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

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

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

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

negative: crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.  Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases [1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred [2] ), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias [3] . Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases [4] . Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’ [5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial.  [1] Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011.  [2] New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011.  [3] Howard Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’  [4] Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997.  [5] Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005 .

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

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

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

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

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

negative: crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.  This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

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

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

negative: Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:  improve this  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:

negative: Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.

negative: crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.  Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media.  [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy.  Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already caused trials to be cancelled in the past [1] because the judiciary recognises that media coverage can change people’s incentives and warp their priorities. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses and jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case [2] . If witnesses and jurors know that their public lives could be affected by how the rest of society perceives them through a court case, they might have an incentive to be more harsh or more lenient; public outrage when the criminal sentence does not match their own interpretations is likely to be laid on those who caused that sentence. This is particularly dangerous for America, where they have trial by jury [3] . Here, the jury has more control over the sentencing of criminals – which obviously becomes a problem if the jury has a vested interest in giving harsh sentences to offenders in order to gain public support. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

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

negative: While Blecker proposes a three step test in a draft statute, it does not feature much legal certainty – it features a large amount of jury discretion, which was deemed to be a violation of the US constitution [1] . Any such elastic definition would allow prosecutors to make an argument that pretty much any case is within such a category.  It also continues due use of “death qualified juries”, exclusively made up of death penalty supporters [2] , which are racially skewed toward being whiter. Would this then end up really being for the worst of the worst?  [1] See Furman v Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972)   [2] See Witherspoon v Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968)

negative: 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.

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world.  While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International.  While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.

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

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: 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 death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.  Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2. Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Turow , Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 3 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

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

negative: A DNA database would reduce the time spent tracking down suspects  A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10 crime scene profiles loaded to the National DNA Database were matched to a subject profile'1. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty. 1 NDNAD. (2009). National DNA Database: Annual Report 2007-09. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from

negative: crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Defendants who are innocent will be protected  This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front.  [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.

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

negative: Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:  Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2]  Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.

negative: Broad web surveillance prevents terrorist attacks  Over the last ten years, and right up to the present day, the most important national security interest of the United States has been preventing terrorism. A fight against terrorism requires a large amount of resources invested in tracking terrorist networks and in finding those who may turn to terrorism. Intelligence gathering cannot just focus on those we already know to be terrorists as people can easily become radicalised while not meeting any individuals already considered to be terrorists. This means that there needs to be a broad brush intelligence gathering operation that finds those who are on the path to terrorism. This is why operations like PRISM and xkeyscore are so important; they allow the United States to find people who are being radicalised by material online or those who are just working out how to launch an attack themselves. The NSA Director Keith Alexander has stated that the surveillance has helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.”, with PRISM contributing to 90% of the information on these plots. As only 10 were domestic the surveillance is a benefit to other countries as well as the United States. [1]  [1] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots’, The Washington Post, 18 June 2013,

negative: This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.

negative: The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.


query: Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership  Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed the serfs), and since 1917 under Lenin and Stalin. Russia is too big, too diverse and too thinly-populated for western systems of representative democracy to be applied. Culturally its people are temperamentally suited to following the decisive lead of a strong ruler who can unite them in the face of great challenges. Without such a ruler Russia is likely to fragment with local strongmen grabbing power in the regions, religious fundamentalism dominating much of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and economic stagnation.

positive: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership History is not destiny and a highly-selective view of Russia's past should not lead us to prefer authoritarian rule today. The Tsars and their communist successors killed millions of people through brutal rule and failed policies - made possible by the same lack of consultation and accountability that we see in Russia today. Only a vigorous multi-party democracy, fully independent legal system and free media can ensure that the disasters of the past are not repeated. Nor is there any reason why such a system could not take root in Russia - it is no more diverse than many other countries and modern communications mean that mere distance is not a problem. And there is nothing in the culture or temperament that makes Russians uniquely unsuited to democracy.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to their economic development. As a matter of fact present president Dmitry Medvedev has launched policies and new projects in order to fight back corruption – “ Fighting corruption has been a top agenda of President Dmitry Medvedev. An Anti-Corruption Council was established by Medvedev in 2008 to oversee the Russia's anti-corruption campaign. The central document guiding the effort is the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, introduced by Medvedev in 2010.” (2) In fact, increasing corruption might prove to be more dangerous than terrorist attacks since it would create powerful drug, oil and weapons cartels as well as human trafficking problems. Therefore a strong leader is necessary to cope with this critical matter.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership  There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of presiding over a boom in corruption and enriching his inner circle over the past decade… Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev themselves have 26 "palaces" and five yachts, which in turn require costly state upkeep, according to the report.” (8)  Many argue that if it weren’t for the power of the prime minister and ex-president Putin, also his strong authority and management, corruption would have been minimized long ago.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state  What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former president and current prime minister – Putin. “The leading role still clearly belongs to Putin. This reflects the unspoken agreement that was reached between Putin and Medvedev,” said Yevgeny Volk, an independent political analyst in Moscow. (6) Russia’s both external and internal policy have not changed after the elections in 2008 and are following the same path, which is another argument that Putin continues to pull the strings.  In fact, the more important question is not whether or not Medvedev is a pawn, but who is actually in charge – “Kremlin-watchers say this system of interlocking and competing clans that is managed by Putin comprises the core of Russia's ruling elite. The key players, the people with decision making power, number about thirty. The inner circle, most agree, comprises about twelve people… There are something like a dozen of the most influential guys in the first circle and perhaps two dozen who are less influential in the second circle. These are not only managers but also shareholders who are not that visible or public...Not only do they manage Russia...but they also enrich themselves pretty actively.” (7) This poses the debate is such a status quo in the best interest of Russia and its people or is the exact opposite.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership The current president Dmitry Medvedev is working on and introducing policies toward corruption. Actually this is his main strategy. It is a well-known fact that Medvedev keeps close relations with the former president Putin and discusses Russian relations and policy with him. If the abolishment of the corruption was standing in the way of Putin, such a strategy would not have been undertaken by Medvedev. – “Speaking to a group of Russian experts and journalists, he said that corrupt officials ran Russia. "They have the power. Corruption has a systemic nature, deep historic roots. We should squeeze it out. The battle isn't easy but it has to be fought. I don't think we can achieve tangible results in one year or two. If I am a realist we could get good results in 15." “(9)  Exactly strong leadership can deal with the difficult issue of corruption in the Russian state. And the new policies of the current president clearly present that.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership All periods of transition have been chaotic by definition and reforms are by their nature disruptive. At the same time, it is only through these reforms that a future of freedom and prosperity is possible. While a long transition process can certainly cloud minds and turn people into distrustful and disillusioned individuals, one must keep in mind that it is precisely at these moments that the risk of authoritarian tendencies re-emerging is highest. The people of Russia agree in polls over and over again that democracy is and should be their future. We must not let the immediate chaos of reform scare us into a fake stability. Even if still Russians prefer stronger leadership the number of these people is decreasing and the tendency shows that more and more are starting to evaluate the true value of democracy - “…But that number is actually down from the last time VTsIOM conducted a similar survey in 2000, when 75 per cent of Russians said they favored order, and 13 per cent – democracy. “ (1)

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership All of these speculations are rather unreasonable and tend to create a public opinion which does not cooperate entirely with the truth. Such drastic conclusions can be made just about any other country. It is true that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader and a powerful figure in the Russian political life, but this does not mean that he is a puppet master, who decides the entire faith of Russia and the Russian population. The political life cannot go without political games, intrigues and deals, but this is just how the policy works and this is how it has been working for a long time. Political interests mix up with business interests and it is actually important to have a strong leader in the face of Putin, who, unlike a lot of politicians will not be influenced by big corporate players or at least will not be influenced as much. Putin’s political career has been successful and his rating among the population are the simplest proof - According to public opinion surveys conducted by Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world. His popularity rose from 31% in August 1999 to 80% in November 1999 and since then it has never fallen below 65%. Observers see Putin's high approval ratings as a consequence of the significant improvements in living standards and Russia's reassertion of itself on the world scene that occurred during his tenure as President.

negative: Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.  The proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.1 In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.2 1 Garratt , Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,' 2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership Putin’s initial support was based mainly on strong promises, a series of arrests of corrupt businessmen and tough action towards Chechnya that at first seemed to give positive results. His support base, however, has been significantly damaged following his increasing tendencies to control the media and to replace elected governors with presidential appointees, and by scandals surrounding the disappearance and murder of several important journalists. He has lost the support of the NGO community and most of the intelligentsia and also the originally strong backing of the USA and President Bush.

negative: Crimea should be Russian  Russia has a strong claim to the Crimea; The territory was only handed over in 1954 by Nikita Krushchev for political reasons. [1] Previously it had been Russian for three hundred years. Historically Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian. Culturally Crimea is important to Russia too, it was the main Russian tourism destination during the Soviet Union and Symbolised Russia’s gains in the 18th and 19th Centuries. [2] Russia for most of the 1990s refused to accept Ukraine’s independence, let alone Crimea that Crimea should be a part of it with the Russian Parliament engaging in actions such as declaring Sevastopol a Russian city. [3] Therefore the sovereignty of the region should be considered to be contested.  [1] Pravda, ‘USSR's Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia’s Crimea away to Ukraine in only 15 minutes’, 19 February 2009  [2] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014  [3] Minorities at Risk Project, ‘Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine’, 2004

negative: The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instantly moved terrorism to the top of the US security agenda involving recognition of it as a global and military problem. [1] Russia and the United States now must jointly face a host of wider problems, from environmental degradation to the growth of ethnic violence, and the challenges to nation-states posed by globalization. Global problems are not decreasing, but, quite the opposite, there are new ones looming on the horizon; this will forge a long-term close economic, scientific and political relationship between Russia and the United States. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 recognised that closer relations are built on common national interests; They [Russian policy makers] understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. [2]  [1] Iver B. Neumann, ‘Russia as a Great Power’, in Jakob Hedenskog et al (eds.) Russia as a Great Power Dimensions of Security under Putin, (Routledge, London, 2005), pp.13-28, p.18  [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,  pp.26-27. Accessed 20/4/11

negative: States are never truly representative of the people.  Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2]  The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3]  Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.  [1]   [2]   [3]

negative: Undeniably, any government needs confidence and trust from the population in order to implement reforms in an efficient way. You need the citizens to be on the same side with the elected officials rather than trying to impede them from doing their job. Despite this, there won’t be any lack of trust as a result of scraping warrants.  In order to prove this fact, one must look at the source that makes the population trust the government. There might be some mistrust in the beginning as a result of the protests that will come as soon as the scrapping occurs, but this won’t last long. In time, as society becomes safer, as terrorist attacks and crimes become scarcer, there government’s good image will return. Results are what people care about. Let us not forget that the biggest blow that a state’s image can receive happens when it is unable to protect its citizens. No matter if we are talking about 9/11, London Metro Bombings or the ones which happened at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, each and every time the government was held responsible for its failure to prevent the attacks.  If we are to talk about the state’s image and legitimacy, as the numbers of these types of regrettable events will decrease, the influence of the government and the way it is perceived can only rise.

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

negative: Russia’s near abroad  Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent American intervention in Central Asia therefore it was sensible to make sure it was co-opted to serve Russia’s own interests, namely to be against international terrorism, rather than being directed against Russia herself. By doing so Russia could preserve her influence in the region. As America was willing to take on the costs of maintaining the security of the region Russia could retrench and cut costs. [1] Yet Russia began to force the US out as soon as was possible, for example forcing the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan. [2]  Russia has sometimes seemed to purposefully take the opposite side to the US in Eastern Europe. An example of this occurring was over the possibility of independence for Kosovo almost a decade after the conflict that forced Serbian forces out of the country. According to Charles Kupchan “on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board.” [3]  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), pp.172-174  [2] Schwirtz, Michael, ‘Kyrgyzstan Insists U.S. Base to Close’, The New York Times, 11 June 2009,   [3] Bernard Gwertzmann, ‘Interview Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’, Foreign Affairs, Dec 2007,  accessed 27/4/11

negative: It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.  Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.

negative: NATO expansion is not the cause of nationalism in Russia, rather the Russian leadership stokes nationalism in order to direct attention away from the government. The Russian people are concerned about hardship and hazard within their own borders rather than without. Yes it is true that the expansion of NATO antagonises Russia but this should not be a major concern of NATO, any expansion of a military alliance is likely to worry those countries that are outside that alliance. Moreover, failing to expand NATO to countries that are potentially threatened by the same nationalism and belligerency of Russia would be implicitly rewarding that belligerency. NATO should not be teaching Russia the lesson that hostility in Eastern Europe gets results that lessen the security of all.

negative: It is clear that the population has high demands and high expectations from the government, but that is because it should do. It is clear that every time the state fails to protect us, every time it breaks the law and every time it violates our constitutional rights, the state needs to be held to account. But that doesn’t mean the state’s job is impossible and unfeasible simply that it needs to learn and improve from its mistakes, and the only way this will happen is if it is open and transparent about its systems.  In addition, crime has fallen in the western world, governments can and do both protect the civilians and respect their rights at the same time. Such a system requires warrants and check and balances on government. The population may sway in terms of its demands but this is mostly driven by events; when there is a large terrorist attack there is a response, when government goes too far again the people will respond. This ensures that the government strikes the right balance.

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ]  [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005.   [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010.

negative: Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.

negative: Success depends on military intervention.  There is no reasonable chance of success for the opposition movement absent substantial military re-enforcement by the West.  The Syrian government is uniquely placed for several reasons to be able to quell any opposition movement and to rule by fear and force for an indefinite amount of time. Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy is and never has been based on any type of democratic mandate or popular support. He rules based on control and, as such, has built up many institutions to entrench this capacity to control the Syrian public over the years. Oil revenues are high and Assad has very deep monetary reserves that allow him to buy loyalty from his military and equip himself beyond the capacity of any domestic opposition group could feasibly do.  Due to these two factors, the only way that Assad will fall is by force and by force that is far greater than can be attained without the support of the West. Therefore, for the humanitarian situation to be solved, the West must invade Syria.

negative: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,

negative: While the presence of pre-existing institutions is an advantage in transitioning to a democracy, that advantage may be compromised when these institutions are largely seen as illegitimate and have not fostered a democratic political culture. Key to the development of a democratic political culture is confidence in institutions and a willingness to accept the popular will as carried out by those institutions.  The predominance of the Executive over the Legislature is rather reminiscent of the Imperial Russian State Duma (1905-1917) as with Tunisia and Bahrain the lower house was directly elected, although the system was heavily weighted to produce pliant Dumas from 1907 on, and the upper house appointed. There was quite a plurality of parties and the Duma had control over a wide area of legislation but not over areas such as military policy and the Tsar had veto powers. [1] It certainly cannot be said that the Duma’s existence proved to be conducive to the creation of a stable democracy after the fall of the Tsar, or even a stable state of any sort.  The existence of the necessary institutions therefore does not mean anything if those very institutions are not seen as legitimate.  [1] E. A. Goldenweiser, ‘The Russian Duma’,Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1914), pp. 408-422

negative: Being leader should not allow you blanket immunity from persecution of crimes. If an agreement was able to be reached for these two men, surely a similar agreement can reached for others. Stability might be undermined more if leaders who are proven to committing war crimes are allowed to remain in power where they may do so again.

negative: Economically compatible  There is a huge potential for economic cooperation between two of the biggest states in the world. Russia desperately needs investment and technology to modernize its economy. The USA can offer this and more. It has helped Russia to get into the World Trade Organization, [1] to integrate it into the global economy, put pressure on Russian companies to drop their corrupt ways and adopt modern modes of operation. Russia also has plenty of chips to bring to the table. Pumping seven million barrels a day, Russia is second only to the Saudis in oil production. The Bush team saw Russia as a source for crude oil should U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorate, this is why at the Moscow summit in May, 2002, Bush and Putin launched “an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security, international strategic stability, and regional cooperation.” [2] The United States has invested whenever it could in Russian oil and gas despite the difficulties private companies like Yukos have faced with government tax demands. For example in October 2001, Exxon Mobil announced that the Sakhalin 1 project was profitable and outlined the company’s plans to invest $30 billion by 2030. [3]  [1] Kirk, ‘Full Statement by Ambassador Kirk Regarding the Invitation to Russia to Join the WTO’, Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 2011,   [2] William Ratliff, ‘Russia’s Oil in America’s Future: Policy, Pipelines, and Prospects, Hoover Institution, 1/9/03,  accessed 04/5/11  [3] Tamara Troyakova and Elizabeth Wishnick, ‘Integration or Disintegration: Challenges for the Russian Far East in the Asia-Pacific Region, p.18.  accessed 6/5/11

negative: States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.1 The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.2 It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast. 1 AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,' The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News  2 BBC , 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State

negative: Although the United States would like to get its hands on Russia’s vast economic resources it is not a good place to do business. Russia was accused of being a ‘virtual mafia state’ by US diplomats in a wikileaked cable. [1] According to then US Ambassador to Russia Russia needs to “support the “sanctity” of commercial contracts and agreements; create a “transparent, stable and enforceable” tax and license regime; improve and enforce intellectual property rights protection; act decisively on “pervasive bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation”; bring corruption under control; reverse the “worrying trend” in Russia towards control over the mass media” [2] before it becomes a place that the US can really do lots of business with. The economy may therefore be more of a source of conflict than cooperation as The United States tries to push Russia into being more open and less corrupt against the wishes of the Russian elites.  [1] Luke Harding, WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’, guardian.co.uk 1/12/10,  accessed 28/4/11  [2] Alexander Vershbow, “Opportunities in U.S.-Russian Economic Relations,” United States Embassy Moscow, 22 May 2003.

negative: Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.  In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.” [1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether there should be cooperation. Military transparency, particularly on nuclear weapons is necessary. “Russia and the United States matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our interactions matters to the rest of the world. The two of us control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and our leadership can do more than anyone else’s to help secure nuclear material globally and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” [2] This continued cooperation on nuclear issues in particular has been demonstrated with the signing of the ‘New START’ treaty on 8th April 2010.  There are many other areas where cooperation between the America and Russia is vital as well. As is demonstrated by the geopolitical situation “Russia sits astride Europe, Asia and the broader Middle East – three regions whose future will shape American interests for many years to come. And in an era in which common challenges” so cooperation is necessary for the United States, but also for Russia as it would not want the US acting without its cooperation. According to Undersecretary of State Burns there are also many issues “non-proliferation, climate change, energy security, the struggle against terrorism, and many more – demand common action more than at any other period in human history, the United States and Russia have a lot more to gain by working together than by working apart.” [3]  [1] Barak Obama, Obama’s Speech in Moscow, President addresses New Economic School graduation, 7/7/09,  accessed 20/4/11  [2] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11  [3] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights. [1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference.  [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15.

negative: The EU needs a dedicated defence force  It is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia [1] . The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much.  [1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

negative: The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.  An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]  [4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156  Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.  [5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011.  , Accessed 12th May 2011.

negative: A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter [1] ; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up.  [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591