The Second Amendment  When it comes down to it, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American constitution. This right applies just as much to teachers as it does to anyone else. Having a right to bear arms means there is always going to the threat that one person can draw and use a weapon against another. The best way to counter-act such a danger is to meet it with equal means, as the culture of arms-bearing in the USA is too entrenched to try methods that involving scaling back gun-usage or enforcing much stricter arms control. Any attempt to do so would likely be struck down by the United States Supreme Court just as it declared the restrictions on handguns that were in place in Washington DC. [1] Therefore the best way to protect the most vulnerable in US society is to deploy the means that are encouraged and protected by the constitution.  [1] Supreme Court of the United States, ‘District of Columbia et al. v. Heller’, 26 June 2008,


Teachers need protection just as much as students  An incident in Medford, Oregon in 2007 illustrated how teachers need to be able to protect themselves as well as their students. Gun lobbyists claimed teacher Jane Doe’s reasons for wanting to be armed while teaching were based on the restraining order against her ex-husband, who had made threats against her and her children. Although local laws dictated that only law enforcement officers could brings guns onto a school campus, she challenged it on the grounds of her own personal safety. [1] In a country like the USA where ordinary civilians can own guns, people often feel the need to carry arms for the sake of self-protection. If people are allowed to do this in their own homes, then if the threats persist while they are at work by extension they should still be allowed to exercise self-protection.  [1] Knickerbocker, Brad, ‘Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?’, Christian Science Monitor, 18 September 2007,


Teachers in places where the scheme has already been piloted have received training from private security firms. In Harrold county, teachers have also been provided with special ammunition that avoids ricocheting and therefore minimises the threat of students being caught in crossfire. [1] Other schools in more urban parts of states like Texas, particularly those suffering a high level of gang violence, already have their own police forces. Many American schools are therefore used to having an environment where arms usage is the norm. It is therefore hard to argue that introducing armed protection in a different form, aka through teachers rather than police officers, would result in an increased level of risk.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,


Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,


Guns in schools might be used in circumstances other than defense.  Having guns in the classroom will more than likely increase the chances of gun related violence in schools. It would increase the chance of gun related accidents; although only a very small chance there would previously have been no chance. It may well also increase the number of shootings; people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot, [1] although there is no way of knowing if the effect would be the same in the classroom as on the street. Finally it is ignoring the possibility that those who are to carry guns for the school children’s protection may at some point turn the gun on their charges. Teaching can be a very frustrating job and the teacher may get very angry with individual students, allowing teachers to carry guns would greatly increase the risk of an unpremeditated shooting against on a schoolchild.  [1] Callaway, Ewen, ‘Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed’, NewScientist, 6 October 2009,


How could arming teachers be regulated?  If teachers can bear arms, then what’s to stop other people in the school environment in contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won’t have been certified or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school without a lot of investment in searches and detectors – money that could have paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition’s mechanism does not stand.


Children would be caught in the crossfire  We need to remember that we’re most likely dealing with threats to young people by other young people here. If teachers were granted the right of ‘shoot to kill,’ as the mechanism would imply, of anyone they found threatening, the consequences to completely innocent people in a crossfire, or merely troubled youngsters that could be rehabilitated if simply subdued, could be tragic and fatal. Ultimately, teachers are not police officers and are thus not equipped to take out an armed criminal in the same way. As the legislative director of the Houston Association of Teachers out it, “We are trained to teach and educate – not to tame the Wild West.” [1]  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,


Children are impressionable  Allowing teachers to carry arms in school could mean that very young children could easily become acclimatised to the idea that carrying a gun and ultimately gun usage is ok. Surely the way to prevent incidents like Columbine from happening is to teach children about the potentially destructive and fatal consequences of gun usage? For elementary/primary school-age children, it would be difficult to separate the idea that it’s ok for teachers to always carry guns but not for anyone else.


The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported in some public US high schools) [1] that does not mean everyone in the teaching profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked.  [1] Irvine, Martha, and Tanner, Robert, ‘AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools’, The Washington Post, 21 October 2007,


The chances of accidents would be miniscule as teacher would be trained to carry the gun and would keep it with them at all times when in the classroom so there would be no chance of the students playing with the gun. The deterrence effect of having guns in school is likely to mean that the number of shootings will go down rather than up. Finally if it was an armed teacher who perpetrated the shooting then they would have been able to commit that atrocity regardless of whether s/he was allowed to carry a gun in school.


Victims of any form of crime, regardless of their life choices, are free to come to the police for protection and will be provided with the same protections as anyone else. The fact that people who commit crimes may feel less comfortable going to the police to avoid self-incrimination is not a reason to remove those laws.


Decriminalisation will protect practitioners of sadomasochism  The criminalisation of S&M removes legal protection from individuals who suffer an abuse of consent while submitting to sadistic practices. Where a dominant partner ignores safe words or pushes a session too far, the criminal status of S&M may lead to a victim being prosecuted alongside a perpetrator. Alternately, victims may be disincentivised from approaching the police altogether.  Although it is not possible to be prosecuted for being the victim of a crime, individuals who are harmed during sadomasochistic sex many not be able to engage in a rational assessment of their own criminal liability. Even though laws against sadomasochistic acts pin liability only on the sadistic partner, they also serve to criminalize the act itself. Victims of abuses of consent may therefore become wary of informing the police that they have participated in such activity, for fear that they will be publicly stigmatized or subjected to police investigation themselves.  The only time S&M can be problematic is when someone does not listen to their partner when they withdraw their consent and ask for the session to end. Individuals will not stop engaging in S&M simply because the state says so, but victims of over-aggressive partners will lose recourse or protection under the law if they try to approach the police about such an incident. Where an S&M session goes awry, victims of an abuse of consent will have to admit to engaging in a criminal act. In the same way prostitutes have no real protection from assault and rape due to the criminality of their acts, victims of assault and rape in S&M are no longer protected.  The opposition may attempt to claim that there will be a clear distinction between a sadistic “criminal” and a submissive “victim” whenever a complaint is raised. This is not true. Many sadomasochistic relationships are based around fluctuating and interchangeable roles. Both partners may engage in sadistic acts at different times.


The notion of consent cannot apply to a practice in which participants lack the ability to withdraw at any given time. Rape cases are easier to prosecute as it is clear and evident that the victim did not consent to the activity. The legalization of sadomasochism would create situations in which consent has been given beforehand but cannot be withdrawn during the activity.  There may be genuine confusion between participants in a situation where one party wishes to withdraw their consent but is unable due to the activities already underway. In that case, it would appear unreasonable to prosecute despite the victim’s anguish. To spare such horrible situations arising, the practice must remain illegal.  Finally, a number of criminal cases, including the English case of R v Dica, have held that intentionally or recklessly exposing a partner to a sexually transmitted infection by refusing to wear a condom can be a criminally action. Where an individual is aware that certain sexual interactions carry a risk of harm, and he does not obtain his partner’s full and informed acknowledgment of that risk, in English law at least, he commits a crime [i] .  If a man forces sex on a woman who has rejected his advances on the basis that he will not wear a condom, a rape is committed. If a man deceives a woman into having unprotected sex by lying about his sexual health, the decision in R v Dica will hold him liable for any resulting harm.  [i] R v Dica [2004] QB 1257


The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty  Control of one’s own body is the most fundamental of human rights. No government should be permitted to define how its citizens can express themselves. The distinction between the permissible and the impermissible should be drawn at the line of consent. This is not a novel distinction. Your property cannot be stolen from you if you agree to give it away. You have no legal remedy if your property is damaged by another with your consent, or if you damage it yourself. Why should there be a moral difference when this property is flesh and blood? Paternalism in this instance only protects those who do not want to be protected.  The prohibition of sadomasochism is simply inconsistent with the liberty that governments already permit their citizens to exercise to injure each other and themselves. When people are entitled to risk pain, serious injury, or even death in sporting activity, why should they not also be permitted to suffer some discomfort in consensual sexual activity? The same piercing of flesh which attracts criminal liability in a fetishistic context can be performed legally in a chemist’s shop or tattooist’s parlor. The distinction between the rugby scrum, the bungee tower and the bedroom is an arbitrary one.  Some of the pleasure that is inherent in contact sports is derived from the adrenal thrill of flirting with injury. It is widely known that a significant proportion of individuals find jeopardy and danger as enjoyable as decadence. A sport purged of all risk would be unwatched and unplayed. Comparably, a corpus of law that did not acknowledge or protect the diversity of human sexual experience would needlessly limit individual sexual freedom, and would probably be ignored.


Every government has a duty to protect the moral and physical health of all its citizens. Firstly, the defining characteristic of sadomasochism is that it does harm to others. The activity has a victim. It is not a simple question of one individual being permitted to harm himself. Secondly, the fact of the victim’s consent is immaterial. The use of seatbelts is mandatory because citizens should not be allowed to risk their bodies for such a nugatory freedom. Citizens are allowed to lose or jeopardize their material assets through foolishness, since the assets are replaceable, or at least not critical to survival. Paternalism exists to protect people from themselves.  As noted below, governments are able to exercise varying degrees of regulation over potentially harmful activities according to the contexts that they occur in. Under these circumstances, the beneficial aspects of contact sports, risky performance arts and non-essential medical procedures can be balanced against the harms they might cause. Dangerous sporting activities invariably occur in public, are supervised by coaches and referees, and are subject to rule-sets agreed on by players and overseen by professional bodies. Under such circumstances, it is possible for the state to be satisfied that risk to the individual has been minimized as far as possible, and that there can be no confusion over which risks an individual consents to.  Where altercations on the sports field result in criminal prosecutions, much discussion is focused on the risks that the victim foresaw he would be exposed to. Hockey players have previously been held to have implicitly accepted the possibility that they might be deliberately struck with a hockey stick in the course of a match [i] . A recent English case ruled that a rugby player does not impliedly consent to run the risk that another player might bite and tear at his ear during a match [ii] .  [i] R v Green (1971) 16 DLR 93d) 164  [ii] R v Johnson (1986) 8 Cr App R (Sentencing) 343


When less painful but equally effective variations on existing beauty treatments enter the market, they quickly assume a position of dominance. Women and men who want to enhance their physical appearance do not automatically seek out the most painful way of doing so.  The proposition conflates a means of achieving sexual gratification with the gratifying act itself. A masochist finds erotic pleasure in being subjected to pain, irrespective of the ultimate purpose of that pain. Likewise, a sadist will inflict pain to achieve pleasure, without feeling that his actions require further justification or purpose.  A surgeon will design his procedures so that a patient will suffer an absolute minimum of pain and discomfort. A medical professional would likely be subjected to professional disciplinary measures if it were to become apparent that he derived gratification from the unavoidable pain sometimes endured by his patients. The consequences of a medical intervention sometimes mean that a patient will experience pain, but this is not evidence for the existence of underlying sadomasochistic motives.  Put simply, individuals with more typical sets of sexual desires regard cosmetic treatments as a means of achieving gratification, not the end in itself. Pain and infirmity take on great significance when an individual decides whether he wants to undergo cosmetic enhancement. The psychological screening that cosmetic surgeons employ is likely to detect individuals for whom pain and sexual pleasure have become interchangeable.  As side opposition’s third point will demonstrate, states permit individuals to consent to dangerous cosmetic procedures precisely because the risks inherent in these practices can easily be subjected to third party scrutiny.  Cosmetic surgery and beauty products exist in public, and are open to regulation and oversight. The bedroom, the basement and the private members club are, by contrast, concealed and secretive.


Sadomasochistic practices should be legal between informed, consenting adults.  It is sufficient for the decriminalization of sadomasochism that each participant is aware of the hazards inherent in the fetishes they will be exploring and consents to them. No law prohibits people from refusing to wear a condom during sexual intercourse, notwithstanding the peril of infection.  Furthermore, all cases where an individual withdraws their consent for the activity can be arbitrated and prosecuted like every other situation of consensual sex where an individual withdraws consent and their partner does not respect that wish. The police and courts will investigate it in the same way and will prosecute those who commit rape under the guise of S&M just as they prosecute those who commit rape under the guise of consensual intercourse.


Western ideals of beauty already permit individual to endure intense physical pain in order to achieve sexual gratification  The idealization of physical beauty within American and European culture has created a demand for increasingly interventionist forms of cosmetic enhancement. Women and men are prepared to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to have their faces, breasts and genitals maimed and modified by surgeons, to have their skin bleached or their facial muscles temporarily paralyzed by “beauticians” and to be badgered, bullied and blackmailed into complying with restrictive diets and extensive regimes of physical exertion by domineering personal trainers. Except in the most extreme and obvious cases of emotional or psychological disturbance, adults are automatically assumed to be capable of consenting to these acts.  Further, the western ideal of physical beauty is closely associated with the cultural norms that influence and control sexual attraction, compatibility and enjoyment. The erotic is almost inextricably linked with the aesthetically idealized. The intense pain and extensive physical injuries that individuals endure in the pursuit of physical beauty are also endured in the pursuit of sexual gratification.  The risks inherent in invasive cosmetic treatments are poorly explained. The expense of these products and services and the pervasiveness of idealized physical forms combine to create parallel markets comprising cheaper, poorly regulated forms of “beauty enhancement”, including intensive tanning and skin bleaching lotions.  The ultimate objective of these physically painful and dangerous activities is sexual pleasure. Even if the heightening of sexual pleasure that results from physical modification is less direct than in a sadomasochistic encounter, many cosmetic surgery patients find the aesthetic pleasure attendant on successful surgery to be satisfying too.  It seems hypocritical and perverse for a supposedly liberal system of law to allow individuals who are openly pursuing a sexual objective to consent to the harms and risks of cosmetic surgery, while limiting the legality of sadomasochistic acts. Both activities have the same underlying purpose, and both produce dangerous externalities. Rational, consenting adults should have as much freedom to engage in S&M play as they currently have to submit to cosmetic surgery.


Where should the line between sadomasochistc and “conventional” sexual activity be drawn? The English appeal case of R v Slingsby [i] concerned the accidental death of an individual who had consented to an inherently risky sexual act (the insertion of her partner’s fist into her anus) that was considered “vigorous” but not masochistic. As noted above, conventional sexual interaction is just as susceptible to subversion as S&M encounters, and can just as easily collapse into a non-consensual act.  In effect, “normal” sexual expression is as difficult to regulate, and as likely to incorporate violence (or “vigorous activity” as the judge in Slingsby would have it) and to cause harm, as sadomasochism. Society at large does not demand that all private sexual activity is as tightly regulated as professional sport, nor does it attempt to outlaw sexual activity. Instead, it is acknowledged that personal freedom outweighs the occasional harms that private sexual relationships produce. Existing legal safeguards are seen as providing victims of abusive conventional relationships with adequate protection and recompense.  Indeed, the dangers that accompany conventional sex may be less obvious to the participants in a relationship than the dangers posed by a poorly tied knot or an inexpertly wielded crop. Sexually transmitted infections, concealed personality disorders, infidelity or jealous former partners all constitute significant and easily overlooked sources of harm.  [i] R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570


The state has no right to decide what is “moral” or “immoral” for society. Each and every individual through their freedom of conscience is allowed to determine for themselves what a moral act would be as the government has no way of determining that with any certainty.  Moreover, there is no evidence that suggests any link between S&M and propensity or escalation of criminality. Simply because someone enjoys the infliction or the feeling of pain does not mean that they will become a criminal who inflicts pain on other, un-consenting people in the future. Further, it could be argued that allowing people a consensual outlet for such urges reduces the probability that such escalation and criminality will occur.


It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex  Meaningful consent requires both that the person is informed and of age when consenting, but also requires the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time. Sadomasochism does not afford this crucial requisite of consent to the individual, and therefore no individual can legitimately and fully consent to the act.  Safe words are ludicrously impractical. Their utility is dependent upon their actually being agreed and committed to memory in advance and their declaration being heeded by the individuals who are under the influence of intense sexual desire. The passive ‘victim’ might be subject to the physical constraints, characteristic of bondage, that make speech or even flight impossible. It might be difficult to distinguish between an injunction to cease and an exclamation of pain, which presumably is a relatively regular occurrence.  Even where a number of individuals are able to demonstrate that their sadomasochistic encounters are conducted on a safe, regulated and consensual basis, it is not possible to give a concurrent guarantee that S&M is generally safe and cannot be used to perpetrate rape or abuse. The existence of a group of individuals able to interact safely in a sadomasochistic context does not mean that S&M does not present a risk to the wider population, nor that ordinary individuals are not excessively vulnerable to harm when engaged in S&M activities.


The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex  y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down.  Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society” [i] .  The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities [ii] . Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed.  Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected.  The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior.  Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&M partnerships.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31


The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated  A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M [i] . Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk.  Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute.  Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context.  In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships.  Although S&M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion.  [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472


The pursuit of pain for the purpose of achieving pleasure is an immoral act  Not only does the state have the right and obligation to uphold the morals of society and stop deviant behavior, but it also has an obligation to prevent escalation of deviance. Acts such as sadomasochism are good indicators of the propensity for escalation to further deviant acts.  With the passing of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 [i] in the UK, a legal precedent has been established where the government has the right and obligation to tackle minor deviant behavior as it can be a precursor to larger and more harmful deviance in the future. Even if S&M was “victim-less”, it demonstrates a propensity to inflict pain to gain pleasure and thus indicates high risk for developing a craving for infliction of pain of higher magnitude and scope in the future, which could be even more damaging to society.  [i] Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003." legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives, n.d. Web. 20 Jun 2011.


It should first be observed that accidents and inadvertent harm can befall S&M practitioners irrespective of the level of caution that they exercise. It is unacceptable to require responsible adults to run the risk of prosecution whenever they engage in a consensual act of sexual expression.  Further, relationships, even sadomasochistic relationships, can break down and become acrimonious. There is a risk that an embittered partner who formerly consented to prohibited S&M activity might try to use that fact to blackmail or persecute his or her ex-lover.  The opposition state that the freedom to dissent from laws regulating one’s private conduct begins to break down when the number of people engaging in a “private” activity grows. Why should the freedom to engage in a particular sexual activity imply a trade off against the freedom to choose how many people we engage in that activity with? Interacting with multiple sexual partners is not, in itself, illegal in the majority of western liberal states, but it does not exclude other sexual fetishes, such as S&M. The opposition is disguising a further limitation on sexual freedom- the freedom to engage in group S&M- as a concession to liberalism.  Finally, the awareness that a particular activity is proscribed can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy that activity. The pleasure inherent in free expression of sexual identity is compromised by the knowledge that discovery will lead to prosecution and stigmatization. As numerous accounts by those involved in the LGBT liberation movement have demonstrated, knowing that one’s sexuality is seen as something immoral and socially destructive is inhibiting and upsetting, even in private contexts.


Sadomasochism need not be rendered completely free of risk. It is sufficient that each participant is aware of the hazards and consents to them. Moreover, no government can legislate for the most reckless of its citizens. If an individual is so disturbed as to place a plastic bag over his head for the purpose of sexual stimulation, the contrary opinion of the law will not be a great deterrent. [i]  Nevertheless, Sadomasochism can be rendered relatively free of physical risk for its participants. ‘Safe words’ can be agreed in advance, and then announced to end an S&M session immediately. Where participants are restrained or prevented from speaking, movement signals or the dropping of a marble held in the hand can be used to indicate withdrawal of consent. This simple device ensures that participants continue to agree to the terms on which their encounters take place.  It is patronizing to assume that participants in S&M scenarios have not considered the possibility that expressions of pain and reluctance will be a regular occurrence during such activity. Deliberately quixotic ‘safe words’ and stop signals are used in order to avoid inadvertent abuses of consent.  [i] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31


Although it is true that Bashar al-Assad has very strong entrenched powers of control in Syria, there are less risky and damaging ways to undermine this to help support the domestic opposition movements if this is your aim. The crux of this case comes down to the capacity of the government to outspend the opposition movements, international sanctions and freezing of state and personal assets of high-ranking leaders in Syria combined with funding of the opposition movements in Syria would gain this same end without involving Western troops on the ground.


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.


We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.  Widespread indiscriminate killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. Mass killing of people is something that affronts the very basic meaning of what it is to be human. It denies the basic empathy and value we afford to each person on the basis of simple personhood and its occurrence is a black mark on all human beings who allow it to occur when they hold the power to end it.  In Syria today, the government forces are making their people live in fear of death and are routinely taking the lives of innocent people in order to control their population through fear. This week alone, 33 people were slaughtered by government forces include 6 children [1] .  The West has the moral obligation to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of the innocent people and end the reign of terror of Bashar al-Assad.  [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.


Even if we do have an obligation to end mass suffering and indiscriminate killing, invasion is not the way to do so. Western intervention will inevitably increase the collateral damage by escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that intervention will solve this conflict in the long-run instead of simply causing another endless war like the one in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, even if we have an obligation to intervention, invasion is not the way to do it.


There is no obligation to try every other option if the other options are unlikely to work. People are unjustly suffering now, and we have an obligation to end that suffering as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sanctions and asset-freezing are notoriously ineffective on oil-producing countries like Syria. Going through the motions of attempting to pass authorization for these actions through the United Nations Security Council, attempting to get the entire world to comply with the sanctions and then watching these actions not help anything. All this will do is prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.


The nature of the opposition movements makes this an unwinnable war.  The lack of coherent and unified opposition in Syria means that a Western invasion force will have very low chances of meaningful success.  Western intervention always carries the risk of fracturing a conflict by splintering opposition movements into those who do and those who do not support Western involvement in achieving their cause. This is problematic at best. With Syria specifically, this issue is augmented further still due to already existing lack of coherence and unity in the opposition movements. Absent a proper hierarchy and structure the opposition movement is going to be near impossible to cooperate with and will quickly splinter into an insurgent-style conflict.  There are multiple issues with this. First, there is very low chance of success in such a situation. Second, this set-up is the type that is most likely to lead to a long, protracted conflict that does not serve the interests of the West or the people of Syria.


Invasion is not yet justified.  Invasion is an option of very last resort, especially when dealing with a country of such strategic importance such as Syria.  Invasion is an option of last resort because of the collateral damage it necessarily leads to, the impediment on sovereignty it entails and the escalation of conflict it entails. It’s the nuclear option that is reserved for the very last resort due to the severity and unpredictability of its results.  With regards to Syria, we simply aren’t at the point of last resort yet. The UN hasn’t even levied sanctions against the Syrian government yet [1] , never mind frozen Assad’s assets, tried negotiations or mediations, assisted domestic opposition groups or applied strong diplomatic pressure beyond a general condemnation.  The danger you expose the citizens of Syria to combined with the unknowable outcome of an invasion means that it simply isn’t justified to even consider invasion until all other means have been exhausted, which they haven’t been.  [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.


The disunity of the opposition movements is the exact reason why we need to invade Syria. The other measures that are usually used to avoid war to aid opposition movements in oppressive dictatorships such as Syria, as outlined in Opposition Argument One, will not work. The only way we can end the slaughter of the Syrian people is through an invasion for this very reason. Although it may be messy, we have a very real obligation to invade. This is one of the reasons that underpinned the decision of the international community to authorize intervention in Libya, an intervention that can be seen to be broadly successful in ending the brutal oppression in Libya [1] .  [1] Clark, David. "Libyan Intervention was a success, despite the aftermath's atrocities." Guardian 28 Oct 2011.


ASBOs offer a wide flexibility to the sentencing authority as they are not only a punishment for past actions but also a form of restraint to prevent future misbehaviour. They permit the judge or magistrate to forbid the offender to go to a certain place, avoid a certain person, and ban them from participating in a particular activity. Without such powers, our courts will never be able to deal with the rising tide of yobbish behaviour that is, whilst not criminal, hugely damaging our communities.


ASBOS encourage antisocial behavour  ASBOs are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour. But they encourage rather than deal with such problems. They are viewed as badges of honour that boosts street credibility amongst young gangs – the ‘naming and shaming’ just increases this. [1] They push people that could be helped by social work or proper attention into an unenviable category of ‘offender’ – they criminalise people for behaviour that isn’t criminal.  [1] BBC News, ‘Asbos viewed as ‘badge of honour’, 2 November 2006,


The problem of service and enforcement of ASBOs is identical that of all other court orders and can be solved the same way – in the proposition example the obvious solution would be to ensure that the youth in question had had the order fully explained to him on service.  An ASBO can only be made after a court hearing where both sides have the opportunity to have their say. The burden of proof remains on the person seeking the order to show why it is necessary. An impartial magistrate oversees the hearing. People subject to ASBOs are typically allowed to breach it several times before serious enforcement action is taken against them.  The fact is that the system of ASBOs is perfectly just and a much more liberal alternative to simply criminalising minor anti-social behaviour altogether


ASBOs do not address the real problem  ASBOs address the symptom, not the condition. Their powers are wide and undefined – too wide, meaning that Judges and magistrates can do pretty much whatever they like. Certainly there are problems in the way people conduct themselves – but if such behaviour isn’t criminal, then it’s up to families and communities to fix it. The ASBO is the latest example of excessive state interference in the lives of citizens. Either conduct is criminal, or it is not. The law of nuisance exists. Restraining orders exist. ASBOs aren’t intended to deal with that kind of problem: they’re the tool of the state controlling behaviour. Just because a problem exists, doesn’t mean it’s the job of the state to try and fix it. The powers granted to the state in its efforts are disproportionate to the problems concerned.  Indeed, the current trend is against such interference both as shown by the potential replacement of ASBOs and by court decisions such as one that people should not be punished for hurling obscenities. [1]  [1] Kelly, Jon, ‘Should swearing be against the law?’, BBC News Magazine, 21 November 2011,


Something meaningful has to exist to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. The ASBO is such a tool. It is intended to be the primary weapon in a ‘zero tolerance’ environment. ASBOs allow communities to take back their streets and estates from intimidating and out of control youths, and to establish proper norms of behaviour. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured.


The wackier examples of ASBOs are actually demonstrations of what the order can do and other laws cannot. The woman who has an ASBO restraining her from jumping into rivers shows that the order can help with the thorny problem of actions that aren’t illegal, but place huge burdens on the emergency services and place the police and other citizens at risk.


ASBOS breach basic principles of justice  “A youth recently appeared in Court in Manchester for breach of his ASBO. The Order had been made in the youth's absence without his being able to give his side of the story (one of the main concerns about ASBOs and one that can lead to misuse). The day after the Order was made someone came to his house to "serve" it on him. This consisted of his being handed a copy of what was a fairly bulky document running to several dozen pages with no attempt to explain it or even to ascertain if he was literate enough to read it. The Order included an restriction preventing him entering a particular estate nearby and another preventing him from associating with certain others. Unfortunately, he went out before reading the Order and beached it twice that day. The next day he went out again and breached it three times by mistake as he had not read the part covering the particular restriction. He now faces possibly custody although he has never been convicted of a criminal offence.” [1]  The issuing of ASBOs is inconsistent and almost amounts to a geographical lottery. People can be jailed for breaching an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable – i.e. A civil procedure is being used to create and expand criminal sanctions. ASBOs have also been imposed on people with mental health problems where treatment would have been more appropriate.  [1] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’


There is no respect among the population for ASBOS  Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO. [1]  Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005,   [2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’


Criminal behaviour ought to be dealt with by the ordinary criminal law – not through various forms of civil order.  While much discussed, criminality is criminality, and non-criminal anti-social behaviour, while anti-social, should not be criminalized directly or indirectly.


Sentencing shouldn’t be affected by such considerations. If we need more prisons, we should build them. The point is that offenders should get the punishment they deserve. If they only need light punishment, fine – but don’t argue that those who should otherwise go to prison must get ASBOs for economic reasons – this is an affront to victims and to society and dilutes the disincentive to offend.


No system is perfect  Of course, some ASBOs fail. But no aspect of the justice system has a 100% success rate, and by their nature ASBOs are more likely to be abused because (unlike prison) the offender remains in his own environment. Should more in breach of ASBOs be punished? Sure. That’s not an argument against ASBOs though, is it? Neither is the fact that not enough are handed down. Although the use of ASBOs around the country is still patchy, some authorities have made very effective use of them to improve life in many local communities.


Useful tool to combat anti-social behaviour  ASBOs are a useful tool in the armoury in order to combat anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in the wider community (76% thinking it is a moderate or big problem in 2006 [1] ) – abolishing them would send out a message that such behaviour is acceptable.  [1] Weaver, Matt, ‘UK ‘has worst behaviour problem in Europe’’, theguardian.com, 9 May 2006,


We need to imprison fewer people  The prison population is soaring, to 87749 on 5th November 2011 in England and Wales, and we have to find ways to keep it down, or at least slow the speed of its rise. Talking about crushing sentences for all may arouse the passions of a certain type of voter but we have to have a pragmatic look at the pressures on the system. The UK has the second highest incarceration rate in western Europe and 63% of prisons overcrowded in September 2011 and several times over the few years the prison population has come close to going over the capacity of the prison service resulting in having to use cells in police stations. [1] ASBOs are one way to punish offenders while still ensuring they have continuing access to education, family support, job opportunities, etc., and they are much cheaper than the alternative of prison.  [1] Berman, Gavin, ‘Prison population statistics’, House of Commons Library, 7 November 2011, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf


58% of ASBOs have been breached, [1] with little resulting punishment. Only 2% of those who breach their ASBO are currently punished with a prison sentence. [2] This brings the justice system into disrepute. It doesn’t seem to matter if they’re breached – so people don’t care about getting them. Furthermore, they’re not granted in anything like the proportions needed to have an effect: 5,000 were supposed to be imposed every year, but instead only 3,800 were used in the first five years.  [1] ‘Statistical Notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) Statistics - England and Wales 2012’, gov.uk, 2013,   [2] ‘No prison for Asbo-breaching yobs’, Metro,


Many of these so-called “stunts” may actually be legitimate accusations that deserve to be heard in a court. If an accusation is unfounded, charges will not be brought (or not confirmed at the ICC, for example), or a verdict of not guilty returned.  Just because a person is high profile does not mean that they are innocent of wrongdoing. In the Livni case she as Foreign Minister may have been the wrong target. A more appropriate one would be the Defense minister or Prime Minister but it is understandable that there should be an effort to make ministers accountable for military actions they initiate.


Helps avoid political stunt trials  Heads of state and senior politicians are targets for political stunts. This could be seeking to get a political opponent locked up so as to benefit from the removal of an opponent. Alternatively it may be as part of a publicity stunt to highlight their own issue of concern or organisation. In both cases the trial does not need to convict as the figure being in a trial will be enough to damage them and provide publicity.  In 2009, following a request by supporters of Palestine, an arrest warrant was sought at Westminster magistrates’ court for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, who was Foreign Minister of Israel during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, also known as Operation Cast Lead. At the time of the attempted arrest Livni was no longer in office but the action was clearly a stunt.  Livni was not arrested in the end, because she cancelled her trip to the UK, and the warrant was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer [1] . However, a needless diplomatic incident was still caused.  [1] Hastings, Rob, ‘DPP blocks bid to arrest Tzipi Livni for war crimes’, The Independent, 7 October 2011,


That’s equally an argument against international criminal law as head of state immunity. While there may be instances where the head of state or government has to take decisions that might be criminal for the greater good – for example ordering the abduction or assassination of a terrorist – these instances are rare and most of the time the courts will take into account the good as well as the bad. However there are equally times where it is good that someone fears prosecution, if they do it is a sign that what they are doing is wrong. Bombing of Germany could have ended when all military targets had been hit, it need not have involved incendiary bombing of civilian targets. In Japan there was a third option of accepting a conditional surrender – one that guaranteed the position of the Emperor, since the Allies ultimately agreed this anyway there would have been little loss.


Necessity for diplomatic relations  International diplomacy involves visits by both diplomats and government figures to other states. This can even include states where relations are tense or even hostile. India and Pakistan, who have a very tense relationship and share one of the most fortified borders in the world, the line of control that divides Kashmir, have embassies in each other. Even throughout the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union had a full and normal diplomatic relations.  Just as diplomatic immunity prevents politically motivated arrests of diplomats, head of state immunity is necessary to “grease the wheels” of international diplomacy to allow international summits to take place without campaigns for the arrest and trial before domestic courts of foreign politicians.  If a head of state were to be arrested for trial before a foreign domestic court, it would cause immense damage to diplomatic relations between those two countries, Russia recently got into a row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in the Netherlands. The diplomat was quickly released but Russia still demanded the ‘guilty parties’ be punished. [1] The reaction to the arrest of a head of state or government would be much greater and would likely mean the breaking of diplomatic ties. Leaders would be much less willing to visit the country where the arrest occurred in the future for fear it would happen to them and would damage the world diplomatic system by challenging the idea of diplomatic immunity.  [1] ‘Moscow not satisfied with 'sorry' after diplomat arrest’, DutchNews.nl, 17 October 2013,


Whatever the justification, impunity is unacceptable. It is a key part of the rule of law that everyone is subject to the law. To grant individuals impunity for whatever reason is unacceptable.  Even if diplomatic immunity is accepted, diplomats are less likely in their role to commit international crimes that a head of state or government is because diplomats do not have access to the coercive machinery that enable these crimes. Diplomatic relations can carry on very well without senior government figures being able to travel wherever they want to. Summits are a luxury not a necessity and most of the deals they make have been hammered out by the diplomats beforehand.


Greater good – fear of prosecution problematic  Sometimes people will do bad things in order to achieve good and necessary results. For example, the Allied bombing campaigns in the Second World War would be highly likely to amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute if they were done today. They were indiscriminate, they targeted civilians, and additionally even at the time were recognised as having little military value. Instead the idea was to terrorise the civilian population. [1] Yet they were considered to be necessary as showing the allies were doing something to aid the Soviet Union. The same might be the case with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they clearly targeted civilians, yet if they helped end the war without a ground invasion of Japan then this war crime might have been for the greater good. [2]  Head of state immunity allows individuals to take unpopular and difficult decisions that are necessary for a greater good in government without fear of prosecution for their actions. We need our leaders to be able to take decisions based on the national interest, not based upon their concern for their life after office.  [1] Grayling, A.C., ‘Bombing civilians is not only immoral, it’s ineffective’, The Guardian, 27 March 2006,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified ’


There is no evidence as a whole to suggest international criminal law as a whole is a deterrent. Risk of prosecution or no risk of prosecution, there will always be leaders who commit horrible acts. Those who reach leadership positions where they can carry out acts that are considered to be heinous enough that they are prosecuted internationally clearly don’t believe that they will ever be brought to trial so likely consider whether or not they have immunity to be irrelevant.


Even though it does effectively create impunity, this is not a unique phenomenon. Decisions on who to prosecute will always happen, and some form of bias against prosecuting powerful people is to some extent inevitable. So in practice not everyone is equal before the law.  The ICC specifically builds in a way of deferring prosecutions if needed in Article 16 of the Rome Statute. This shows that the ICC accepts the need to postpone cases, possibly indefinitely. The ICC therefore in practice accepts it cannot prosecute in every case where there may be a case to answer.


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.


Head of State immunity reduces the deterrent effect of international criminal law  International criminal law, like any other form of criminal law, is supposed to be a deterrent. By giving a class of individuals impunity, these people cannot be deterred by International Criminal Law from committing some of the worst crimes known to humanity, including genocide. It is plain that many people who reach the heights of political power will use any method to remain in power – thus the resort to intimidation where it can be used to affect the vote, or in the case of Silvio Berlusconi the attempt to put in place an immunity law to prevent himself from being prosecuted for corruption. [1] Immunity will enable both large and small criminal acts, neither of which should be allowed.  [1] Kennedy, Duncan, ‘Berlusconi immunity law overruled’, BBC News, 8 October 2009,


Impunity is repugnant to the rule of law  A key principle of the rule of law is that everyone is subject to the law – even the agents of states [1] . It must apply equally to the most as well as the least powerful.  This must apply to international criminal law as well as the domestic criminal law. It would be unjustifiable for one individual to be able to face prosecution as a private citizen for genocide, but not a head of state who has much greater capacity to engage in such acts. It effectively would allow genocide, which is prohibited by a convention the vast majority of states have signed and ratified, as an expression of national sovereignty.  [1] ‘What is the rule of law?’, United Nations Rule of Law,


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.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive – 13 executions since 1978 in California costing around $4bn [1] - is the “super due process” that is necessary in capital cases, especially with the large flaws in the US justice system.  Blacker makes no coherent proposal on how he would modify the appeals system. Removing or reducing it would make it very likely that more innocent people would be executed.  To accuse people who want to prevent criminals deaths of wasting money is more or less victim blaming.  [1] Alarcon, Arthur and Mitchell, Paula, “Executing the will of the voters? A roadmap to mend or end the California legislature’s multi-billion dollar death penalty debacle”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011,


Could be cheaper  While budget should not be the primary concern of the justice system, The death penalty, when applied properly, can be cheaper. A lethal injection, or a few bullets, costs far less than keeping a person incarcerated for a long time, especially if they need long term health or other care in old age. The longer someone is in jail the greater the cost to the state.  The costs of the implementation of the death penalty are driven up by anti-death penalty activists using the appeals system. Since the death penalty would only be applied to the worst of the worst when there is absolute moral certainty there would be less need for extensive appeals because there would be less marginal cases.


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)


Necessary for punitive justice  The concept of punishment is inherently based on retribution. “We don’t punish to prevent crime or remake criminals. We inflict pain-suffering, discomfort-to the degree they deserve to feel it.” [1] Retribution can be distinguished from revenge – retribution does not always seek to impose punishment that is the same as the original act, and never more.  The punishment must fit the crime so capital punishment is therefore an appropriate punishment for the worst of the worst – an eye for an eye.  [1] Blecker, p.28


By keeping a person locked up for life, which may well be appropriate for the “worst of the worst”, they are incapacitated for life. It similarly satisfied any retributive instinct, providing a total punishment, a form of internal banishment and total civil death – if one considers retributive justice desirable.  Moreover this is inconsistent. If we are inflicting an eye for an eye because they deserve it then why should the death penalty reserved for the worst of the worst? Should it not be exactly proportional – which would mean all murderers should face the death penalty.


Those who are murdered are not some public resource – they are not our relatives. We may feel sorrow for the victims and their family but uninvolved members of society have no reason to demand punishment on account of them being members of ‘our family’. What of all those who do not feel such resentment, should society enact a death penalty simply to gratify a part of the population that feels this way. This is not a rational grounds for a death penalty even for the very worst. In order to claim that the society wants the criminals' blood, you have to make sure that a)everyone does; b)the person killed deserves to be avenged.


Can be reserved for the worst of the worst  For those who are concerned about some of the practical objections to the American death penalty, it is possible to restrict the death penalty to those most deserving of it: “the worst of the worst”, those like Anders Behring Breivik, Charles Manson and Harold Shipman. The death penalty should not be for people who are convicted as a result of three strikes - in 2004, someone was convicted of first degree murder with a whole life sentence for lending a friend a car [1] – it should not be a default sentence. [2]  [1] Liptak, Adam, “Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers”, The New York Times, 4th December 2007,   [2] Blecker, p.210


Killers must die to satisfy society  Those who have damaged society by robbing it of one of its members must pay for their crime. Adam Smith argued “We feel that resentment which we imagine he ought to feel, and which he would feel, if in his cold and lifeless body there remained any consciousness of what passes upon earth. His blood, we think, calls aloud for vengeance.” [1] It is not just the wronged individual who needs there to be retribution but society as a whole. Everyone in society is wronged by particularly heinous crimes as Blecker says of two horrific crimes “Those were my children, my wife that Coker raped and murdered, my sister Speck killed”. [2]  [1] Smith, Adam, ‘The theory of Moral Sentiments”, MetaLibri Sixth Edition, 1790,  p.62  [2] Blecker, p.30


This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related.  A reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first degree murder) – if that is the case, the felony murder rule should be abolished. If capital punishment were reserved for the worst of the worst then this racial bias would be almost eliminated. [1]  [1] Blecker, p.237


The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society.  There is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?


Too many innocents killed  Capital punishment in the US kills too many innocent people. Over 143 people who were innocent were exonerated from death row since 1973 [1] . One person executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna [2] . It is likely that many innocent people have been executed in the US – it is a price not worth paying.  [1] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Innocence list”, DPIC.org, 2013,   [2] Pilkington, Ed, “The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death”, The Guardian, 15 May 2012,


Who are the worst of the worst?  Killing the worst of the worst is essentially arbitrary. Even with a list of aggravators balanced by mitigations the death penalty is hardly going to be left to just the very worst. In the case of Daryl Holton who killed his four children Blecker decides “I remain convinced, but not morally certain, that he deserved to die.” [1] This shows there will always be cases that are borderline. Moreover everyone’s views of the worst of the worst are different. Is Holton the “worst of the worst” or should that category be reserved for Hitler and Pol Pot?  [1] Blecker, p.197


The death penalty is racist  Like the rest of the American criminal justice system, capital punishment in America is institutionally racist: black men make up 6% of the US population as a whole but 40% of those on Death Row [1] . In the US, African-Americans and White people are murdered in almost equal numbers, but 80% of those executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a white [2] .  [1] Blecker, p.237  [2] Amnesty International, “United States of America: Death by Discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases”, Amnesty International, 2003,


Hypocrisy  Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980. [1]  In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions?  [1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014,


Regardless of the categorisation there are some who are worst of the worst. It is up to individual states and societies to determine who qualifies as the worst of the worst for them.


As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future.  However, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capital cases. “In the end, we must risk a minuscule possibility of error for the near certainty of justice.” [1]  [1] Blecker, p.275


The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in 'non-suspect' cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified. It is also important to keep claims regarding the efficacy of DNA matching in context, Chief Constable Sims of the British Metropolitan Police stated that of '4.9 million crimes reported each year, of which 1.3 million are 'detected' (lead to charges)' only 33,000 involve DNA matching1. 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:


DNA evidence would reduce the risk of wrongful conviction  The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases1. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensures suspects are not called in for unnecessary and stressful questioning. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases of death row inmates being released on the grounds of DNA evidence, unavailable when they were first convicted. A DNA database would not merely render wrong verdicts right, but prevent such verdicts ever being made. 1 U.S. Department of Justice. (1996, June). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice:


There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. Moreover, there is the possibility that not only the police, but also the jury, will be blinded by science. It seems unlikely that juries will be able to comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.


A DNA database would lead to more convictions, particularly in cases of violent crime  Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator1. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified. Studies support this assertion; 'the overall detection rate for crimes of 23.5% rises to 38% where DNA is successfully recovered'2. Furthermore, in the United States, the number of reported rapes dropped to its lowest level in two decades due in large part to the use of DNA evidence3 1 Weathersbee, F. (1999, March 1). National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Institute of Justice: 2 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: 3 McGreal, C. (2009, October 8). Number of reported rapes in US drops to lowest level in two decades. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:


The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry; evidence collected by a UK Parliamentary Commission suggests DNA matching led to crime detection in as little as 0.3% of cases1. Ultimately, unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:


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


The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'2. Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day2. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. 1 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer: 2 National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation:


Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is not unlawful, only retaining it indefinitely. New British proposals to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment are to ensure the DNA of the unconvicted remains on the database for just 6 years. The law has to be laid down in a set manner rather than imprecise terms. Loopholes are often found but in the long run, they are what create a fair and just legal system. We cannot have loose laws, everything must turn on the wording. The ruling stated that the DNA of the innocent could not be saved indefinitely, so the British government is proposing that this DNA only be kept on the system for 6 years. They have done what the Court has asked them to do, to take away the permanency; a DNA database remains.


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:


Having a DNA database should require individual consent  The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives a service in return. In being compelled to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents and they will certainly not know the possible ways the information may be used1. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal. 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News:


Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is unlawful  The European Court of Human Rights was quite clear when it stated that retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful1. The Strasbourg court made a unanimous decision that the UK keeping the DNA of the unconvicted on a database permanently was contrary to human rights and therefore illegal. They stated that due to the high level of disruption to human rights, on this issue the court would not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway. Subsequent attempts to justify the database have been dismissed by the Commission as failing to provide 'clear, justifiable reasons for holding on to the DNA data from people who had not been convicted of a crime'2. The Commission also felt the retention of DNA profiles 'failed to recognise there were a disproportionate number of young black men, vulnerable people and children on the database'2 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News: 2 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer:


DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection, advantages that render any slight fallibility irrelevant. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel 'polymerase chain reaction' (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed notwithstanding contamination from oil, water or acid in the crime scene environment. The innocent and the accused should appreciate a novel fingerprinting technique that is both objective and accurate. Lastly, fears of wrongful conviction are misguided, a 2002 study found only 'two cases worldwide'1. 1 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:


Although protecting children domestic abuse is of vital importance curfews are not the most appropriate way of doing so. Problems at home may be the reason the young person spends so much time out on the streets in the first place. If that is the case, it could be dangerous to force them to stay where they may be at risk of abuse. Also, curfews infringe upon the rights of parents to bring up their children as they choose. Simply because we dislike the way some parents treat their children should not mean that we intervene to stop it; should we intervene in families where conservative religious beliefs are preached? 1  1 Hidden Hurt


Curfews also have an important role in the protection of vulnerable children  The use of child curfews can help to protect vulnerable children. Although responsible parents do not let young children out in the streets after dark, not all parents are responsible and inevitably their children suffer, both from crime and in accidents, and are likely to fall into bad habits. Sir Ian Blair former chief commissioner of the Metropolitan police argued that curfews were aimed at safeguarding youngsters and stopping gangs causing trouble.1 Society should ensure that such neglected children are returned home safely and that their parents are made to face up to their responsibilities.2  1. Rosie Cowan, 2004,  2. Ward, 2000,


Curfews are not enforceable even if they are well known by residents and anyone can report those breaking curfew. It simply means that young people are trying to avoid the police so that they do not get fined. The police are only ever likely to catch a small number of those who are violating the curfew resulting in there being little deterrence.


It is best for children to be at home in the evening.  There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night, so a curfew is not really a restriction upon their liberty. Where the child does have good reasons to be out they can be covered by the exceptions. They would be better off at home doing schoolwork, schools often set more than an hour a night which the children should be doing. The time would also be better spent interacting with the rest of their family.


The main objective of curfews is usually crime prevention.  Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. Particularly worrying is the rise of youth gangs who can terrorise urban areas and create a social climate in which criminality becomes a norm. Imposing youth curfews can help to solve these problems, as they keep young people off the street, and therefore out of trouble, and prevent them from congregating in the hours of darkness. Police in Philadelphia have found curfews effective in the prevention of gang violence: ‘the measure has been successful in helping to curb violent attacks by teen mobs that had severely injured several people in recent months, city officials said.’ 1  1. Associated Press, 2011,


Curfews are largely ineffective in preventing crime. Curfews do not target the right times of day as most juvenile crime appears to take place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before working parents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews. There are many reports providing evidence that juvenile curfews do not have a significant effect upon crime figures.  In addition, although society does have a problem with youth behaviour, although it is not as bad as the newspapers make out. What is often labelled anti-social behaviour today was considered normal for kids in the past – things like playing football in the street, going around in groups without an adult in charge, making a bit of noise sometimes, etc. We need to be careful to draw a line between things that some people don’t like, and actual crime.1  1 Adams, 2010.


Children in their mid-teens have many legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many will have part-time jobs, for example in fast-food restaurants or delivering newspapers. Others will wish to participate in activities such as church groups, youth clubs or school trip. Whilst there are clauses for allowing such activity, the fear of not being believed would be a serious chilling effect on uptake. Requiring adults always to take them to and from such activities is unreasonable and will ensure that many never take place in the first place, either because adults are unwilling, or are unable to do so.1  1. NYRA,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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