As criminals and terrorists adapt to modern times, so should the law. If the principles of law are responsible for a failure to act which ultimately leads to criminals walking free and crimes being repeatedly committed, then the law has failed to serve the society it was built for [1] . The principles of law are meant to uphold justice [2] , but in this case they become an obstacle to it. Considering that the law in countries like Britain has already acknowledged intercept evidence as a tool in specific cases [3] , it cannot oppose the underlying principle of intercept evidence – rather, the practicalities. This undermines the opposition’s argument that intercept evidence is fundamentally out of joint with legal practice. Problematic practicalities will be better regulated [4] [5] and monitored if this motion is granted, but until then we risk allowing crime to go unhindered because of an imaginary obligation to the past.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  ,, accessed 30/08/11  [4] Regulations in American states:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] Regulation of wiretapping in Australia:  , accessed 30/08/11


Wiretapping can actually threaten the success of intelligence services in preventing crime and helping to prove criminals guilty.  Regular use of wiretap and intercept evidence poses a danger to the evidence-gathering capabilities of intelligence agencies. There are concerns among experts that terrorists, far from being apprehended, will simply learn new techniques for ‘listening in to calls made over the internet’ [1] and know exactly who and what the intelligence services are monitoring. In this way, they could actually evade intelligence services and the police by using different forms of communication, such as encrypting messages or using disposable mobile phones. Revealing the capabilities of our intelligence agencies could create harms which far outweigh any potential benefits of intercept evidence [2] . This makes intercept evidence self-negating; if it is used, the very revelation of its use will alert criminals to it and make it vulnerable to manipulation and tampering – therefore, the evidence actually becomes less reliable and less effective [3] . Ultimately, it does not provide a tangible benefit.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11


Common authorisation for wiretapping would result in misallocation of resources.  Wiretaps are not only unreliable, but incredibly expensive [1] [2] . Intelligence agents also often find themselves inadvertently listening in on ‘irrelevant, non-incriminating aspects of the target’s life’ [3] which not only breaches the privacy of innocent people but is an obvious waste of time and money for all involved. Given that many countries are considering or have cut their funding for police forces because of the recession [4] [5] [6] , this money could be put to a better use: preventing crime and terrorist activity by a stronger police presence.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4] In the UK:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] In the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [6] In New Zealand:  , accessed 30/08/11


Intercept evidence is simply not reliable enough to be effective evidence in court.  Wiretap evidence is not as reliable as other forms of evidence which we currently have at our disposal, such as DNA evidence which has ‘sent thousands of people to prison and . . . has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted’ [1] . Many potential aspects of intercept evidence lack this reliability. Voice analysis, for example, has been shown to be unreliable in exploring messages supposedly spoken by Osama Bin Laden [2] . Video intercept evidence notably failed when a video which purported to show Morgan Tsvangirai (the Zimbabwean opposition leader) conspiring against the government, when in fact he was somewhere else at the time [3] . The poor quality of intercept evidence is a threat within an individual trial, but also more widely; reliance on intercept evidence by prosecutors might lead to more cases collapsing after the evidence is proved unreliable, and wasting time and money for all involved.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11


The controversy which surrounds intercept evidence is far-reaching and very complex.  This debate is not contained within the courtroom but also spans wider principles of legal justice and the rules which uphold democratic law. Even countries which currently allow this evidence, such as certain US states [1] , have noted that it can be difficult to use successfully and without violating past Acts and wider legal principles [2] . Bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ argue that revealing the ‘evidence’ necessitates revealing how that evidence was garnered; as such, intercept evidence can compromise the security status of intelligence services and their techniques [3] . This kind of method should be reserved, if used at all, for singular, extreme cases such as terrorist activity where all other possibilities for collecting evidence have truly been exhausted. Finally, wiretapping and intercept evidence has been criticised or deemed illegitimate by many legal professionals [4] [5] . For this kind of evidence to be admissible in court, it needs to follow legal principles which have already been set up. There is little evidence that it can do so.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11


If wiretapping and intercept evidence can stop large-scale conspiracies [1] and potentially stop terrorist actions [2] , as it has done and has the potential to do, then price becomes irrelevant. The price of preventing perhaps hundred of people from being harmed in terrorist action should and will always outweigh a financial argument. Wiretapping could in fact lift the burden on over-stretched police forces as they do not have to physically apprehend criminals to attain evidence of their guilt. Wiretapping and intercept evidence is a step towards greater efficiency in our justice system.  [1]  ,, accessed 30/08/11  [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05249.pdf , accessed 30/08/11


This argument is made irrelevant by the fact that the UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which prevent the release of sensitive information from intelligence services [1] . There is no reason why playing a few minutes of recorded conversation in a courtroom automatically means that criminals and terrorists know the exact mechanisms used to record that information. Furthermore, if a trial is being held anyway, then the suspects involved already know that they have been monitored by intelligence services – otherwise they would not have been brought to trial. Similarly, high-risk terrorist cells already protect their communication by using things like encrypted messages [2] and disposable mobile phones [3] . Dangerous criminals and terrorists are already one step ahead of our current justice system; implementing this motion is the only way to have a genuine chance at apprehending them.  [1] The Official Secrets Act of 1989:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11


Via legal precedent, [1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well.  [1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008),


Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution.  Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003,


The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past


Restricting Habeas Corpus is necessary in the face of the new and dangerous threat which modern terrorism poses.  Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system


There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.


Habeas Corpus has often been suspended in times of conflict, when it has been deemed necessary.  There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. [1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. [2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain, [3] and in 1817, [4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained. [5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified.  [1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862,   [2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5,   [3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002,   [4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55,   [5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82,


The hatred that terrorists feel for the US and its Allies does not depend on details of their respective legal systems. Their hate stems from our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of Allied military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. If the prisoners currently held without trial in Guantanamo Bay were released, they could untold damage to the US and its Allies. The risk of this occurring clearly outweighs the ethical issues concerning the suspension of Habeas Corpus protections.


Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our respective nations to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities and their Allies operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nations must come first. The US and its Allies must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated.


Disregarding Habeas Corpus protections sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of the soldiers and citizens of the US and its Allies when captured by foreign forces.  If the US disregards Habeas Corpus protections, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. If other countries follow suit, the citizens and soldiers of the US and its Allies abroad could also be indefinitely detained and denied legal recourse if captured by foreign forces. This is especially relevant when considering journalists covering foreign conflicts, such as those currently occurring in the Middle East. [1]  [1] Staff reports, ‘USA TODAY writer, 3 other journalists captured in Libya’, USA Today, 8 April 2011,


Suspending Habeas Corpus makes it easier for terrorist organisations to demonise the US and its Allies, and thus to recruit more terrorists in its fight against the West.  By suspending Habeas Corpus, the US is playing into the hands of terrorists and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. Enemies of the West aim to demonstrate that the US is an oppressive state in order to make its model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. The US should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA.


Suspending Habeas Corpus undermines the moral high ground of the US and its Allies, and strengthens the cause of the terrorists which these nations are fighting against.  Restrictions on Habeas Corpus undermine the war against terror and put national security further at risk. Giving terrorist suspects the protection of Habeas Corpus legitimises the war against terror by ensuring that US actions against suspected terrorists have a legal basis, and are not in contravention of the rule of law. The moment that the US and its Allies show the rule of law the disrespect that typifies the regimes which the West seeks to overthrow, the fight for ‘hearts and minds’ will be lost. This effect can easily be seen in the results of the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the UK in order to arrest suspected IRA activists in 1971 – rather than suppressing the IRA as intended it increased support for the terrorist organisation. [1]  [1] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82,


The necessity of the measures, and the size of the terrorist threat which faces the US, outweighs the possible problems posed in the opposition argument.


Even the best Truth and Reconciliation process can only arrive at a partial version of the truth. This may take so many years that political development is halted while society relives the trauma through commission proceedings.  Truth and reconciliation commissions also impose a particular form of morality upon both their participants and the post conflict society they serve. This moral perspective draws upon specifically Christian traditions of confession, absolution and forgiveness that may be alien to victims and perpetrators alike. Even in an almost completely Christian South Africa, many victims' families rejected the process for this reason; it is even less well suited to other societies and cultures.  It is no coincidence that the truth and reconciliation process is so heavily promoted by European and American think tanks, government and NGOs. It fits into a decidedly Christian niche and presents western donors and aid givers with an image of progress that they can understand an easily approve of. However, without closer ties to the cultural contexts in which past political violence took place, reconciliation commissions run the risk of obstructing political and social reform in the very societies that they are intended to protect.


Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts  It is important to uncover the real truth of what happened during periods of violence and/or repression. Uncertainty as to the fate of loved ones, the identity of informants or the motives for certain actions can maintain the grip of a conflict over the minds of its victims for many years [i] . The unreason and capriciousness of certain actions can undermine an individual’s identity and capacity to trust. A victory is supposed to bring rapprochement, reason and stability to a conflict zone – but it is unable to have this effect on individuals without some method of rationalising a conflict [ii] .  This result can only ever be achieved with the cooperation of those responsible; the individuals who had access to relevant documents or even participated in violent acts [iii] . Without this collective revelation of grief and guilt, the families of the victims will never know the truth about their suffering, and so will not be able to mourn them with dignity. The nation must also confront its past so that those who did not commit violence themselves, but who supported violent groups or repressive regimes, even if only passively, can no longer claim, "I did not know" but must acknowledge their part too and commit themselves to building a better society.  [i] National Healing and Reconciliation in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities. P 9. 2010, Pamela Machakanja.   [ii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 1, 54-58. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.   [iii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 142-143. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.


The reconciliation process provides access to justice in post conflict states  Countries emerging from violent pasts, involving repression, civil war and political violence may attempt to come to terms with their histories in three ways.  Firstly, they can attempt to ignore the past, allowing those guilty of atrocities to go unpunished and perhaps even prosper under the new system. This approach leaves victims' families bitter and communities divided, entrenching resentments and potentially distorted accounts of individuals’ involvement in violent activities. Such a situation makes renewed violence all the more likely.  Secondly, post conflict states can set up war crimes courts (as in the Balkans, Rwanda and Sierra Leone), but these may be seen as victor's justice, or as an imposition by a distant opaque international body. Those threatened by such courts may refuse to lay down their arms, jeopardising any chance of a lasting peace settlement - as with Joseph Kony's long-running rebellion in Northern Uganda.  Finally and often best, they can set up a form of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This requires the whole country to face up to its past, to acknowledge that violence was done by all parties and that the victims were many, and to seek reconciliation through forgiveness at both personal and national levels.


Terrible crimes deserve appropriate punishments. Ignoring the past may not be a good idea, but war criminals (especially the leaders of violent groups) should be brought to justice in public trials.  This approach is the only way to ensure that dangerous men are not allowed to continue to act in and influence vulnerable societies. Such individuals are often opportunistic, using periods of peace to re-arm and refresh political sympathies, before resuming campaigns of violence. Indeed, the notorious Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony took advantage of peace negotiations initiated in early 2008 to rearm his followers and to forcibly recruit child soldiers for communities in south Sudan and Congo [i] .  Adversarial justice also allows punishment to be proportionate, distinguishing between individuals who planned violence and repression, and those who followed their orders, rather than granting all the same amnesty.  Most importantly, treating communal and political violence as a crime sends a message to other would-be warlords and dictators, both at home and abroad, that justice will not be denied; the easy assumption of amnesties will only encourage future violence.  [i] “Lord’s Resistance Army uses truce to rearm and spread fear in Uganda”, The Times, 16 December 2008.


Financial compensation was only part of the South African Commission's work. Although it has been slow to arrive it is continuing to be distributed. More will be done over time, and the impact of reconciliation on polls is also a long-term process.  The economies of states recovering from war and dictatorship are typically unproductive and undeveloped, so it is unreasonable to expect immediate results in this area. Lengthy war crimes trials deal with only a fraction of the abuses committed, and typically cost tens of millions of dollars (mostly in legal costs, mostly obtained from foreign donors) more than a Truth and Reconciliation process, so they are even harder to justify.


A Truth and Reconciliation process provides a national forum for facing up to the past. It places responsibility for resolving the tensions latent in post conflict scenarios in the hands of the parties to that conflict [i] . The ICC, by contrast, represents an international intrusion into the moral discourses of post conflict societies.  War crimes tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda have taken years to achieve a very small number of convictions. They can often appear to have been hijacked by international bodies such as NATO or the UN, in an attempt to impose a solution from outside (to salve consciences in the west) without providing a real understanding of the particular circumstances of the individual nation.  [i] “The voice of ‘Prime Evil’”, BBC News Online, 28 October 1998.


Reconciliation can be used to conceal political corruption and patrimony  Truth and Reconciliation commissions are a mask, behind which political bargains can be made that allow the guilty to go free [i] . Power is traded in return for amnesty. People may be required to confess to their crimes (although in South Africa middle-ranking bureaucrats were the main scapegoats, while their political masters mostly escaped close scrutiny), but they will not be punished for them [ii] .  South Africa is a unique exception to the rule that reconciliation commissions do nothing more than legitimatise dealings between equally dubious and unaccountable elites where violence was often committed by agents of the state for purely political reasons, and where the end of repression was negotiated rather than brought about through victory for one side. Elsewhere political and criminal or economic violence are hard to separate (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia), and violence was ended by victory for one party, often with external help (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia, again, but also Rwanda).  [i] “’I cannot betray Kony’ – Museveni”, The Daily Monitor, 16 August 2006,   [ii] Apartheid did not die. 1998, John Pilger, johnpilger.com.


The South African reconciliation commission has proven itself to be ineffective  Frequently cited as the most successful post conflict restorative justice programme in recent history, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process has failed in a number of ways.  Polls show that different races are more polarised after its work, rather than less [i] , so reconciliation seems to be failing [ii] . As the journalist Peter Storey comments, “some have decried the absence of repentance in many amnesty applications [made to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission]. Apart from the fact that this is a further damning judgment on perpetrators, the legislation does not require repentance, only the truth.”  Storey notes that “The issue of amnesty has been… controversial. Some victims’ families challenged these provisions in South Africa’s highest court[s].” [iii]  The South African Reconciliation Commission also promised financial redress for victims and their families, but this has largely failed to appear.  [i] Ubu and the Truth Commission. Director’s note. 2007, Jane Taylor, University of Cape Town press  [ii] “Antonette’s story”, BBC News Online, 29 October 1998.   [iii] “A Different Kind of Justice: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa”, The Christian Century, 10 September 1997.


International and inter-governmental bodies are better able to secure justice for the victims of war crimes  The United Nations, the ICC and other international bodies have great experience and expertise in dealing with post-conflict situations, including running war crimes trials. They can draw upon the lessons to be learnt from other countries and apply them in partnership with local politicians and lawyers.  The involvement of inter-governmental bodies is important because conflicts are rarely entirely domestic, often spilling over into neighbouring states, as in the Balkans, South-East Asia and West Africa. International courts can also avoid the suspicion of bias and corruption which an entirely national process can suffer.  Post conflict societies are often lack a stable professional class. Access and cooperation with lawyers, clergy and academics is often necessary to ensure that a reconciliation commission can run effectively and can verify the testimony that it hears. The international community can provide skilled individuals of this type.


Compromise is essential to achieving peace and stability after years of conflict. This often has to be negotiated, as in South Africa, and has to survive for long enough for trust to grow. A Truth and Reconciliation process allows for such compromises to be made, favouring no side over another and helping a move to peaceful democratic politics. It does not seek retributive justice but restorative justice, which gives value to the victims of conflict and requires their oppressors to address their sufferings.  The amnesties offered by truth and reconciliation commissions are not easily obtained, but have to be applied for individually, through a complete and truthful disclosure of past crimes. If information is withheld, or the crimes are found not to be politically motivated, then prosecution and punishment are still possible.


There is a fundamental difference between someone’s actions directly resulting in another person’s death and the case of bullying. In the case of manslaughter, the victim never had a choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for what happened. But some victims of bullying take a decision to kill themselves, while others do not. The bully cannot be held responsible for someone else’s decision and action, only for her own.


The bully's intentions are irrelevant  In criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great [1] . The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life.  [1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009.


We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone.


The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological  Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide [1] . Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide [2] . This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying.  [1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010  [2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.


The law should only punish people for their own actions, not those of others. It’s fine to punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is against the law. But ‘bullycide’ implies the bully bears individual responsibility for the death of the victim, just like in the case of murder or manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have intended to harm or berate the victim, she made no attempt on the victim’s life, and cannot be treated like a murderer, who intentionally took the life of another.


The laws are inadequate because it is very hard to define bullying. Almost any act or gesture can constitute bullying depending the victim’s subjective experience of it. Criminalizing bullying would lead to criminalizing behaviour that would be considered normal by most standards.


The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative  Bullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life [1] . She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying.  [1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010.


The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying  Even when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm [1] , or invasion of privacy [2] . But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately.  [1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011.   [2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times. September 29. 2010.


Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed.


Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service.


Conduct offence  Defining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying [1] . Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy.  [1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005.


Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target  According to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in [1] . Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society.  [1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008.


Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools  Schools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010.


It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide  Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010.


Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death. Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment.


Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions  In any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide.


Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account.


We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.


Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved.  While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy. Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money. If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions. Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.


Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs  While many societies have attempted to restrict sex to marriage, few (if any) have succeeded. In contemporary, secular liberal societies, adults are no longer punished for pursuing sex outside of marriage. Many adults find non-marital sex satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling, whether it occurs in the context of an ongoing romantic relationship, a casual friendship, or a market exchange. While many people will never seek the services of a sex worker, those who do are often seeking sensual comfort, companionship, entertainment, and fantasy fulfilment. While the latter goods are often obtainable in non-market relationships, some people prefer the convenience and efficiency of market mechanisms for securing these goods.  In a liberal society, individuals are free to pursue their own vision of happiness, as long as they respect the moral and civil rights of others. Markets that provide sexual services enable some individuals to secure goods essential to their happiness. Those who provide services to these individuals can do so in a manner that respects their rights and dignity, if the markets are legal and well regulated.


No person would sell sex unless they were desperate. To have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, desire, and affection is repulsive to any sane and mentally competent adult.  People who sell sex are not exercising sexual autonomy, but are giving up their right to sexual autonomy in order to support themselves and their families. Instead of legalizing sex markets, societies should provide other means of employment and a basic standard of living to all members, so that no one has to resort to prostitution to survive.


Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking  Some markets in sex should be blocked. Markets that involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention, should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should be prosecuted. As with any service, it is critically important that no one is forced to work or to continue working, either through the threat of harm or through fraud and deception. It is also critically important that children are protected from sexual predators, and are excluded from all aspects of sex businesses. Forced labor and child sexual abuse involve violations of basic human rights that all societies are expected to protect.  Voluntary, adult sex work is significantly different from trafficking, and law enforcers need to distinguish market exchanges involving consensual sex among adults from market exchanges involving forced sex among adults or involving minors. By legalizing voluntary, adult sex work, law enforcers and rights protectors could focus their efforts on eliminating markets that involve the sexual abuse of adults or children. Additionally, clients of sex business would have the choice of patronizing legal business, and therefore would be less likely to patronize inadvertently a business that relies on forced or child labor.


Prohibition does more harm than good  Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual services does not protect those who sell or buy such services, but rather pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded when such markets are prohibited. When selling and buying sex is illegal, those participating in these exchanges cannot, or simply do not, seek the protection of the law when their rights are violated. Because crimes against sex workers or their clients are often unreported, and when reported often not investigated, predators and rights violators can take advantage of others without fear of arrest and punishment. Moreover, because criminalization forces sex work into remote and invisible corners of society, sellers and buyers are less able to insure their safety and protection. For these reasons, laws criminalizing sex markets amplify the risks sellers and buyers face when they participate in sex market transactions.  The main purpose of criminalizing sex markets is to protect those who enter such markets from harm. Yet the harms of paying or accepting money for a good that can be legally exchanged for free are far less than the harms that result from the rights violations that often occur (robbery, battery, sexual assault, murder) when sex markets are pushed underground.


The fact that prohibition cannot prevent prostitution is not an argument against prohibition. We have laws prohibiting murder, and yet murders happen. Our laws deter some murders and they express our society’s moral outrage regarding murder.  Similarly, laws prohibiting prostitution deter some prostitution and express our society’s moral condemnation of sex for hire. These laws do not create harms, rather prostitution itself creates harms, by robbing those who participate of self-respect, and contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is inevitable that laws prohibiting prostitution will make it riskier to engage in prostitution, as this is the purpose of such laws: to provide disincentives to those who might otherwise engage in this activity.


While some sex market transactions are more consensual than others, all sex markets treat people like objects to be used and exploited by others. Sex should not be turned into work or a business from which some people profit, even when the labor is allegedly voluntary.  Moreover, it is not evident that the proliferation of legal sex businesses would involve the proliferation of sex businesses that acted ethically and responsibly. If sex businesses could operate in a more lax and permissive environment, many abuses would go undetected. Because of the already noxious aspects of this industry, abuses such as fraud, deception, and coercion are intolerable.


Legalizing prostitution would unleash forces that exploit vulnerable women and men for profit. People with the means to buy sexual access to others would be able to exploit those who are poor, young, or inexperienced. By legalizing prostitution, society endorses impersonal and promiscuous sexual relations that damage individuals and families.  The resources we allocate to protect vulnerable citizens from sexual exploitation, and to uphold the values of sexual commitment, loyalty, and responsibility, are well spent, and the foundation of a healthy social order.


Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy  Sexual autonomy means being able to control when, where, and with whom one has sexual relations. It also means that, at any moment, one may withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter.  Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to sexual autonomy. If an adult chooses to engage in sex with other adults who offer material benefits, her right to sexual autonomy is respected as long as she has control over when, where, and with which clients she has sexual relations, and as long as she is mentally competent and is allowed to terminate the agreement at any time.  If markets in sex were to become legal, the rights of providers (and clients) to sexual autonomy would need to be respected. This means that sex workers would maintain the right to refuse service to any customer, and to discontinue service or employment at any time and for any reason. Like other workers, sexual service providers would have the right to a safe and healthy work place. Workers who are drug dependent, or otherwise incompetent or highly vulnerable in the work place, would need to be provided treatment and time off work until they were capable of protecting themselves and others.


Legalization has benefits for society  Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial. In particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the communities in which they operated. By allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers, clients, and business owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their communities. Sex businesses and workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees. Business owners would be expected to comply with standard business laws and regulations. Moreover, the government could enact special regulations appropriate to this industry, such as age restrictions on workers and clients, and mandatory condom use.  The resources that are currently allocated to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and clients could be reallocated for better uses. For example, these resources could be used to better address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and the many public and individual needs that go unmet.


In market sexual transactions, each party pursues the satisfaction of her/his desires. The service provider is typically pursuing her desire for income, while the client is typically pursuing his desire for sensual enjoyment and intimate companionship. As long as each party respects the terms of the exchange, they are treating each other as beings with ends of their own, and therefore morally.


Sex exchanged for money may not have the same value and meaning as sex exchanged as a gift among lovers. Yet, it does not follow from this that paid sex is without value. The value of paid sex is clearly subjective, and may be derived from its ability to provide sensual pleasure, sex education, and relief from stress, boredom, or loneliness. It may be less meaningful and enjoyable than sex with a romantic companion, but when the latter is not an option, paid sex may be an acceptable substitute. Since people have different expectations from paid sex than non-market romantic sex, they are not likely to suffer emotional and psychological damage from the former.  Individuals who are not in monogamous relationships, and who have multiple sexual partners must take special precautions to protect their physical health, whether money is exchanged or not. Sex work does not pose additional health risks that are not otherwise faced by sexually active but non-monogamous individuals. There are precautions that all sexually active people can take to protect their health, such as rigorous condom use and regular health exams. Moreover, societies can promote education about STDs and how they are transmitted and detected, so that all sexually active individuals can learn how protect themselves.  Markets in sex do not in themselves precipitate harms or pose a public health threat, rather ignorance about sex and STDs, and barriers to health care and prophylactics such as condoms, are responsible for the harms of sex.


Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty  Sexual relationships involve crossing ordinary social boundaries that exist between people, and exposing aspects of ourselves that normally remain private. This aspect of sexual relationships renders the parties vulnerable emotionally and socially, and therefore sexual partners often extract commitments from each other of sexual fidelity and exclusivity. These commitments allow people to engage in sexual relationships while treating each other with decency and respect.  Markets are public and involve exchanges among strangers. In markets, goods are exchanged with the highest bidders and not with those to whom we are committed and loyal. For this reason, markets in sex undermine the ideals of sexual commitment, loyalty, or exclusivity, which makes decent and respectful sexual relationships possible. Markets are for exchanging shoes and cars, or services that we can separate from ourselves without leaving us emotionally and socially vulnerable or exposed. Sexual relationships require commitments of fidelity and exclusivity so we don’t lose part of ourselves in the exchange.


Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities  Markets in sex are shaped by values that differ from non-market sexual relationships. Market sexual transactions are not structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social intimates, but rather by the ends of profit maximization and mutual benefit among strangers. The goods exchanged in a market are interchangeable with other goods, in ways that maximize profit and mutual benefit. When these goods include sexual services, the sexual services of one provider will be interchangeable with those of another.  The position of seller or buyer in a particular market is often determined by one’s gender, class, race, and nationality. In sex markets, sellers are typically female, and buyers are typically male. Race, class, and other social hierarchies also shape one’s position in a sex market. Because the sellers in sex markets are often people who are disadvantaged by their gender, class, race, or nationality, the existence of markets in their sexual services will promote the idea that the sexual capacities of women (and other disadvantaged groups) are goods that are interchangeable and exploitable. The idea that the sexual capacities of women (and girls) can be accessed as market goods or commodities will shape attitudes toward women and girls who do not enter sex markets as providers. In this way, the values that structure markets in sex will spill over into non-market sexual relationships, and lead men to regard women as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects.


Moral sex requires more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values  Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own. This means that we are morally required to consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish desires. In market sexual transactions, the client merely pursues the satisfaction of his own desires, and therefore treats the service provider as a means to his own ends.  Because prostitution inevitably involves the instrumental and immoral treatment of others, toleration of prostitution involves the toleration of immoral behaviour. Society should uphold moral values by banning prostitution.


Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex  The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is bartered. Taking or offering money cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many on the open market diminishes its value. Moreover, while the benefits of commoditized sex are questionable, the harms are significant. Those who engage in such exchanges diminish their capacity for genuine sexual intimacy, while damaging their physical, emotional, and mental health. Moreover, the harms of market sexual transactions often affect non-involved third parties, such as the spouses or lovers of sellers and buyers.  Because the harms of market sex are long lasting, though sometimes distant, it is appropriate for society to intervene to prevent these harms. Markets in sex pose a public health threat, just like markets in dangerous drugs. Prohibition will reduce the number of people who engage in market sexual transactions, and for those who do participate, there are ways to minimize violations of their rights.


Consumers can access the healing capacities of health care providers without coming to regard the people who provide health care as replaceable market goods rather than unique human subjects. Consumers can access the cooking talents of chefs without coming to regard the people who provide good food as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects. Sex markets may differ in that the position of consumer and provider is often shaped by gender and other social markers. But if this is what causes the degradation of the provider into a replaceable and exploitable good, then what needs to change is how positions in this market are shaped by one’s social identity, rather than eliminating sex markets.  All markets are structured by social hierarchies. As illegitimate social hierarchies based on gender, race, class, and so on, are dismantled, then this will have beneficial effects on all markets and not just sex markets.


People who engage in market sexual relationships and other forms of casual sex can treat their partners with dignity and respect. This involves respecting the boundaries that sexual partners communicate to each other, regarding what parts of their lives and themselves they are willing to share. With different sexual partners we open up in different ways, and people who engage in casual, market sexual relationships might draw different emotional and sexual boundaries in these relationships than in others. While casual sexual relationships are unlikely to involve commitments of fidelity and exclusivity, they are compatible with the decent and respectful treatment of others if persons in these relationships respect their partners’ rights to privacy, autonomy, and other basic interests.


The overriding objective of the justice system is to ensure that the innocent go free, not that the guilty are punished, and the system should be orientated around that objective.  Ex post-facto confessions do not make someone ‘clearly guilty’ as false confessions can arise for a number of reasons, from boasting to an innocent misstatement.  It is also wrong to assume that new evidence is better evidence. The longer a trial takes place after a crime the less strong the evidence gets; memories get weaker, people go missing, evidence can be damaged etc. There is also the problem that in a re-trial any tactical advantage of ‘ambushing’ a witness in cross-examination is lost because they know that the ambush is coming. There are therefore a multitude of reasons why retrials are less likely to achieve convictions than a well prepared first trial.


Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment  The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before. 1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News:


Such restrictions on double jeopardy would not be effective in practice, for they attempt to put a value on the relative importance of crimes without using either the prospect of re-offending or the impact on victims. As QC Geoffrey Robertson noted in response to the Law Commission's finding, it is irrational to confine the possibility of re-trials to 'serious crimes' alone and exclude "repetitive, professional" crime like armed robbery. If the intention of the repeal is to bring both offenders to justice and prevent further crime, it is exactly the 'repetitive, professional' criminals who should be targeted.


The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial  All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials. 1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian:


Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has been brought again, there will be a presumption that the accused is guilty because a higher court has already decided that the new evidence makes the acquitted defendant now look guilty after all, and so granted a retrial. The presumption of innocence will no longer exist. And unless the system is going to be overwhelmed with retrials like this, in which case it would be unworkable, then second trial capacity can only (and rightly) be directed towards ‘exceptional’ cases. Such cases are well known - like that of the murder of Stephen Lawrence 1. How could individuals face trial again on the same charges, when in the glare of media attention it has been declared they should have been convicted at the first trial? How could they possibly expect a fair trial?  1. Akwagyiram, A. (2008, April 22). The legacy of Stephen Lawrence. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:


Faith in the justice system is derived from it being been to be fair and even-handed. It is not merely faith on the part of victims that offenders will be found guilty, but faith on the part of innocent defendant that they will be found innocent.  The double jeopardy rule reinforces faith in the justice system because it forces the prosecution service to make the best possible case that they can – because they only get one shot to make it. It also means that defendants can feel secure in submitting themselves to trial on the basis that an acquittal represents complete security from future accusations.  Abolishing the double jeopardy rule would actually undermine confidence in the system – overturning an acquittal is an explicit statement that the system produces false negatives. If it becomes widely accepted that a not-guilty verdict is meaningless then the principle of the presumption of innocence loses its force.


Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges  The scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to "quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free.


Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system  When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this.  1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News: 2 BBC News. (2005, April 3). Double jeopardy law ushered out. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:


Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times to ensure that defendants brought to trial are done so appropriately. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose escape from punishment occurred only because of a lack of satisfactory evidence. For example, In 1963 when Hanratty stood trial for the A6 murder (a gruesome offence where the abused victim was shot in her car and left to die on the motorway), semen stains on the victim's underwear could not be investigated using the technology of the day1. He was convicted anyway on the facts, but if he hadn't been, and thanks to advances in technology the sperm turns out later to be his (as it has), shouldn't we use that evidence to obtain justice for those concerned? Some evidence couldn't possibly have been used at the time of trial, because the technology doesn't exist. Looked at now, it could demonstrate conclusive guilt. If such evidence exists, isn't there a compulsion to use it?2 How can we ignore it?  1 Foot, P. (2000, July 25). Hanratty was innocent. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian: 2 The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:


The rule of law, by its very nature, serves the cause of justice. In doing so, it is often overturned, but only in order to ensure that justice is delivered and offenders punished. Protection from the state therefore is a principle that is relinquished by those who commit crimes; it is the protection of the state from such people that thereafter becomes paramount. The double jeopardy rule enshrines in law that the key factor in any trial is the quality of police work up to that point, rather than the actual guilt of the defendant. If abolished, vindictive policemen will not affect the integrity of the justice system, the case will still be judged by the quality of the evidence whilst the defendant will have recourse to protest their innocence. The potential for innocent people to go through the stress of further trials is a price worth paying to ensure the guilty do not walk free.


Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state  We’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources of the state trained on individuals again and again and again, ‘until the state secured (the) popular result’ 1. The double jeopardy rule provides closure for both defendants and the prosecution; if the prosecution regret their case in the future, the fault lies not with the double jeopardy rule itself, but their decision to go to trial based on insufficient evidence. Citizens should not be forced to go through the stress of multiple trials due to the incompetence of the state. ‘If a person accused of a serious crime is acquitted, they are entitled to have some certainty in their future’2. That certainty can only be guaranteed if the prosecution is granted one attempt at a conviction, and one only.  1. The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:  2. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion:


Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds  The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…Subsequently, if the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is scrapped, police work will be sloppier, because police detectives will know that the insurance of a second trial exists. The ‘one-shot’ rule forces investigations and prosecutions to be of as high a quality as possible. The abolishment of double jeopardy would be ‘merely a shortcut to prosecutors seeking unlimited re-trials until they get the verdict they want’ 1. Courts cannot be permitted to be tied up in such cases, nor can prosecutors be allowed to destroy the lives of defendants by enforcing such constant emotional turmoil.  1. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion:


The rule of law means less if it is being constantly overturned  Respect for the law will diminish if criminal verdicts exist in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he 'knows' the accused, properly acquitted in a court of law, to be guilty nevertheless. The nature of our police force means that these instances are inevitable as it imparts a strong cognitive bias onto our policemen to look for guilt - so unless we mandate a rule determining when a line of investigation has to end, police will continue to focus on their chosen 'perpetrator' until they get the result that they have decided is correct. As Matthew Kelly QC notes, removing double jeopardy restrictions could 'lead to prosecutions routinely seeking a second bite of the cherry, if a case flopped first time for good reason.'1  Given that we are talking about a tiny proportion of cases, it is better to have the principle of finality - because the police will spend vast amounts of time and effort and money on case that are already resolved, to the detriment of crimes that will receive less attention. Therefore successful detective work, and subsequent conviction rates, will increase with the double jeopardy rule in place, not decrease, for police cannot allow themselves to remain rooted in closed cases. 1 BBC News. (2005, April 3). Double jeopardy law ushered out. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:


The people who are protected by this rule are the guilty who are wrongly declared innocent; the murderer whose voice couldn’t be identified on the tape; the rapist who couldn’t be identified because DNA testing wasn’t sufficiently developed at the time; the robber who couldn’t be identified because facial mapping technology didn’t exist to show their face beneath the mask. People may in unguarded moments confess to crimes for which they have been found not guilty. Why would the state be in their favour and against the victims that so deserve justice - why should victims suffer because evidence didn’t emerge until later?  The test for guilt will still be 'reasonable doubt' - defendents who are genuinely innocent have no need to fear because they will still be found innocent.


While they undermine the court, they are an inevitable quid pro quo of part of diplomatic relations with the US, the last remaining superpower. While impunity is not ideal, it is better than not signing and taking part in international criminal justice at all. Creating BIAs does not mean that the countries in question will absolve their own citizens of wrongdoing instead they are likely to be tried at home and in some cases may still be handed over to the ICC.


The rationale for the BIAs is flawed  The Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a citizen of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute, or in the territory of a Rome Statute state) and commits the horrific acts covered by the Rome Statute should be brought to trial by providing a get out clause for the powerful. A proliferation in BIAs could potentially render the ICC a court that can only try nationals of small states that do not have the leverage to get others to agree to BIAs, already the ICC is accused of bias in putting Africans on trial and ignoring the rest of the world, such agreements make this worse. [1] BIAs by one state, the United States, creates a precedent for other states to use and as they do so the field that is available for international criminal justice will become smaller and smaller.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “African and the ICC: Some Unsolicited Advice”, Africa at LSE, 28 May 2013,


The United States is not under any form of responsibility to other states to provide them with military and other aid. Aid has always been provided with strings attached to those whose receipt of aid is considered beneficial. It is within the purview of the US to decide who they give aid to, based on their own priorities. This is simply part of the diplomatic process. If the US wishes to provide aid to countries that sign up to treaties then this is its right, it is perfectly normal to provide a sweetener to encourage states to sign up while punishing those that don’t.  This then is a good reason why these European states should not pull out of their BIAs. To do so would mean losing the financial benefits being provided. At the same time it would also show that these states are not to be trusted when they sign up to international agreements.


The BIAs are at best bad faith compliance, and worst a blatant violation of the Rome Statute  The European states have signed and ratified the ICC Statute and should honour it, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the ICC which those states supported throughout its genesis and at least claim to continue to support.  Article 98(2) was only intended to be a factor where there are other agreements such as status of forces agreements (an agreement entered in to between two states, one having military forces in the other voluntarily, such as British troops in Germany). It was not meant as a broad-brush way for states being able to grant selective immunity to citizens of non-member states who have committed genocide or crimes against humanity inside the jurisdiction of an ICC member state.  Signing an Article 98 Agreement is at best accepting foreign instigation of the abuse of process of a treaty. At worst it is accepting an illegal attempt at circumventing the treaty.


The text of the Rome Statute is clear. Article 98(2) is unspecific as to the variety of international agreements that it covers, unlike the narrower Article 98(1) covering diplomatic immunity.  Article 98 Agreements are a tool that is a legitimate method of the US ensuring that US citizens are not subject to trial and punishment by a court which the United States is not a part of. This would run against the principle that a treaty only affects states that have signed and ratified it, rather than any others.


The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States  The United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch [1] .  This has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to countries such as South Africa, the Bahamas [2] and Peru [3] , as well as making threats to accession to NATO in the case of Croatia. [4]  By signing up to Article 98 Agreements, European nations help contribute to a climate where smaller nations can also be strong-armed in to harming the International Criminal Court by signing them, even if they were not subject to blackmailed in to it themselves.  [1] Roth, Kenneth, “Letter to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court”, Human Rights Watch, 2003   [2] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003  [3] Keppler, Elise, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2009, 2, p12,   [4] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003


Theoretical impunity is still impunity. The concept that any entity should be given special treatment by the law runs contrary to principles of the rule of law. If such immunity is not going to be needed then there is very little reason for the agreements in the first place and there should be little objection to getting rid of them.


The Rome Statute itself does not bind any state to be put on trial – it binds individuals. Individuals violating the criminal law of a state (the Rome Statute also integrating the international criminal law in to the national criminal law) have always been subject to trial and punishment by that state, barring cases of diplomatic immunity or other separate cases. This is nothing new – the Rome Statute respects the sovereignty of a nation within its territory. If anything, it is the use of coercive tactics by a state to give its citizens immunity from the ordinary law that is the violation of national sovereignty.  Even without the BIAs it would only be possible to prosecute Americans if they commit an international crime in the jurisdiction of another state. When this occurs due to the principle of territoriality it has traditionally been the case that the state upon whose territory the act was committed is able to try those who committed the act. It is not a violation of sovereignty to allow the ICC rather than the other state the right to bring the defendant to trial.


Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US  Many of the states in Europe that have signed up to BIA’s are applicant to NATO which leaves them in a difficult position when it comes to withdrawing from such a treaty. While NATO members are exempt from the punitive provisions aimed at states who do not have Article 98 agreements, in order to join NATO the state will need the support of the United States. Such support will be less forthcoming if that country has abandoned an agreement with the United States such as a BIA. Linking issues is not unusual in international relations whether it is linking multiple issues in a single larger negotiation or blocking progress in joining an organisation as a result of a single issue. Perhaps the best example of this occurring is Turkey and the EU where Turkey’s membership has been held up by its dispute with Cyprus over the northern half of the island. [1]  Even if the United States were to allow an application to NATO to proceed despite the abandonment of their bilateral treaty relations will surely be damaged. No state is going to welcome another state unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty they have signed. The Eastern European states value their relationship with the United States due to that country’s commitment to their independence and support during the early 1990s as the soviet bloc broke up. It would not make sense for these small independent countries to risk relations with the world’s most powerful statements over an agreement which is unlikely to ever have a practical relevance.  [1] Rinke, Andreas, and Solaker, Gulsen, “Cyprus remains stumbling block in Turkey’s EU ambition: Merkel”, Reuters, 25 February 2013,


Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed  The prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Security Council referring a case against America to the ICC as the US has a veto as a permanent member.  The ICC already makes only a highly limited number of prosecutions per year, in obvious cases, and so far all of these have been focused on the developing world. While Article 98 agreements may be unsavoury, the chance of them actually being used to grant someone impunity is low.


Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty  As a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [1] that a treaty only binds the states that have consented to it. Binding citizens of states who are not parties, who may be acting under the orders of a state arm, such as a military, when in the territory of state parties, violates that state’s sovereignty. There have been attempts to put US soldiers on trial. Italy for example put Mario Lozano on trial for the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, the US maintained he was doing his job at a checkpoint and provided warnings while the Italians considered it murder. In this case the United States was able to refuse to hand the soldier over but BIA’s ensure that such actions will not be a concern whenever troops are deployed abroad. [2]  Bilateral Immunity Agreements are a legitimate tool to ensure that this key principle is protected in the case of the International Criminal Court – this has no bearing on the nations that desire to be part of the International Criminal Court.  [1] United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969,   [2] “Controversial Trial Opens in Rome: Italy Tries US Soldier For Iraq Murder”, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2007,


The US is not focusing on encouraging existing NATO members to withdraw from the ICC. Existing NATO members are not subject to the aid-cutting provisions of US law (before and after the Presidential waiver was created), neither are major non-NATO allies – indeed, all EU member states in NATO are ICC members, with the exception of Romania none have signed an Article 98 agreement.  Much of the US antagonism to the ICC came during the Bush administration, when the ICC was an unproven organization in its infancy.  Since then, US Policy towards the ICC has softened, as can be evidenced by the US voting in favour of referring the situation in Libya to the ICC (compared to abstaining in the referral of Darfur), so it would be unlikely to do much harm to bilateral relations if other states were to expand their co-operation. No EU member state other than Romania has entered in to an Article 98 Agreement with the US. [1]  [1] Barbour, The International Criminal Court, 2010


The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.  The argument about a rapid increase in gun crime in the UK depends upon a very limited and selective use of crime data. Recorded gun crime did indeed rise by close to 105% between 1998 (when handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane tragedy) and 2003, but a large proportion of that increase is attributable to air weapon misuse and non-firing replica weapons. [1] Since then the increase has largely stabilised and even fallen. A temporary trend, now brought under control, is not necessarily a strong argument for changing, for ever, the nature and character of British policing.  By this policy—especially in the absence of a Constitutional right for citizens to bear arms—the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values and that policing is undertaken in a spirit of the minimum use of force and by ‘public consent’.  [1] Squires, P. 2008 Gun Crime: a Review of Evidence and Policy, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies


The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems  The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighborhood unarmed policing reflect the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. In the UK, for example, gun crime almost doubled in the decade to 2008, [1] while the rise in London gun crime has tripled, the police need to be able to respond to this. [2] There is also danger in being a state with unarmed police when others states have armed police forces. The unarmed nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can encourage an importation of criminality.  [1] Whitehead, Tom, 'Gun crime doubles in a decade', The Telegraph 27 October 2009,   [2] Bamber, David, ‘Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities’, The Telegraph, 24 February 2002,  , accessed 20 September 2011


When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected.  If, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership. The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations. [1]  [1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.


Arming the police is a necessary step  Police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed police have even been used before on routine patrols in areas where there has been gun crime. [1] Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good. The next obvious step would be to have many more police armed so as to make this response much faster.  [1] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003,  accessed 20 September 2011


An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour  Most countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction. Given this reality, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence, without any corresponding risk to themselves. [1] In Bristol in England where police are not routinely armed the deployment of armed police in inner-city areas in 2003 defused gang tensions and reduced crime enough to allow the armed police to be withdrawn again. [2] Only putting armed police in for brief periods will only have a short term impact, having permanently armed police is the only way to keep this deterrence in effect. A world-wide ‘meta-study’ of armed police patrols found some evidence that in high violence areas, targeted armed police patrols could chill down the tensions and reassure the community but the evidence was not very compelling and the authors acknowledged that such a ‘sticking plaster’ approach was no long term solution to urban violence [3] .  [1] Kopel, David B., ed., Guns: Who Should Have Them, Prometheus Books, 1995.  [2] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Koper, C.S. and Mayo-Williams E. (2006) Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: a systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology Vol. 2 pp. 227-261.


Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. [1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed) [2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects. Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’. For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently. [3]  [1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001,  accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439.  [3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009,  , accessed 20 September 2011


The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police, [1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.” [2] Any expansion of the numbers of police carrying firearms could result in many more unsuitable police carrying guns.  [1] Coaker, Vernon, ‘Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales 2007-08’, Home Office, 2 March 2009,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Winnett, Robert, ‘SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police’, The Sunday Times’, 18 September 2005,  , accessed 20 September 2011 (original article is no offline but the quote was not picked up by other newspapers)


Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups). [1] Arming the police might delegitimise their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference.  Guns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity, but even day to day police interaction such as breathalysing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as ‘upholding the peace’ but rather enforcing through threat.  Even worse than the distancing effect, lethal weaponry is also a potent symbol of brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society, for example through unfair racial profiling.  Finally – arming the police may well alter the profile of police recruits. Police managers sometimes remark that the very last person to trust with a firearm is the one who wants one the most.  [1] Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case against Paramilitary Policing, Milton Keynes, Open University Press; P. Scharf and A. Binder 1983 The Badge and the Bullet: Police Use of Deadly Force, New York, Praeger; Kraska, P. and Kappeler, V.E. 1997 Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units Social Problems, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18.


Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves  There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture. Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK. [1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career. [2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces.  [1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010,  , accessed 20 September 2011


Arming the police makes communities feel safer  Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day. [1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. [2]  The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked.  People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.  [1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)


Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories with firearms so as to protect themselves and innocent civilians will address this problem.


The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.


When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot  Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to firearms officers, mistakes sometimes occur, and innocent people are shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods for who is armed, and would inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed. Such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York in 1999, or the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell underground station in 2005. [1] Squires and Kennison, in their 2010 book, detail a number of case studies of mistaken police shootings, further details can be found on the IPCC Inquiry reports website. [2]  [1] The New York Times, ‘Amadou Diallo’,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.