query: Televising turns justice into entertainment  Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved [1] .  Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012,

positive: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Court proceedings themselves aren’t, in general, entertaining. Live broadcasts would largely involve lawyers discussing intricate details of issues, including complex points of law. If there was a real prospect of an ICC trial becoming a matter of entertainment, it probably would have occurred with the existing trials.  Even high profile court cases will not get large viewing figures – the UK Supreme Court case in to the extradition of Julian Assange only got 14,500 viewers [1] . Existing regulations for the use of Supreme Court footage in the United Kingdom allow excerpts of the footage to be used in news and current affairs programmes, or educational uses, but bars the use of the footage in light entertainment or other programmes.  [1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings’, gov.uk, May 2012,  at p10

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Transcripts and other forms of notation would also set a historical record. While the Nuremberg trials were filmed, live television broadcast was not technically possible, footage was used for newsreels at the time. The lack of continuous total film footage has not stopped the Nuremberg trial from setting a historical record – the written judgements and transcripts are enough.

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

negative: The ICC would prevent show trials  The use of the ICC could work better than domestic show trials in the aftermath of a civil war. Instead of domestic courts, prone to all their biases, an international, unbiased, criminal system could replace the prospect of a Ceausescu-style non-trial followed by summary execution, or some other form of unfair trial which could sow the seeds for problems down the line. Even the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein done while the United States had a lot of influence over the country as a result of its occupation was condemned as having “serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects”. [1]  Instead, an ICC trial would allow the full details to be probed, investigated and independently prosecuted without being subject to domestic post-war recriminations.  [1] ‘Judging Dujail The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal’, Human Rights Watch, 20 November 2006,

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary.  If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK [1] and US [2] . However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal [3] , it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness [4] , but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 18/08/11  [4]  , accessed 18/08/11

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger  Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] .  The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems.  [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013,   [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013,   [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013,

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal The Hussein trial identified the solution to problematic rants disrupting the trial - the TV feed cut to the judge and faded out Hussein’s sound [1] . This is part of the reason why the ICC broadcasts are on a 30 minute delay, on web and TV access – outbursts, material that should be redacted and other things can be redacted before it reaches viewers.  These antics have been used in trials before the rolling news era, such as in the Chicago Eight case in the US, the trial of eight activists (one of whose trials was separated) for conspiracy and incitement to riot for offences regarding demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the defendants, Bobby Seale, launched in to a vicious vocal tirade against the judge, and was eventually bound and gagged in the courtroom. During the trial of the other seven, the defendants tried various antics including blowing kisses to the jury, wearing judicial robes which were removed to reveal police uniforms, not standing when the judge entered the court, and draping a North Vietnamese flag over the defence table [2] . The convictions – including those of the defence counsel for contempt of court – were overturned due to improper jury selection.  Television is not necessary for such behaviour.  [1] Engel, Richard, ‘Saddam trial outbursts, heard but not seen’, NBC News, 5 December 2005,   [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial’, University of Missouri Kansas City,

negative: An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money  International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial [1] .  The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale.  The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012,

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals [1] [2] . Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law [3] [4] . Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11  [3] in the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [4] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11

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

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

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

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal While there is no jury that could be identified, or influenced, by the broadcast, there is still the other problems attached to televised trials – issues of legitimacy, lawyers and defendants acting up etc.

negative: Peace is cheaper than war – however much a court case costs, in both human lives and money, it is better for there to be a trial.  Even if it is more expensive, justice is priceless – it is not something that can be subjected to cost-benefit analyses or bean counting.  The reason why Western countries fund the ICC is not some form of imperialism – simply a desire for global peace, justice and security so they would likely be willing to keep paying much of the cost.

negative: The state owes a duty of protection to victims, victims’ families, and those accused of committing crimes  Victims of violent crimes and their families face an emotional and vulnerable time in the wake of such crimes. People need time to recover, or mourn. The media’s fixation on violent crimes subjects these vulnerable people to the assault of reporters. In fact, there exists a perverse incentive for the media to badger families until they break down, as tears sell. Such exploitation must be stopped, and the best way to do that is to deny the media the ability to report on such things. The media does not care about hurting feelings, and bad behavior on the part of reporters never hurts readership of media outlets, as is indicative of such tabloids as the National Enquirer. Outlets can always deflect any backlash that might occur for their excesses by cutting loose “rogue reporters”.  Furthermore, families and victims usually do not want the media's, and the nation’s eyes upon them. Rather they tend to seek support from family and community, not the faceless masses. [1] People generally want to mourn in their own way. They may not want to become part of a media-driven narrative, and certainly not to become symbols for a new social crusade to reform communities. Removing violent reporting removes these perverse incentives to irritate victims and families, and instead leads to more respectful and considerate treatment.  As for those accused of crimes, it can be hard for someone acquitted after a trial or accusation to get on with life. Some people may find themselves roundly accused by the media and public, even portrayed as monster, making it very hard to move on, even when their names are officially cleared. This is completely contrary to how the legal system should function, where acquittal is meant to deliver absolution. Allowing the media to construct narratives of guilt in the absence of evidence undermines the very fabric of justice. The media’s incessant coverage of violent crimes and its alacrity to make accusations and jump to conclusions can destroy someone’s life, more than even having to stand trial does. Justice must prevail and be fair to those to whom it judges in court, and this can only be done by not allowing the media to turn the mob against people even after their names are cleared.  [1] Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. “Victims and the Media”. 2011,

negative: Intercepted evidence could be incredibly useful for both prosecution and defence cases in many trials.  Intercept evidence offers the opportunity to speed up court trials and stop wasting time and money by providing information which could lead to a faster, more accurate verdict. Other western democracies who use wire-tap evidence believe that is has or will help to achieve criminal convictions [1] [2] [3] , which demonstrates popular support for it as an effective and swift method of justice. Given that the UK has allowed wire-tapping in some specific cases [4] , it seems to be that it is not the principle of intercept evidence itself which is viewed as unacceptable by these countries, but perhaps a need to set up a formalised system of the conditions when and where intercept evidence can be used. David Bickford, the former chief legal adviser to MI5, has stated ‘I know we have lost cases as a result of not using such evidence’ [5] and other experts have called for the wide use of intercept evidence in court [6] . Allowing the use of intercept evidence in the first place may well ensure that wire-taps are better carried out in a standardised, regulated manner  [1] In Sweden:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2] Widely in the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [3] In Australia:  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11  [6]  , accessed 30/08/11

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

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

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists.  In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.

negative: 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.

negative: Of course people need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of the private affairs of public figures can be justified. However, on the whole, most reporting into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public has no need to know and is holding no-one to account. Instead it is often simply being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing stories about celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account or benefiting society in an actively positive way.  This can also extend to those in more traditional power roles. Is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley, the now ex-president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was therefore not in the public interest. Mosley took the case to the UK High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in his favor. [1]  [1] BBC (2008) Mosley Wins Court Case Over Orgy. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]

negative: There is little evidence that Yanukovych still has much support anywhere in Ukraine. However an ICC trial could simply inflame the other side; those who have overthrown Yanukovych are likely to want a trial to take place as soon as possible (which may be a long time off considering he is in Russia) and want it to take place in the Ukraine. The ICC would almost certainly be willing to give in to popular opinion; previously in Libya the prosecutor did not act when it was clear that public opinion did not want an international trial of Saif Gadaffi. [1]  [1] Kersten, 2014,

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

negative: A pointless trial that victimizes African leaders  While the ICC feels free to interfere with African countries it would never dare to do so in a western country; leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy and others who have launched various armed interventions have not been put on trial. Not only is it victimization and interference the trial of Kenyatta is also likely to be pointless; it is on the point of collapse. The prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has stated “Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr. Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial”. [1]  [1] AFP, ‘'Not enough evidence for Kenyatta trial': ICC prosecutor’, Google, 19 December 2013,

negative: The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons  The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law. [1]  The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them.  [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012,

negative: Legal precedent for prosecution of heads of government  The prosecution of high ranking government officials is part of the Nuremberg precedent that international criminal law largely dates back to. Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Imperial Japan in the Second World War, was tried, convicted and executed as part of the Tokyo trials for Japan’s acts of aggression in going to war. Karl Doenitz was prosecuted despite having briefly been Germany’s head of state; that position did not nullify the crimes he carried out as commander of Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare campaign.  Following that, the ICTY tried Slobodan Milosevic, who died before the trial finished, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor.  It is nothing new that international criminals can be prosecuted. While leaders have, and often still are, able to prevent themselves from being tied in their own country while they are in charge this should not apply the world over.

negative: Being able to witness atrocities from the field in real time does not change the international community’s capacity or political willingness to intervene in such situations. If anything, it has had the unfortunate side effect of desensitizing international public opinion to the horrors of war and conflicts, like the one in Syria where there have been thousands of videos showing the actions of the Syrian government but this has not resulted in action from the international community. [1] The onslaught of gruesome, graphic imagery has made people more used to witnessing such scenes from afar and less likely to be outraged and to ask their governments to intervene.  [1] Harding, Luke, 2012. “Syria’s video activists give revolution the upper hand in media war”. Guardian.co.uk, 1 August 2012.

negative: No head of state was successfully prosecuted by a partially international court until Charles Taylor was convicted by the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone, the first to go on trial was in 1994. None of the post WW2 Allied trials featured a significant head of state; Hitler was dead and the entire Japanese imperial family was not charged, including emperor Hirohito, who continued serving as Japanese head of state until his death in 1989.  The charges against Doenitz all pertained to his actions prior to him taking the leadership of Germany so they cannot be said to be actions taken in the role of head of state.

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

negative: ICC necessary to provide fair trials  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provides a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  In addition, the principle of complementarity means African states can prosecute on their own if they wish.

negative: By creating celebrities in the first place the media is often creating artificial demand for such stories; it is too simplistic to suggest that such stories are what the public wants in light of this. There will, however, always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. The media likes to portray itself as an important pillar in society and democracy, and while in some respects it is, by undermining the law by disregarding the right to privacy the newspapers are in fact damaging their own justification for their existence. The argument that many celebrities have courted the media for their fame is a misnomer, it can often be a bi-product of their career, why should their lives be necessarily punished via having their private lives scrutinized by the public just because it’s what the public may want?

negative: 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.

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


query: Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor  The government and its laws should take care of all their people. Because the state is a construct built by all the people, who all pay taxes to support it, laws should also be based to benefit the greatest amount of people possible.In the case of the Myriad company, which holds, together with the University of Utah Research Foundation, rights over tests for ovarian cancer, it prevented cheaper tests being offered to the public. As a result, Myriad is the only company that can market a test for the mutations, and it charges as much as $3,000 . That is a price that for many is inaccessible. Patients’ state: “There is no other, cheaper test that you could go get in another laboratory, because they have the exclusive patent,” she explained, adding that Myriad also controls the efficacy of the test—second opinions are only available for certain surgeries 1.Because patenting harms the accessibility of diagnostics and testing, it should not be allowed.  1. Pratt P.A., Court Rules That DNA Is Information, Not Intellectual Property, published March 30th 2010,  , accessed 07/20/2011

positive: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Firstly, it is not self-evident, that people have a right to use and possess something, such as medicine that they did not create.So why should people have the right to use a product that someone else discovered through the power of their own cognitive abilities. Actually demands to not patent and just research for the greater good are contradictory to the government taking care of all their people. The best way for the government to encourage medical research that provides these benefits is through patents. Patenting of genes is therefore a right that is based on the right to ownership of your own thoughts and should therefore be granted to the companies / individuals. There is no consistent legal basis for deciding that genes are not patent-eligible without deciding that many other ‘natural products’ are also ineligible.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents.  However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute.  Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/21/2011  3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”,  accessed 07/20/2011  4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011

negative: Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information  Most diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database.  Health insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases.  Such genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them.  This fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).  1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008,  , accessed 22/05/2011

negative: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry.  1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available:

negative: Health care would substantially reduce overall costs  With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that conditions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholesterol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse. Preventative care, made more accessible, can function the same way, reducing the costs further. [1]  In addition, a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs. A different way of charging for the care, not by individual services but by outcomes, as proposed by Obama’s bill, also changes incentives from as many tests and procedures as possible to as many patients treated and healed as possible. [2]  We thus see that not only does universal health coverage inherently decrease costs because of preventative care, much of the cost can be avoided if implemented wisely and incentivized properly.  [1] Cutler, D. M., Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit, published 5/11/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Wirzibicki, A., With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system, published 4/7/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.  Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market.  The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case evaluation of every single GMO entering the market – however, because products are so different there is no “by the book” procedure for testing. [1]  Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: “Genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.” [2]  [1] European Food Safety Agency, FAQ on genetically modified organisms,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] Pacchioli D., Are genetically modified foods safe to eat ?,  , accessed 08/28/2011

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.  There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1]  Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.  It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2]  Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport  The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.  The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.  Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive  for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008,  , accessed 05/20/2011

negative: All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved, and tracked afterwards  All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved for use. As vaccinations represent an important and potential harmful intrusion in an individual’s body, it is very important that they are safe. This is especially clear when governments decide to make immunization obligatory; they have to be sure they administer to their citizens safe vaccinations.  Based on the increase in the number of compulsory vaccinations in different countries, many governments have also stocked up on the funding of vaccination controlling of offered immunization treatments. Such stockpiling would only occur if they were confident that the vaccines have passed through a rigorous testing process.  Furthermore, even after being approved, organizations exist, like the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, as a center for tracking adverse events related to specific vaccines. If the events classified as serious are reported regularly for a specific vaccine, the vaccine can be subject to further study [1] .  [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention,  , accessed 07/10/2011

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures.  Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments.  Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing Right to privacy  Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use.  Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy.  Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Genes are intellectual property thus patentable  The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1  1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005

negative: Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining  While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights.  1 Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost?  2 Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011

negative: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing Keeping teenagers in education  Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils. [1]  It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall.  Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one.  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.

negative: The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens  There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.  In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year.  Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated.  1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,

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

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.

negative: A relaxation in cattle controls, not badgers, caused the problem  Bovine TB was almost eradicated in the UK yet the number of cases have shot up since the 1990s. The cause however is not badgers. Rather it is the result of BSE and Foot and Mouth disease which resulted in huge numbers of cattle being destroyed. To help the cattle farmers get back on their feet restrictions were all but lifted and cattle were moved all over the country. It is notable that the Isle of Man, which has no badgers, does have bovine TB. [1]  John Bourne, who led a trial of badger culling, suggests the cattle movement controls should be tightened before anything as drastic as a cull is undertaken. “The cattle controls in operation at the moment are totally ineffective… It's an absolute nonsense that farmers can move cattle willy-nilly after only two tests. Why won't politicians implement proper cattle movement controls? Because they don't want to upset farmers.” The problem is that the tests are not accurate so herds can pass the tests while they still have the disease so when cattle are moved they infect other herds. [2]  [1] Kaminski, Julia, ‘Badger culls don't stop tuberculosis in cattle – the evidence is clear’, theguardian.com, 11 August 2011,   [2] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013,

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing Prevent drug use  There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential.  Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.

negative: Healthier equivalents of trans fats exist  It is easy and inexpensive to replace trans fats with other, less harmful products without significantly altering the taste of the food. Kraft eliminated trans fats from its Oreo cookies, with little public perception of any change in taste.(1) Similarly, the Wendy's restaurant chain tested a new frying oil in 370 franchises, with customers not noticing a difference in taste. Denmark imposed a national ban on trans fats with which even McDonald's has complied.(1) Replacements for trans fats will get cheaper and cheaper with time, as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices.  Since trans fats are not irreplaceable, objections for the sake of consumer freedom are also unconvincing. As with lead added to paint, trans fats are unnecessary additions to products that can cause significant harm. Most people remain ignorant of the presence of trans-fats in their food, and of their effects. In this area the ban on trans fats differs from restrictions placed on the sale of alcohol and tobacco and so the two kinds of bans are not comparable. Not only are trans fats easy to substitute in foodstuffs, without impairing quality or taste, the presence of trans-fats is hard to detect. It is all-but impossible for informed and conscientious consumers to avoid buying and eating trans-fats.  While banning cigarettes and alcohol mean banning an entire product category, banning the ingredient of trans fats means no such thing. Rather, it simply means that readily available replacement ingredients must be used in the preparation of the same foods. And, since these fatty replacements are widespread and cheaply available, food makers and consumers should have little difficulty making the adjustment to making and consuming the same, albeit slightly modified, foods.

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies  The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism. [1] One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations’ law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved. [2]  The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual property. [3]  [1] Barlett D., Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, published May 2008,  , accessed 08/27/2011  [2] Hurt H., The Toxic Ten, published 02/19/2008,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [3] Pollan M., Playing God in the Garden, published 10/25/1998,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo  Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.  Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.  Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]  56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.  Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.  In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.  [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups,  , accessed 08/07/2011  [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  , accessed 08/08/2011

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing No harm to non-drug users  Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character.  Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis).  Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.

negative: Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market  In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very easy to produce (hence the great amount of vineyards) and very much engraved in the culture of especially European countries.  Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as the people would do it due to the ease of producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance. A ban would bring just more deregulation and loss of taxes through the black market.  We might acknowledge that the legal implications will scare away some people from drinking alcohol, but the main part of population will want more. Because there is a strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply will flourish.  This can be seen already with both and illegal drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in from much cheaper continental countries will undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers, and will circumvent the normal regulations which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-cologne with an expired expiration date. The methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths of over 20 people who drank it and many others were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were confiscated. [1] Because people wanted alcohol so badly and could not get it. While in Europe there might not be much of poisoning going on, a great amount of alcohol because of the different wine regions. Only Spain has already 2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the planting of wine grapes. However, it is only number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine actually produced. [2] So in comparison to the Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where easily to produce alcohol and therefore making it hard to control.  Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap, home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or blinds hundreds of people a year in countries like Russia. [3] Overall criminality will flourish, with the gang violence associated with Prohibition or the drugs trade.  An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries where it is very tight tied to religion and to the religious practices. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. The harms associated with black market alcohol are too great for us to risk introducing this proposal.  [1] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [2] A Beginners Guide to Spanish Wine,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [3] Sodertorns Hogskola, The Alcohol Use in Russia and the Baltic Sea Region, published April 2000,  , accessed 08/18/2011

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

negative: teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process  SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools.  Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials.

negative: DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions  Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was 'dry-labbing' or faking results of DNA comparisons1. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, the company used by police to analyse its DNA samples was shown to have secretly kept the genetic samples and personal details of 'hundreds of thousands' of arrested people, stoking fears that, if lost, they could be planted as evidence2. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection. 1 Johnston, D. (1997, April 16). Report criticizes scientific testing at F.B.I Crime Lab. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times: 2 Barnett, A. (2006, July 16). Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

negative: The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.  Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers [1] .  A fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets [2] .  Illegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction [3] .  Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [3] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

negative: The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011

negative: Multiple vaccines cause no harm  Despite fears to the contrary, multiple vaccines cause no harm. Being given immunization in many cases means that people receive a weakened virus. Many believe that because of this they will have a weakened immune system and also suffer from long term body harm. The evidence suggests this is not the case, and that combined vaccinations cause no adverse harm in the vast majority of cases.  A University of Louisiana study, in which more than 1,000 children underwent in-depth neuropsychological tests after receiving a series of vaccinations, found that ‘there was no evidence of neurodevelopmental delays or deficits associated with on-time vaccination’. [1]  Further, multiple vaccinations, which ensure not only that children get their vaccinations but that they do so as quickly as possible, are associated with ‘improved performance’ compared with a control group that received the vaccinations individually and therefore more slowly [2] . Therefore, not only are multiple vaccines harmless, they are a better choice for parents hoping to ensure their children are inoculated from certain diseases.  This is nothing but scare-mongering by the press. No evidence exists that there is a link between MMR or any multiple vaccine and the development of autism. Pseudo-experts are exploiting the pain of families that have children which have this unfortunate disease. They should be ashamed of themselves.  [1] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011  [2] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007