Identity cards confer advantages on their users  The average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’ [1] , there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them [2] [3] . These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11


Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply provides more fuel for injustice. These is already a problem of police officers targeting minority groups for ‘stop-and-search- checks [2] ; under this motion, this injustice would be amplified under the guise of checking for illegal immigrants. This measure is contradictory to the notion of democracy.  [1] BBC. ‘The British illegal immigrants’. Published 02/02/2005. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] BBC. ‘Police stop and search powers ‘target minorities’. Published 15/03/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


Only those who are guilty have anything to fear from systems that monitor and confirm identities  Law-abiding citizens who have not and do not intend to commit any crimes should not have a problem with this motion. Carrying a single card is not a huge burden to an individual. Rather they can reap the benefits of convenience to them personally, alongside the added security benefit to their whole nation which will help to keep them safe. As it is to be issued to everyone there will not even be the inconvenience of having to spend a long time applying for the card as it is in the government’s interest to make it as simple as possible with mobile offices taking the relevant biometrics where the people live so as to have the least impact on individual’s lives as possible.


Identity cards improve public safety  Identity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could be crucial in preventing terrorist acts in the future. In cases where the police were suspicious, they could rapidly check the identities of many people near a crime scene, which would make their investigation much swifter and more effective. The CBI also believes that ‘the creation of a single source of identity data’ [2] in the form of biometric identity cards would also decrease identity fraud. Given that identity fraud currently costs the UK £2.7 billion per year [3] , Canada over 10 million Canadian dollars per year [4] , and in America identity fraud relating to credit cards alone costs around $8.6 billion per year [5] , this is obviously a serious problem under the status quo. These crimes would be much more difficult if biometric data was required for financial transactions and other activities such as leaving or entering a country; identity cards are the best way forwards. The value of ID cards in combating terrorism and crime is much reduced if not everyone has them as the guilty would be less likely to want to get such cards unless they could somehow fake them.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 10/09/11


Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would suddenly be improved if this chip was in an identity card instead of an official national passport. Moreover, the biometric information on these cards has already been proved faulty. Experts have demonstrated that they could copy the biometric information provided on identity cards ‘in minutes’ [4] . Identity cards are unnecessary and will not help to prevent the crimes mentioned.  [1] The Economist. ‘Have chip, will travel.’ Published 17/07/2009. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accesssed from  on 10/09/11  [4] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


It is perfectly legitimate for an innocent citizen to oppose identity cards on the grounds of how they threaten to alter society. The oppressive measure of gaining and essentially holding to ransom everybody’s intimate personal details and biometric data is hardly a soft measure; it is radical and may completely change the way in which society functions. Moreover, the fear that their card will be lost or stolen [1] , or that their information could be hacked and used by somebody else, is more than ample reason to fear or oppose the introduction of identity cards.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets [1] . We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the need for an expensive and illiberal measure such as identity cards. Moreover, in the need to contact a relative, why not simply use their mobile number? Even if mobile umbers were now required by the government at all times, this is still far less intrusive than the scheme which proposition proposes.  [ 1 Accessed from  on 10/09/11


Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration  Illegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3] . Identity cards would mean that, even if illegal immigrants did succeed in crossing the border, they would most likely be found out because they could not pass routine security checks required on an everyday basis because they would not have been issued an identity card. Given that illegal immigration is frequently linked to international crime such as trafficking [4] , this is clearly a problem which we need to address in a new way.  [1] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] The New York Times. ‘Number of illegal immigrants in US fell, study says.’ Published 01/09/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger  As biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and medical history no matter where there medical records are held as everyone’s records would be linked to their ID card [1] , allowing them to be treated faster and more efficiently. It would also be easier to contact a friend or relative if they knew the last place where they had used their identity card, allowing faster unity of family in a medical emergency.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11


While these crimes are obviously a problem, it doesn’t mean that other crimes which can be challenged by this scheme should be allowed to continue. Identity cards would at least make it more difficult for fraud to occur, which in cases of petty criminals would provide an active deterrent for them to try it in the first place.


Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse  Demanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches [1] . This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which the law would not otherwise allow. This motion could also lead police to believe that those with a criminal record on their identity cards who just happen to be near a crime scene when a crime happens must be involved. This would lead to an unfair perversion of justice as those individuals are seen as the ‘usual suspects’, perhaps blinding the police eye to the real culprits if they did not previously have a criminal record.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11


The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent  The more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned [2] . Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’ [3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’ [4] . It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft  The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric information can be gained remotely by computer through ‘cracking’, ‘sniffing’ and ‘key-logging’ [2] . Moreover, common crimes which would not require any kind of identification to be committed – vehicle theft, burglary, criminal damage, common assault, mugging, rape and anti-social behaviour [3] – would not be combated at all by this measure. Given that hackers have managed to penetrate even the highest-security sites such as the CIA database [4] , there is not only a danger that individual cards would be hacked, but that the greater database of information could be hacked. There is no such thing as an impenetrable security system. We would be far better off using the money which would potentially be funnelled into identity cards to increase computer security and police presence.  [1] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published on 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] The Telegraph. ‘CIA website hacked by Lulz Security’. Published on 16/06/2011. Accessed from  on 10/09/11


This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty  Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record [1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups [2] . Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11


This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience.


If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.


Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to have been physically harmed in any meaningful way that would constitute a crime against humanity. The oppression during the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be a better example for the proposition, however even in this case it is hard to compare the crime of destroying old Chinese art and monuments, to the mass killing and imprisonment of Chinese civilians during the same period!


The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.  Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161,


The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see this point. The Taliban ordered their destruction in direct defiance of international law, but what’s more, they did it as a direct response and retaliation to sanctions imposed upon them by the international community for hosting and fostering terrorist training camps. [1] A similar sort of retaliation may occur if threats were to be made explicitly regarding the treatment of cultural property. This would then put more precious cultural property in danger.  In respect to the example of US forces in Iraq, their actions would not actually fall under crimes against humanity even under this proposition anyway. Setting up a base in an archaeological site would not be a crime against humanity, while small scale damage would not either, so it is unclear what effect the proposition will have.  [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals,


Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.  Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined.  Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of. Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity.  The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, ‘international practice in this ﬁeld indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes’. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, ‘places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind’. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so.  [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals,   [2] ibid


The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property.  Regarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC.


Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.  Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property.  [1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12,


Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity.  Furthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC.


Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable.  It is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war.


Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.  Ultimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that are beneficial for aesthetic and educational purposes, and on the other we have more tangible goods that are often sough through military endeavours. When the latter are particularly pressing and important goods, such as the need to prevent genocide, or distribute famine relief or defend one’s security, these benefits far outweigh the benefits of preserving our world cultural heritage. Although it is regrettable that cultural property of significant value may be damaged, it is incomparable to the damage caused by mass killing of individuals or mass curtailing of human rights. The safeguarding of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from fear, enslavement or torture etc. is a prerequisite for one to be able to appreciate and learn from items, sites and monuments of high cultural and historical value. For these reasons, military and humanitarian objectives must come first, ahead of the need to safeguard cultural property.


The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.  Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity.  [1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12,   [2] ibid


Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.  The current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Proposition argue for the implementation of overly-rigid international legislation. Although, of course, world cultural heritage should be protected, it is short-sighted to not even allow the possibility of military necessity to outweigh our duty to protect high-value cultural property. The UNESCO conventions already dictate that one can only be justified in attacking or targeting a site of cultural heritage if ‘there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage’ [1] Therefore, the proposition are only making a difference to cases where there is no feasible alternative available. This could prove disastrous and create a significant limitation on the capacity of a state’s armed forces.  The danger becomes increasingly apparent when one considers that it is highly unlikely that extremist opposing forces and insurgents like the Taliban will adhere to such international law. This is particularly crucial given that the majority of wars fought now by the west are against insurgencies. Such opposing forces will disregard the new international law and endeavour to exploit this to gain a strategic advantage over Western forces. Insurgents may deliberately choose to hide, locate their base or just pass through sites of high cultural value to ensure their safety from western airstrikes and attacks. Allowing this to take place would severely hamper the ability of the west to fight against insurgencies (an already incredibly difficult task in itself). For example in 2000 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants attacked the Red Fort, which was at the time was in part a barracks for the Indian army, killing three in a shootout within the fort. [2] The Red Fort is itself today a world heritage site; would this mean that were a similar attack to happen the Indian security services could do nothing to counter the attack? [3]  [1] UNESCO, “Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage”, 17 October 2003, accessed 20/9/12,   [2] BBC News, ‘Police hunt Red Fort raiders’, 23 December 2000,   [3] UNESCO, “Red Fort Complex”,


The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems slightly far-fetched.  However, even if such a choice had to be made, we should still ensure that the destruction of cultural property was a crime against humanity. It is important to set an international precedent for rules of conduct during warfare in order to minimise harms on a large scale, despite the possibility of small, minority cases where going against that law would be beneficial. This is the case, for example, with the laws about targeting civilians in warfare. In order to safeguard the precedent, the law must apply to all situations despite the fact that in certain cases a war could be won more easily by targeting civilians.


The Lubanga case took 6 years to reach a verdict owing to problems with the reliability of testimony and the sheer number of witnesses and victims involved in the proceedings. [1]  Although the Prosecutor sought a harsher sentence, these problems with the weight of evidence and difficulties ascertaining the number of child soldiers required the Trial Chamber to impose a more modest sentence. [2]  Therefore, even if the Lubanga conviction might not have a strongly deterrent effect by itself, the ICC is pursuing many other cases and it is these constant and cumulative investigations that deter others from committing similar crimes.  [1] Kammer, "Deconstructing Lubanga"  [2] Human Rights Brief


In the decade since its formation, the ICC has only one successful conviction  Since becoming operational in March 2003 the ICC has only had one case resulting in a conviction and it is currently being appealed. Despite being found guilty of the war crime of recruiting and forcing child soldiers to fight and kill, Thomas Lubanga was sentenced to just 14 years imprisonment. Lubanga was arrested and sent to the Court in March 2006. This single ICC conviction and the light sentence imposed are hardly sufficient to deter other warlords from using child soldiers. Six years later, in the same country where Lubanga’s crimes occurred, thousands of child soldiers are being recruited by various armed groups. [1]  [1] UN News, "Child recruitment remains endemic."


Precisely because many rank and file perpetrators are easily controlled or manipulated by group leaders, their criminal responsibility is diminished. While Article 26 of the Rome Statute prevents prosecution of those under 18 years of age, this is designed to prevent injustices towards those who are often themselves victims of those in command. Article 33 specifically rejects the ‘Nuremberg defence’ that following orders absolves a person from criminal responsibility. But in keeping with International Humanitarian Law (Rule 155 of Customary IHL), child soldiers should not be prosecuted for crimes committed under severe coercion by leaders. Prosecuting those responsible for that coercion is the most powerful deterrent. [1]  [1] IRIN News, "Should child soldiers be prosecuted for their crimes?"


The ICC lacks the power to ensure arrests  While the ICC has the power to issue arrest warrants, it does not have the coercive powers to ensure that those warrants are followed. Despite the fact that States that are parties to the Rome Statute are obliged to co-operate with the directions of the Court, there have been many instances where such States have failed to pursue those indicted. Cases that have been referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council allows the Court to extend its jurisdiction to include UN member States that are not parties to the Rome Statute. This enabled the ICC to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Sudan’s President Al-Bashir. Yet several of these countries obliged to arrest him have refused when the opportunities have arisen. [1]  [1] Rothe & Collins, pp.198-9


The fact that the Sudanese president has been able to travel freely to several countries without being arrested does not indicate that he or other would-be criminals are undeterred by the threat. Though the African Union has strongly advised its member states to ignore the arrest warrant and most have obliged, more recently Malawi and Kenya prevented Al-Bashir from attending summits. Even when Nigeria allowed his attendance at an AU summit last year, Al-Bashir fled within a day of arriving, after local human rights groups filed a court action.  The Democratic Republic of Congo has surrendered several suspects to the ICC and this was enough to induce another suspect to surrender. [1]  [1] Roth, "Africa Attacks the International Criminal Court."


As the ICC intentionally limits its prosecutions to group leaders, many of those who actually commit atrocities need have no fear of prosecution  By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat. [1]  [1] Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4


Many of those 122 States Parties have repeatedly shown their reluctance to co-operate with the ICC. Among the African Union states, only Botswana has shown its complete commitment to the Rome Statute. It appears that even South Africa may ultimately be more supportive of the AU than the ICC. [1]  [1] Miruthi , p.4


The actions by Columbia and Sri Lanka do not alter the fact that, as noted earlier, the recruitment of child soldiers in Africa and elsewhere is still endemic in 2013.  And while the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader Joseph Kony have indeed been muted, that is largely due to the initiative of the U.S. government which has itself refused to ratify the ICC’s Statute. [1]  [1] Schomerus, Allen and Vlassenroot


Potential prosecution by the ICC encourages local authorities to improve their own judicial systems.  As an international court of ‘last resort’, the ICC’s very existence serves as a constant reminder of the failings of national and regional governments to effectively curtail crimes against humanity in all their forms. Therefore, the Court exerts a strong deterrent effect by implicitly challenging the adequacy of those governments whose judicial systems allow such crimes to be committed with impunity. Seeking to avoid such international embarrassment has itself been enough to motivate many countries to both join the ICC Assembly and aim to improve their own domestic judicial systems. A clear example of this direct effect was the Kenyan government’s judicial and electoral reforms that followed from the ICC’s indictments over the post-election violence in 2007 which made the judiciary and election commission constitutionally much more independent. [1]  [1] Kimenyi


The ICC’s widely endorsed authority extends its deterrent effects.  The ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial powers are endorsed by 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute. This broad reach and agreement not only provides a strong disincentive for individuals and groups who would attempt to evade prosecution, but also has the effect of deterring states that might otherwise ignore the Court’s authority. Furthermore, even non-member states have recognised the importance of co-operating with the Court’s investigations. In 2013, one of the most wanted war criminals, Bosco Ntaganda was forced to surrender to the ICC while hiding in Rwanda. Though a non-member state, “Rwanda's aid-dependent economy was damaged by the allegations of links to Mr Ntaganda's rebels.” [1]  [1] The Economist


The ICC’s investigations have already deterred potential crimes.  There is compelling evidence that the ICC’s past or current investigations have caused potential perpetrators as well as those already indicted, to abandon their plans. For example, as the ICC’s first Prosecutor noted, even before the Court had convicted Thomas Lubanga for the recruitment of child soldiers, its African investigations were enough to prompt responses in Columbia and Sri Lanka, resulting in children being released. [1] At the same time, there has been a notable decrease in crimes by those already under investigation, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. [2]  [1] ICC Prosecutor's Address to Council on Foreign Relations , p.9  [2] Bosco , p.176


Even if Kenya’s recent reforms were motivated by the ICC’s indictments, the 2013 elections were still marked by violence which “as of February 2013, had claimed more than 477 lives and displaced another 118,000 people.” [1]  Despite many African governments’ initial enthusiasm for the ICC, the African Union has since openly challenged the Court’s investigations and Kenyan authorities have been doing their utmost to obstruct the ICC’s investigations. [2]  [1] Human Rights Watch  [2] Evenson


Although prisoners may associate closely with other criminals within jail, many more offenders were introduced to crime outside prison. A deprived social background, a family life disrupted by domestic violence and family members with histories of criminal behaviour can all lead an individual to become involved with crime.  For many young men, prison can become a sanctuary from links with gangs or a chaotic and damaging home life. Once placed within the regulated, disciplined environment of the prison, they can be introduced to the essential skills and educational opportunities that they may have been denied in the outside world.  Prison can give an individual the opportunity to develop the practical and psychological skills they require to escape social alienation. Many prisons in Europe, the UK and the States achieve this objective. US prisons may also operate special units that offer help and protection to offenders who want to leave gangs.  Under-staffing and a poor understanding of inmates’ needs are arguments for reform of the prison system, not arguments against incarceration itself. Where these issues are addressed, rehabilitation programmes have had many successes. Once political prejudices about building and funding rehabilitation oriented prisons are overcome, the benefits of penal supervision will become more accessible.


Prisons create criminals  The prison environment is harmful to many offenders. Consider the risk of developing a drug or alcohol addiction while incarcerated in the UK (15% of the inmates of one of the UK’s largest jails tested positive for drugs in 2006) [i] ; the risk of being subjected to sexual violence in an US prison (217,000 prisoners were subjected to sexual violence in American prisons in 2008) [ii] ; the rise in gang motivated violence and killings within prisons on both sides of the Atlantic.  Prison brings together individuals with a wide range of social and behavioural problems that incline them towards deviance and violence. These individuals are placed in closed conditions with restricted access to productive activities. In many western nations, a lack of funding and staff means that most prisoners have little to fill their time, and may be confined to their cells for up to twenty three hours a day. The privations of prison make prisoners more, rather than less likely to engage in violent or exploitative behaviour. Prisoners in overcrowded, understaffed jails are more likely to develop mental illnesses and less likely to have such conditions diagnosed and treated. The brutality of their surroundings makes prisoners more likely to seek the protection and comradeship offered by gangs or the comfort of intoxicants.  Furthermore, the shame and isolation associated with incarceration cause prisoner’s non-criminal social networks to decay. Relationships with partners or spouses may break down. Contact with children may be limited. Families may shun the offender, leaving him with a social circle comprised mainly of fellow inmates. These associations can prove toxic, leading offenders to validate each other’s behaviour and share knowledge about criminal activities.  Finally, the stigma of criminality extends to employment. Businesses may be unwilling to employ those with criminal records, limiting ex-offenders’ opportunities for social reintegration.  [i] “Inspector finds gangs and high level of violence in jail”, The Guardian, 11 July 2006,   [ii] “Combating rape in prisons”, The Economist, May 5 2011,


As noted above, the consequences of non-violent crimes can be just as damaging as those of violent crimes. More over, non-violent criminals can also present an immediate danger to society.  The cost of constructing a prison is outweighed by the benefit of preventing individuals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – they are not instantly or reliably effective. Even if an individual refuses to engage with any rehabilitative activities in prison, they are still restrained from engaging in further criminal activity.  Consider the senior members of organised criminal syndicates. These individuals may only be involved in using deceptive accounting or front-companies to conceal the activities of their colleagues, but by doing so they enable and encourage multiple violent offences.  Similarly, drug dealers may create conditions in which social deprivation and family break-down flourish. As noted both above and on side proposition, these same conditions can cause others to turn to criminality. In this instance, drugs dealers can present a danger to their communities, and an obstacle to the rehabilitation of addicts. Arguably, the most effective solution to this particular form of criminal behaviour is the removal of the dealer from that community.


Proportionality  A recent study conducted among prisoners in Florida found that from 1997 to 2010 the proportion of new inmates who had committed violent crimes (collating both state and federal prisons statistics) fell by 28% [i] . Meanwhile, the number of first time prisoners who had committed non-violent offences rose by 189% [ii] .  It is argued that imprisoning individuals found to be guilty of non-violent crimes is a disproportionate response to their actions and does not serve the objectives of criminal sentencing set out above.  Criminal sentences must deliver a punishment in proportion to the crime an offender has committed. A disproportionate sentence- using the death penalty to punish theft, for instance- is less likely to be perceived as a fair or rational response to criminal behaviour. An offender who is punished excessively is more likely to see himself as the victim of injustice, and less likely to consider the impact of his own conduct. A law abiding individual who that fears that jaywalking may result in jail time will have no confidence in the criminal justice system, and may begin seeking other sources of security.  There are many alternatives to penal sentences available to magistrates and judges. Using fines and curfews to restrict financial and personal liberty, alongside restorative forms of punishment such as community service, can provide a much more efficient way of condemning an individual’s criminal behaviour.  [i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, July 22 2010,   [ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, July 22 2010,


The victims of non-violent offences may suffer as much as the victims of violent offences. A large scale financial fraud, such as that perpetrated by Robert Maxwell or Bernard Madhoff, may deprive thousands of individuals of their savings and pensions, condemning them to a life of poverty. A petty drugs dealer may be supplying a habit that drives an addict to steal and attack others in order to find money.  Moreover, fraud, deception and drug dealing draw on the same predatory, cynical and exploitative attitudes that motivate violent theft, organised crime and violent rape. An individual who has committed only non-violent offences is not necessarily in a better position to appreciate the harm that violence may do, or to understand that others may suffer as a result of his actions.  It may be proportional to hand down a severe prison sentence to a “white collar” criminal, who has abused a position of trust or wealth for personal gain. Such crimes are aggravated by the fact that their perpetrators have often led privileged, secure lives, free from the deprivation and poverty that drives most criminals. Confidence in the justice system may be harmed if it is felt that those of professional standing or a high social class are subjected to softer punishments.


It is unrealistic to expect the police to act as the sole deterrent to criminal behaviour. The majority of police work concerns the detection rather than the prevention of crime. Only a massive and unfeasible expansion of police numbers and powers could provide a real deterrent to criminality.  The purpose of deterrence is to reduce the likelihood of damaging behaviour without dramatically raising the cost of enforcing the law. Deterrence relies on individuals acting in a rational manner and being able to regulate their own behaviour. Property crime often results from the offender performing a rational balancing of his likely gains against the likely costs of incarceration. Limiting the use of prison sentences means that calculating offenders will be much more likely to engage in property crime.  Finally, the proposition is unable to deal with the threat posed by habitual and compulsive petty criminals. The actions of such individuals often straddle the boundary between outright criminality and anti-social behaviour. Their offences may never be severe enough to attract a penal sentence, but it is the continuous and repeated nature of their criminal acts that causes harm. Once again, the best response to such conduct is the forcible segregation of the offender inside a prison.


Incarceration is expensive, rehabilitation is not  Many of the rehabilitation and intervention schemes made available in prison are replicated in community settings by social services and charities. The cost of delivering these programmes in prison originates from the concept of prison itself. The expense of building, equipping, staffing and monitoring a prison vastly outweighs the cost of rehabilitative activities. Research conducted by Steve Aos has shown that rehabilitative programs designed to reduce crime can be cost-effective [i] .  Prisons should be used only where the imperative to protect society from criminal behaviour cannot be met by the imperative to rehabilitate. A minority of offenders will be incorrigibly violent and uncontrollable, but under the status quo, these dangerous offenders not represent the majority of the prison population (see statistics above).  The yearly cost of incarcerating a young offender in the UK is now £140,000, almost three times the annual fee charged by an elite public school [ii] . Diverting this money to intervention programmes delivered to families, in homes and in schools would avoid the harms of incarceration (described above), while retaining the benefit of rehabilitation. The focus should therefore be prevention and early intervention rather than punishment.  [i] Aos, S., The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, May 2001,   [ii] “Punishing Costs” The New Economics Foundation, 2010, p18


Deterrence is a myth  The deterrent effect of prison is uniformly overstated. It is popularly thought that the indignity and strictness of the prison environment will discourage criminal behaviour. Further, exposure to the harsh realities of prison is thought to discourage former inmates from re-offending. These assumptions do not reflect most offenders’ reasoning, nor do they reflect the contexts in which most criminal behaviour occurs. Punishment of the type offered by prisons doesn’t meet the criteria for reinforcement of behaviour that one would associate with behaviour change; the punishment happens long after the behaviour, and is therefore futile [i] .  Firstly, it should be noted that among many inmates, especially young men, criminal actions, including public order offences, assault and petty theft, are carried out on impulse. Impulsive behaviour is often influenced by alcohol and peer pressure. Under these circumstances, deterrence is ineffective.  Secondly, empirical evidence indicates that it is the likelihood of being caught performing a criminal act, rather than the sentence for that crime, that deters potential offenders. If a potential offender believes he is more likely to be caught and convicted, he is less likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Meta-analyses such as the Cambridge Study on Deterrence [ii] have shown that the severity of a sentence only has a marginal effect on an offender’s decision to break the law.  In the light of these findings, deterrence can be seen as a matter of policing and detection, rather than a set of misleading assumptions based on an over-simplification of rational-actor theory.  [i] Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J., “Rehabilitating Criminal Justice and Policy” in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2010, Vol. 16, No.1). Page 42  [ii] “Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research”, von Hirsch, A, and others


A modern liberal state’s duty is to pursue policies and promote values that will have a real and lasting impact on its citizen’s lives. The resolution is such a policy. The opposition’s argument has been tried and failed; in the US, ‘increasing punitive measures have failed to reduce criminal recidivism and instead have led to a rapidly growing correctional system that has strained government budgets’ [i] .  Pandering to populist thinking in the name of maintaining confidence in a particular government is a short-term strategy. It is an approach designed to win elections rather than bring about social change. The most effective way for a government to fulfil its obligation to protect its citizens is to reduce deviance effectively and efficiently, even if that change has to come at the expense of political capital.  The penal system operating under the status quo brutalises individuals and entrenches criminality in communities in the name of law and order.  [i] Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J., “Rehabilitating Criminal Justice and Policy” in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2010, Vol. 16, No.1). Page 39


The opposition argument assumes that punishment must be proportional only to the suffering caused to the victim of a particular crime. Opposition state that for a sentence to be truly proportionate, it must reflect the subjective responses of the victim. This analysis fails to acknowledge that the definition of proportionality extends beyond the victim.  The four objectives of criminal sentencing are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. The aspect of a sentence that seeks to punish should be proportionate to offender’s crime, but in addition, it must not obstruct the functioning of the other objectives of sentencing.  A burglary may be upsetting for the victim, and incarceration of the burglar may seem a proportionate response. However, when that sentence is weighed against the imperative to rehabilitate the burglar, we discover that rehabilitation in prison would be less effective than rehab in a community setting. When custodial punishment is weighed against the imperative to protect the public, we discover that non-violent criminals who have been incarcerated are more likely to engage in violent crime following their release. The greater cost of incarceration- to the criminal and to the efficacy of the rehabilitative process- renders the sentence disproportionate.  The comparative popularity of imprisonment has distorted our understanding of which criminals it is most suited to.


Rehabilitation can only succeed in prison  Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – nor are they instantly or reliably effective. The risk of an individual committing crime can only be reduced by long-term engagement with such schemes.  Under these circumstances, the best location in which to rehabilitate offender is prison. Prison serves, in some cases, to separate prisoners from poverty and desperation, and to help them access training and education that they may have failed to engage with previously. Prison can also quarantine offenders from the influence of gangs and other sub-cultures that may compete with the positive behaviours fostered by rehabilitation. This is particularly the case for high risk offenders.  It seems ridiculous to assume that dramatic changes in an individual’s behaviour can be brought about without a correspondingly dramatic change in their environment and lifestyle. Criminality frequently develops as a survival strategy within hostile or chaotic social environments.  For many crimes, family may also be the root cause. Problematic relationship with relatives can further hinder the rehabilative process. How can we still expect family members to help facilitate the rehabilative process when they may be the reason reason why the offender committed crimes.  If there are minimal restraints put on an offender’s freedom while he rehabilitates, it will be easier for him to avoid complying with rehabilitation programmes. It will also be easier for the offender to avoid complying with other, more punitive measures, such as fines and community service orders.  As a last resort, a prison term prevents offenders who refuse to engage with rehabilitation from committing crimes for the length of their sentence. Given that a UK home office survey conduct in 2000 found that, on average, offenders committed 140 crimes a year, even a brief sentence represents a significant disruption of criminal activity [i] .  [i] Civitas, Fighting Crime: Are Public Policies Working?, February 2010, p.1,


Incarceration has symbolic value  A custodial sentence has strong symbolic value, for offenders, for victims and for society as a whole.  Exclusion from society and confiscation of freedoms that the state would normally protect at any cost is a powerful message, one that can be understood easily by both white collar fraudsters and semi-literate muggers. There are few more effective ways of communicating society’s disapproval and indicating the boundaries of its tolerance.  For all side proposition’s talk of long term consequences and proportionality, there remain a significant number of offenders and potential offenders who would perceive the resolution as a weakness to be exploited. We give up the symbol of incarceration at the cost of emboldening criminals.  Confidence in the state is founded on the state’s ability to protect its citizens and their property from physical harm. This is something on which all but the most extreme ends of the political spectrum would agree. Even if the state is no longer willing to wield violence against a criminal minority in protection of a law abiding majority, it should still be prepared to project the power that contemporary constitutional settlements have allowed it to retain. If it does not, the state risks being accused of forgetting its core duties in favour of more abstract notions of “harm”.


The false distinction between “violent” and “non-violent” crime  Distinctions between violent and non-violent offences are not useful when deciding which offenders should be imprisoned and which should receive more lenient, rehabilitative sentences. The severity of a crime can only be defined by its context and consequences, not by semi-arbitrary labels such as violent and non-violent.  All forms of criminality, and not just violent crimes, can have disturbing and traumatic consequences. The effect of a robbery on the physical health and psychological stability of an elderly person can be as pronounced as the effects of a violent assault on a healthy young man.  It is disingenuous to claim that the nature of a criminal act can be separated from that act’s effects on a victim. As the widely known common law maxim states, a victim should be taken as he is found. A reasonable adult citizen will not be excused from responsibility for what he knew to be a harmful criminal act simply because he did not foresee the extent or type of harm he would do.  A judicial system that takes the concept of proportionality seriously should be free to decide that the consequences of a robbery committed against an impoverished, frail widow should result in a more severe sentence than a teenager’s impulsive attempt to shop-lift alcohol.  Similarly, the outcome of a wide ranging financial fraud is likely to be more harmful than the outcome of a fist fight between two drunken football fans.  Judges are allowed to exercise discretion so that they can adapt the broad rules and objectives of sentencing to the nuances of each case brought before them. The context and consequences of criminal activity should inform sentencing decisions, not an artificially narrow definition of “violence”.


Families and other social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender as they rehabilitate. Wives, husbands and children can effectively monitor the behaviour of an offender when trained staff are unavailable. Given that the imprisonment of an adult family member is emotionally traumatic and financially damaging, families have a strong incentive to ensure that rehabilitation is successful.  Disruptive family environments are also catered for by the proposition resolution. Where family breakdown is a cause of criminality, social workers and rehabilitation specialists will be able to “treat” the family alongside the offender. Underlying drug or alcohol addictions can be addressed. ‘Therapeutic programs’, as they are termed, enable offenders to be rehabilitated by and within the community in a ‘living-learning situation’ [i] .  Prison on the other hand is an unsupportive environment where offenders are blamed for their behaviour and sometimes coerced into rehabilitation programs [ii] . In a prison context, an offender would be treated in isolation, without the opportunity to address underlying familial issues that might cause reoffending. Prison can be iatrogenic (increase risk) by removing offenders from their source of social support, families, jobs and accommodation; rehabilitation is more likely to be effective when it is used in conjunction with those factors, not apart from them. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that prison staff hold ‘rather unsympathetic’ attitudes towards prisoners [iii] , inferring a culture unfavourable to effective rehabilitation.  Although an offender may be prevented from committing crime for the duration of a prison sentence, this does not represent a significant advantage over the proposed resolution. For the reasons set out above, a prisoner released from a custodial sentence is likely to be incentivised to engage in crime (due to a lack of employment opportunities and social isolation), and will commit more serious types of crime.  [i] Day, A., Casey, S., Vess, J. & Huisy, G., “Assessing the Social Climate of Prisons”, February 2, 2011 from Australia Institute of Criminology, Page 8/Page 32  [ii] Day A. & Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 300  [iii] Day A. & Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 294


There is no moral duty to respect the humanity of terrorists. Terrorists themselves do not respect human rights. By attacking civilians, they breach the terms of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. They do not deserve to be protected by the laws of war because they do not behave like a military organisation. If they do not comply with the laws of war there is no reason why they should enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Conventions when they are detained.


The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity, which the Geneva Convention embodies, must be retained  Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts, such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected, regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is about universal respect for human dignity (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949), not merely for those who show it in return. Civilised nations can and should be expected to act in a humane manner, regardless of the barbarity of their adversaries. Only by acting in such a manner can states prove the superiority of their own humanity.


Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which suspects are treated and indoctrination with such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process.


The United Nations can punish those states who refuse to subject its prisoners of war to the Geneva Conventions  The United Nations, as the institution that formed and maintains the Geneva Conventions and other restrictions on warfare, is able to use its structures to punish states that do not adhere to its protocols. The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute of 1998, is able to prosecute those specific persons who are charged with war crimes. Such defendants, if convicted, can be ordered to pay the victims. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice is able to bring cases against specific states that are clearly identified as having broken the protocols of war. As such, the United Nations is both legally and institutionally capable of ensuring that the dictates of the Geneva Conventions are upheld, specifically the right of a combatant captured in a conflict zone to be granted prisoner of war status. While this would provide a degree of protection for captured terrorists, it also means that terrorist organizations are subject to standards of conduct in war. Making them subject to the Geneva Conventions would uphold an incentive of restraint which might sometimes influence their conduct.


Terrorists are engaged in war, which much remain subject to the Geneva Conventions lest it become unrestrained  Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite as a political actor to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate (Blanchard, 2007). The fact that we may not view these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists. The Geneva Conventions were formed to ensure that future wars would not result in the barbarity and wanton violence that mired World War II; to deny it to terrorists would risk the undermining of norms that have developed to restrain warfare. If we don’t treat terrorists as prisoners of war therefore, we risk a return to the barbarity of warfare in the first half of the 20th century.


Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe. The Geneva Conventions exist to control wars between nations in a way which respects human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are meaningless here.


The United Nation has the potential to punish parties that do not abide by its protocols, including the Geneva Conventions. However, its ability to do so is limited even when it comes to states since that power is itself granted by its member states. For example, the International Criminal Court is only able to bring cases which the Security Council approves. Therefore, the contemporary targets of terrorists, most notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are inevitably going to veto any proposition to persecute themselves for violating the Geneva Conventions. The circular process of asking a state whether it will approve the prosecution of itself betrays the absurdity of the United Nations as an institution enforcing the protocols of war. As for the behaviour of terrorist groups, their members are subject to prosecution for actions equivalent to war crimes whether or not they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.


Harsh interrogation is indeed necessary, due in part to the unique efficacy of harsh interrogation in dealing with the new threat. The interrogation of a terrorist is qualitatively different to that of a soldier, due to the nature of terrorist attacks and the importance of information in their prevention. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, argues that there is no other way for the CIA to have acquired information from them, ‘given their character and given their commitment to what it is they do’ (Martinez, 2009). The effectiveness of harsh interrogation may vary, but an absolute prohibition based on the few exceptions would be too high a price to pay. Protecting civilian lives must come before maintaining any moral high ground.


Poor treatment of terrorists affirms terrorist ideology and provides a recruitment tool, therefore the Geneva Conventions must be applied to prevent this.  Poor treatment affirms terrorist ideology: regardless of what is morally right, it would be beneficial to treat terrorists in the ways prescribed by the Convention. Terrorist ideology is often predicated on the behaviour of those countries against which it is targeted. Treating captured terrorists or terror suspects in a way that ignores their human dignity only reinforces negative perceptions of the West and encourages the radicalization of the youth (McCarthy, 2007). In addition, such behaviour can be used to justify terrorist actions to less radicalised members of certain communitie


Harsh interrogation is not necessarily an effective tool for extracting valuable information.  Harsh interrogation of captives has not been shown to be effective (White, 2007). Those who are prepared to die to advance their cause are unlikely to yield information, no matter how much they are threatened or tortured. Where captives do provide information, they often state simply what they think that the interrogators want to hear, rather than anything that is true (Mazzetti, 2007). In addition, given the cellular nature of many terrorist organisations, those captured often have very little useful information to begin with. Even if they have been involved in a plot, they may only have information about a very small part of that plot. Furthermore, winning the trust of prisoners can lead to more effective information than the use of torture.


Special interrogation methods are not necessary to combat the terrorist threat. It is always easy to imagine extra lengths that states could conceivably go to in order to protect their soldiers or civilians. However the ambition of the Geneva Conventions in the wake of World War II was to establish limits. The ‘unlawful combatant’ legal loophole created by the United States threatens to erode the restraint on warfare built up over half a century. The high-profile case of waterboarding involving Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah casts serious doubt on any claim that such methods are effective, and by extension, necessary in combating the terrorist threat. Water-boarded 83 times in one month, Zubaydah’s treatment demonstrates that the absence of the constraints of the Geneva Conventions is a slippery slope to the use of wanton, sadistic violence with no justifiable end (Shane, 2009). Though Zubaydah’s interrogation is believed to have been fruitful in terms of intelligence gathered, there is little reason to believe ordinary interrogation methods would not have been similarly successful over time.


The re-definition of terrorists as unlawful combatants threatens to encourage the use of the evolution of war as an excuse for human rights abuses. The refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions allows states to use tactics such as indefinite detention without trial and enhanced interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, which are seen by many as a form of torture (UN General Assembly, 1984). These practices are cruel and significantly harm the physical and psychological wellbeing of detainees. Even if these techniques were effective in the war on terror, they should not be practiced because they are a violation of both the laws of war and international human rights law (ICRC, 1948). Moreover, under Protocol 1 (1977) Additional to the Geneva Conventions, non-state forces engaged in wars aiming at self-determination are permitted to operate without use of uniforms or carrying arms openly (except during combat and while visibly deploying immediate prior to attack).


With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism  There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of terrorists. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants in a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this.


There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions  Under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and are only entitled to return home at the end of the war (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949). Given the open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Geneva Conventions protect human rights any better than existing domestic law or policy. In democracies, the accountability of elected politicians and judicial review by independent judges can instead be trusted to ensure that detainees are not abused or mistreated.


Special interrogation methods are necessary in order to combat the terrorist threat  The war on terror is unlike any other war and so different tactics are necessary in order to win. There is no point maintaining a moral high ground where this leads to more civilian deaths. The Geneva Conventions put barriers in the way of winning the war on terror because tactics such as indefinite detention are necessary. For example, Israel’s practice of targeted killing of terrorists was restricted by the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that it did not comply with the Geneva Conventions (The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, 2006). Often there is no other way to combat terrorists and the Geneva Conventions restrict tactics that save hundreds of lives. Governments would also not be able to gain as much intelligence if they had to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when interrogating terrorists. It is dangerous to put the west at an operational disadvantage in the war on terror just to maintain a moral high ground.


Terrorists are not lawful combatants, therefore they not do not acquire prisoner of war status  Prisoner of war status is only granted to those who legally and morally deserve its protections. Therefore, those who wish to seek the protection of the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, have a duty to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (Detter, 2007, p.1063). Terrorists who absolve themselves of this responsibility in the pursuit of wanton violence, who flagrantly ignore the laws of war, cannot thereafter appeal to its protection once captured. Such a norm is required in order to preserve the sanctity of the Geneva Conventions, including the immunity of civilians, and prevent the encouragement of using civilians as means to ends. Terrorists who operate outside of the law and attempt to thereafter use it to their advantage should be denied that opportunity. Attempts to permit the use of non-uniformed soldiers in Protocol 1 lack authority as several key states are not party to it (including the USA and Israel).


The Geneva Conventions provide the only fair, impartial and strong mechanism for protecting the human rights of detainees in the war on terror. Applying the Geneva Conventions would allow the Red Cross to inspect prisons where detainees are held (Anonymous, 2002). Breaches of the Geneva Conventions also give rise to State Responsibility, as seen in the USA and Israeli courts’ supervision of the treatment of terrorists and terror suspects. Individuals can also be held criminally responsible for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for example the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the trial of Radovan Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Dworkin, 2003). The Geneva Conventions are therefore a useful way of ensuring that states respect human rights, rather than simply promising to treat detainees well as a matter of policy.


Treating terrorists with respect for their human rights allows those fighting the war on terror to take the moral high ground. By failing to comply with the Geneva Conventions, countries such as the USA are no better than the terrorist groups that they are fighting. The objects of war have changed, states no longer seek territory purely through force but by cultivating popular support, ‘hearts and minds’ (Kilcullen, 2009). The values that the West stands for are exactly what terrorists are attacking and the West needs to show that it can win the war on terror while still respecting fundamental values such as the rule of law and human rights. Applying the Geneva Conventions is therefore a vital part of winning the war on terror, regardless of whether the terrorists choose to apply them.


Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.  (See Op Argument 1)


Reduced dialogue  While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains.


The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated.


Danger to students  Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.


The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.


There is the potential for massive harm should universities become places where individuals continuously need to contain their thoughts and ideas for fear of sanction. It is far easier to actively promote open dialogue and tolerance as this will lead to more diversity.


Allowing Hate Speech Discourages diversity  Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university. [1]  [1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99,  p.107


Discourages education of minorities  When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.


As stated, hate speech can have significant harm on certain individuals’ abilities to attend university and engage in campus life. Their rights to education must balanced against any potential harms that may befall someone who has to think twice before saying something hateful about a member of their university community.


It is wrong that obnoxious and hateful views should be given an airing and individuals left to their own devices to decide if those views are right or wrong. Accepting that these views can be voiced on campus and opponents of these views can make their own case implies that these views have equal standing; which is not the case, while there may be freedom of speech there is not freedom to hurt one and other. It is wrong to suggest that hateful ideas will spread faster if banned as if they are not banned those who are preaching such ideas have greater access to others so have more opportunity to persuade


Universities are bastions of free expression  Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students. [1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people.  [1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), ‘1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940,


Freedom of expression is a political right  Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and The First Amendment in the United States. [2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.  [1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010,   [2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute,


Freedom of expression is a means to education  Students need to be able to take chances and express unpopular ideas in order to maximize their personal growth and development. Speech codes, even ones designed to only censor hate speech, have a chilling effect on all speech as students become afraid to say anything that is not politically correct. For example a student at California Polytechnic State University underwent a day long disciplinary hearing for posting a flyer publicising a talk “It’s O.K. to Leave the Plantation”. [1] It would not be surprising if students are less willing to organise such events after such a dressing down. Students also need to learn to respond to ideas they don’t like because even if censorship of hate speech is effectively controlled on campus, it still exists in the outside world. Students will only be able to maximize their ability to ask questions, state opinions, and respond to ideas on a free campus.  [1] Berger, Joseph, “Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College’s Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality” New York Times, June 27, 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-24.


The marketplace of ideas  The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion. [1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”,  Retrieved 2011-08-23.  [2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010,  p.15


All rights have to be balanced. Universities have a duty to ensure that everyone is protected and if one person’s right to free speech is infringing on another person’s right to safe access to education in a non-hostile environment then it is just to slightly infringe the first party’s right rather than entirely eliminate the second party’s right.


Whatever value the expression of hate speech has can be discussed in classrooms where the ideas can be discussed in their social context rather than promulgated from a platform. Banning hate speech will not transform universities into factories of rote learning or crush a progressive atmosphere. Hate speech isn’t about affirming rights, it is about limiting rights. There is no analogy here to the feminist or gay rights movements.


It is better that people be afraid of what is really happening than to be blissfully ignorant and thus vulnerable. Crime can be frightening, but people need to know about it so they can prepare themselves to deal with it. Furthermore, if violence is growing within communities, there may well be a need for better policing, so calling for such provisions is not necessarily just treating the symptoms of social illness, but rather is holding society together and maintaining necessary order. [1] Fear may cause people to do irrational things, but so too can ignorance.  [1] Jones, Stephen. Understanding Violent Crime. London: Open University Press. 2000.


Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime  Constant reporting on violent crime makes people more fearful. This not a deliberate effort on the part of the media to keep people afraid, but rather is a corrosive negative externality; violence sells, so media provides, resulting in the scaring of audiences. The result of the media’s reporting on violent crimes is a constant iteration of fear, which makes people wary of each other, and of the world. [1] Furthermore, such reporting creates a feeling in people of other individuals and groups most often reported as committing crimes as being “other” from themselves. For example, reporting on extensive crimes in inner-city areas in the United States has caused middle class suburbanites to develop wariness toward African-Americans, who are constantly reported in the media as criminals. This is socially destructive in the extreme. The heightened senses of insecurity people feel leads to vigilance in excess. This is bad for people’s rationality. All these problems yield very negative social consequences.  The constant reporting on violence leads to people demanding immediate law enforcement, and politicians quick to oblige, which leads to a ratchet effect, a precipitous increase in punishments for crimes. This results in a severe misallocation of resources; first in terms of irrationally high spending on extra policing, and second in terms of the excessive allocation of resources and authority to the state to solve the problems of crime through force. This is observed, for example, in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, which was acclaimed in a state of fear after 9/11, and which gave extensive, even draconian powers to the state in the name of security. The media fuels this hysteria. Without its influence, cooler heads can prevail. The end result of all this is a treating of symptoms rather than the cause. Putting more police on the streets, and getting tough on crime fail to address underlying issues, which are often poverty and the social ills arising from it. [2] Citizens and governments should instead face the actual problem instead of choosing flashy option.  [1] Rogers, Tom. “Towards an Analytical Framework on Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Print Media Reportage”. University of Sheffield.   [2] Amy, Douglas J. “More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom”. Government is Good. 2007,


Some journalists and media outlets are despicable in the way they treat people. Preying upon victims and their families is absolutely wrong, but a ban is not the way to solve this problem as it would simply move the media frenzy to whenever the ban on a case is removed and the details become public. Instead better regulation of the press is needed in such emotional cases in order to make sure that the media is respectful of families and also to make sure that those accused are seen to be innocent until proven guilty.


Reporting on violent crimes compromises the integrity and fairness of law  Judges and juries have to be neutral when they preside in court, and no bias can enter the court’s discourse and deliberation if justice is to be done. This is especially true of violent crime, for two reasons. First, in such cases, the court is dealing with people’s lives, as violent crime convictions yield high sentences, and the court’s decisions often have a lasting effect on the physical wellbeing of both victims and perpetrators of such crimes. Second, the visceral nature of violent crime naturally causes an emotive response from people hearing about it, which can cause them to act less rationally. [1]  Opinion is thus more easily colored in deliberations over violent crime than with any other kind. In light of these facts it is necessary to analyze the behavior of the media when it reports on violent crimes. The media is a commercial enterprise. It prioritizes sales over truth, and always wants to sell the good story and to get the scoop. For this reason the media relishes the opportunity to sell the “blood and guts” of violent crime to its audience. Furthermore, the race to get stories first causes reporters and media outlets to jump to conclusions, which can result in the vilification of suspects who are in fact innocent. The media sensationalizes the extent of crime through its extreme emphasis on the violence; it builds its stories on moving imagery, emotive language, and by focusing on victims and their families. At the same time the media seeks to portray itself as being of the highest journalistic quality. [2]  This behavior on the part of the media is tremendously bad for the legal process. The media circus surrounding violent crime necessarily affects potential jurors, judges, lawyers, and the general public. This has been observed on many occasions; for example, after the OJ Simpson trial some jurors admitted that the pressure generated by the media added significantly to the difficulties of deliberation. The inescapable consequence of the media reporting on violent crimes is that people cannot help internalizing the public opinion when it stands against a person on trial. Thus court judgments in the presence of a media circus must be held suspect. By restricting reporting on violent crime, however, the pressure can be relieved and the legal process can function justly.  [1] Tyagi, Himanshu. “Emotional Responses Usually Take Over Rational Responses in Decision-Making”. RxPG News. 16 February 2007,   [2] Lee, Martin and Norman Solomon. Unreliable Sources. New York: Lyle Stuart. 1990.


Law should be just and unbiased. That is not a controversial position. However, it seems difficult to imagine that reporting on violent crimes has so tremendous an effect on the public that judges and jurors cannot be unbiased in their deliberations. Rather, the process of jury selection as it stands is designed to guarantee that there is no bias with both prosecution and defence being allowed to examine and object to a juror. Furthermore, most reporting on violent crime is about simple facts rather than any attempt to influence opinion on specific crimes. This is the essence of what news is, people have a right to know what is going on in their society, even if what is going on is brutally violent.


Terrorists and serial killers make up a tiny proportion of murders and violent criminals in Western countries. In the United Kingdom for example there have been less deaths due to terrorism between 2000 and 2010 than due to bee stings. [1] As a result the very few copycat attacks are not really the issue at all when the question of reporting on violent crimes in the media is under discussion. Talk about these rarities serves only to distract people from the reality that most violent crime is not so bizarre as these cases. [2] Rather, the need to report on violent crime stands for all the violent crimes committed in every society, and fears of terrorists and serial killers can do little to challenge that need.  [1] Anderson, David, ‘The Terrorism acts in 2011’ Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, June 2012,   [2] Morton, Robert. “Serial Murder”. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. 2005.