The Illustrated Lake Poets, Windward, 1987, p. 144


If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.  It is an enjoyable way to teach the core subject of home language and literature written therein; interesting and obscure concepts hold the learner's interest when studying their home language and its landmark literature, while simultaneously expanding vocabulary and improving spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise easily be exhaustive and repetitive For examples; Shirley Hughes' poems for young readers such as Best friends introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of their home language. The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson teaches the reader about a great historical landmark. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon et al teaches students about the First World War and the horrors thereof. Zoe's Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents.1 1 Wright, Kit, "Zoe's Earrings", BBC Learning Zone, accessed 1 September 2011


We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/or life skills, home language (not literature), maths and science and modern languages, business studies, law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, art subjects like poetry are no priority.


An appreciation for the true horrors of war can be gained through factual reading. Factual books about the horrors of the First World War offer better understanding the true extent of the atrocities than poetry. Firstly, they are factual and not based upon opinion. Secondly, they are more modern and have been written in the aftermath of the First World War. Therefore, they tell its full story and provide a panoramic view of the Greta War. Thirdly, many of the men who wrote war poetry went mad with shellshock. Trying to find sense in the nonsensical lyrics of poetry by those poor men sent mad is an impossible task; knowledge of and research into shellshock is a relatively new development.