The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated.1 They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people – the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. The problems associated with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral industry is not justified by the fact that it creates employment.  1 John Warren Kind, "The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain", PBS, 1994


Gambling is a harmful activity and could have harmful effects on not only to individuals but also on their friends and family. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the house always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? Surely it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from harming themselves, just as harmful substances are illegal, gambling should also be illegal.


It is impossible to effectively ban gambling  When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal, this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling operations were established, where 6,000 slot machines were confiscated and 216 criminal charges were made in connection to illegal gambling.1 This illustrates how banning gambling can creates a thriving underground market.  It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests he or she is spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card.  1 Kyiv Post, ‘Governmental checks expose over 500 facts of illegal operation of gambling establishments’, 20 July 2009.


Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated  What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?


Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them  Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. In an article for nwjob.com Sandra Miedema, ‘Snoqualmies’ employment coordinator is quoted saying that at any one time there are an average of 20 vacancies, from chefs to table dealers.1 In the United States commercial casinos employed more than 350,000 people in 2003.2  Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems, e.g. Atlantic City, New Jersey5.  1 Libraryindex.com, ‘Casinos: The Effects of Casinos – Employment’  2 Associated Press, Atlantic City to be transformed by 2012, November 20 2007


Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit  People have free will and should be allowed to spend their money on which ever leisure pursuits they choose. Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy.  There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if he or she loses, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people are involved in ‘social gambling’ and go to bingo halls (or equivalent) to spend time with friends, and some types of gambling are interlinked with other leisure pursuits such as horse racing.* Society accepts people spending money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people should not be able to choose how they spend their money or their leisure time.  1 The General Education Centre of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ‘Report on A Study of Hong Kong People’s Participation in Gambling Activities’, Home Affairs Bureau, March 2002, p.4


Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be banned at all.  Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.


This would be an argument in favour of preventing countries from developing any deterrent at any time, because it would make them easier to invade. It presumes, firstly, that it would be a good thing for the United States to be able to invade countries that do things it does not like at will, and secondly that it assumes that deterrence will not deter the initial invasion in the first place.  The main reason why great powers involve themselves in wars, is because many smaller countries are not able to fight off larger ones using their own resources and so the great power expects an easy victory assuming it can avoid intervention by other great powers. Jammu and Kashmir could not stand up to the Indian army in 1947 and Kuwait could not stand up to Iraq; Georgian was unable to mount armed resistance against a Russian incursion and neither was Chechnya.  Nuclear Weapons are a great equalizer, and if one consequence of Iran developing Nuclear weapons is that all of her neighbours do so as well, then war will become far less likely, and US intervention will become unnecessary. As a consequence, in the long-run, Nuclear proliferation is a self-correcting problem.


The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.  er, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it.  This can be seen in the relative coddling Pakistan has received both from its political and territorial opponent India, and from the United States since its development of Nuclear Weapons. [3] Actions that previously would have led to sanctions or worse, such as aid to the Taliban, assistance to the Nuclear Programs of Rogue States – most famously through the A.Q. Kahn network that supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea, [4] and complicity in terrorist attacks in India are brushed off with empty words [5] and meaningless semi-sanctions, India itself is deterred from making any response. [6] Indeed, US policy in recent years has been to try to buy off Pakistan rather than to coerce it.  [1] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth ed., 1978, pp.4-15,   [2] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, the Atlantic, January/February 2012,   [3] Miglani, Sanjeev, ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, a deterrent against India, but also United States?’, Reuters, 9 April 2011,   [4] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23,   [5] The Associated Press, ‘India reluctant to blame Mumbai blasts on Pakistan’, CBCnews, 15 July 2011,  [6] Narang, Vipin, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Posture: Implications for South Asian Stability’, Harvard Kennedy Sc  Belfast Center for Science and International Affairs Policy Brief, January 2010,


[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not  A failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so. [1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region. [2]  The US would get all the harms of direct intervention with none of the benefits, and efforts to fight Hezbollah and Hamas, both within Palestine and elsewhere, would be undermined by their newfound sympathy in the region and the need of Arab governments to pander to it.  [1] Ravid, Barak, ‘Report: U.S. preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran’, Haaretz.com, 14 January 2012,   [2] Benhorin, Yitzhak, ‘Attack on Iran would ignite regional conflict’, ynetnews.com, 3 November 2011,


Preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists is a serious concern, but terrorists tend to be stronger in weak states than strong ones. That is one reason why Pakistan has figured so prominently in weapons sales in the past.  Invading a country like Iran would be more likely to destabilize things than stabilize them. This argument is underlined by analysis of the second Iraq war. Al Qaeda and Shi’a insurgent groups became a far stronger presence in Iraq following the coalition invasion than before the arrival of American and British troops. [1] As a consequence, it is unclear if invading these countries is a better way of preventing transfers of nuclear technology than sanctions and other methods of coercing their governments.  [1] Mazzetti, Mark, ‘Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terroism Threat’, The New York Times, 24 September 2006,


[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel  Iran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". [1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire region. Even an unsuccessful attack on Israel would provoke a counter strike. The US would take much of the blame for the casualties of such a strike even if it counselled Israel against it. The United States must prevent Iran from ever being able to put such threats into action which may mean having to engage in military action to prevent Iran gaining the capability.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and McGreal, Chris, ‘Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran’s president’, The Guardian, 27 October 2005,


The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets.  In particular, one of those key principles is the assumption that once a country enters a treaty it will abide by its terms. If a country can leave a treaty at will, it means that no policy can be made with any degree of predictability. States are not able to formulate plans for future policies and development strategies if analysts and politicians are prevented from making reliable predictions about neighbouring state’s behaviour, economic policies and territorial ambitions.  This is particularly important with treaties relating to armaments, and of vital importance when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, because other countries choose to participate in military alliances and actions based on such assumptions.  Historically, arms build-ups and wars have occurred when the Great Powers fail to uphold the international legal system – fail to regard it as binding and inherently valuable and consequential. For example Germany’s willingness to disregard Czechoslovakian sovereignty prior to World War II. For that reason the United States has a vested interest in upholding the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is because the US is the major beneficiary of the present international system, both economically and politically.  Economically, the major loser in any upheaval around the world is almost guaranteed to be the United States or its corporations. However, the political incentives for the USA to continue upholding the non-proliferation treaty- by force if necessary- are far greater. A failure on its part to act will not just lead to nuclear proliferation, but also undermine other treaties banning chemical weapons and guaranteeing human rights as nations’ realize they are only pieces of paper.  1. ‘The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1 July 1968,   2. Kasprzyk, Nicholas, ‘Nuclear Non-proliferation and Regional Changing Strategic Balances: How Much Will Regional Proliferation Impinge Upon the Future of the NPT?’, in Krause, Joachim and Wenger, Andreas eds., Studies in Contemporary History and Security policy, 2001,


The reality is that it makes far more sense for the United States to legitimatise actions it might take to prevent a state like Iran from developing nuclear by making reference to the uses that might find for a nuclear device, rather than the fact that they are have breached the terms of highly tenuous body of law.  While it may be true that the development of nuclear weapons is banned by international treaty, and that this treaty is recognised as a valid international legal instrument, it is far from clear whether it is in the United State’s interests to embrace either this specific version of International Law, or whether it should be the enforcer even if it does. For one thing, the current international legal system bans Iran from developing Nuclear weapons, but also bans Brazil from developing them. Consistency would obligate the US to actively prevent Brazil from developing a nuclear deterrent, by using threats and sanctions similar to those that have deployed against Iran. However,– common sense would argue that this would be both futile and counter-productive, since it would not only be difficult but result in enormous costs, both militarily and in terms of the reputation of the US. The alternative- granting an exception to Brazil, comparable to those previously granted to India, Pakistan and Israel-, India in particular now wishes to not just be an exception by join the NPT as a weapons state, would undermine those very legal standards that the government argues in favour of.1  After all, Brazil is unlikely to use such weapons aggressively, and the acquisition of such weapons by a regional hegemon(like Brazil) is unlikely to change the balance of power. It should be noted that most of the rising “responsible” regional hegemon like Brazil and South Africa opposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, [2] out of risk of enshrining a legal precedent.  Furthermore, even if the US chooses to cleave to the premise that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced as a matter of law rather than of policy, it is unclear why the US alone should take on the burden of its enforcement. As Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, even disarming and politically reforming countries that lack a nuclear deterrent is a financially and politically ruinous process – one that cannot be achieved without the support of allies and intergovernmental organisations. Furthermore, given the reaction against the US in international opinion, [3] it’s worth asking whether or not the cure is worse than the cold when it comes to American influence around the world.  [1] Fidler, David P., and Ganguly, Sumit, ‘India Wants to Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a Weapons State’, YaleGlobal, 27 January 2010,   [2] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011,   [3] Pew Global Attitudes Project, ‘Opinion of the United States’, Pew Research Center, 2011,


Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]  On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]  Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.  [1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006,   [2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010,   [3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008,


Forcing Israel to act would remove the United States from direct responsibility for the consequences, and allow the US to strategically “condemn” Israel’s actions.  Iran and Israel already have a terrible relationship, so a lot of the harms here are already sunk costs.


This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries. [1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal level, and therefore deter the Russians from intervening as actively as they have in the past.  In the case of Iran and its neighbours, Iran’s position would actually be weakened if everyone in the region acquired nuclear weapons as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain cannot compete with Iran conventionally, but could compete in a nuclear arms race. Wider uptake of nuclear arms would reduce Iran’s power and influence.  Moreover there is little evidence that this domino effect will happen. North Korea detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 but there has been no response from other countries in the region even though South Korea and Japan could have rapidly gone for nuclear breakout. [2]  [1] Buchanan, Patrick J., ‘The Great Equalizer’, The American Conservative,   [2] Berganas, John, ‘The Nuclear Domino Myth’, Foreign Affairs, 31 August 2010,


Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.  Even if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals.  This was a particular problem with Pakistan. The former head of the Pakistani nuclear program, AQ Khan, sold technology on detonation mechanisms and Uranium enrichment to North Korea and Iran. [1] Iran is also likely to be willing to pass on its own nuclear information to other states, particularly Assad’s Syria. [2]  Such weapons could also find their way into the hands of terrorists. Iran has close links to Hezbollah and Hamas which it funds substantially, and a strong desire to hurt Israel. [3] North Korea has close links to a number of nasty groups ranging from drug cartels to Islamist terrorists.  [1] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23,   [2] Gekbart, Jonathan, ‘The Iran-Syria Axis: A Critical Investigation’, Stanford Journal of International Relations, Vol. XII, No. 1, Fall 2010,   [3] Bruno, Greg, ‘State Sponsors: Iran’, Council on Foreign Relations, 13 October 2011,


The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.  The development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuclear armed neighbour can mount attacks against them with impunity. They therefore feel that they too need nuclear weapons in order to prevent the new nuclear power from taking advantage of their new capability.  For instance, the presence of an Iranian weapon would immediately threaten the Gulf States. Already unable to compete with Iran on a conventional level due to the vast disparity in size and population, states like the UAE would have every reason and motive to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. [1] A Saudi Prince actually floated the idea in 2011 that if Iran developed Nuclear Weapons, Saudi Arabia might follow. [2]  As more countries develop Nuclear weapons, the likelihood that someone will use them, either deliberately or by accident, goes up substantially.  [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘After Iran Gets the Bomb’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010,   [2] Burke, Jason, ‘Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns’, guardian.co.uk, 29 June 2011,


Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states. [1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at the prospect of nuking them, even at their own expense. Even seemingly rational states make tactical mistakes, like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait.  Nuclear Weapons raise the stakes, and have the potential to make the consequences of those errors far more serious and deadly.  Furthermore, MAD does not operate solely due to the possession of Nuclear Weapons, but rather it requires that a state possess a “Second-Strike” ability. A “second Strike” ability means that a country has the capacity to nuke another country after it has already been attacked, whether through hardened silos or submarine launched warheads. Without such an ability, a state like Israel would risk losing its nuclear deterrent in an Iranian attack, and would therefore have every incentive to strike first if it thought such an attack might be about to occur. Iran, which is far less likely to be able to develop a “Second Strike” capability due to financial and technological limitations, would in turn almost constantly face a “use it or lose it” situation of its own.  [1] Myers, B.R., ‘Excerpt: The Cleanest Race’, The New York Times, 26 January 2010,


Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century.  The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue which transcends moral standards of “fairness”. It may be true that the treaty should be revisited in the case of say India or Brazil, but this debate is not about the nuclear ambitions of fundamentally stable, democratic states that would willingly comply with all of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty if they were permitted to become signatories. Rather, the question of America’s right to act to enforce the treaty should focus on rogue states that present a significant danger to their neighbours, and whose acquisition of such weapons is likely to destabilize regional balances of power, and make the entire world less secure. Iran, Syria and Pakistan’s use of the language of anti-colonialism is a sign of nothing more than political opportunism.


No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.  Given the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world, [1] any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: an act of neo-colonialism. This would be the case with any act to enforce a treaty that is considered unfair towards most of the world.  This is especially true in areas where there is a long history of US support for regional actors who are less than popular. In moving against Iran, the United States will be perceived as a stalking horse for Israel, whilst any efforts to invade North Korea Would cause great alarm in China as well as in neighbouring South Korea despite being a U.S. ally where some Koreans believe the US is more of a threat to the nation than the North. [2] In both cases, the image of the US in the region will be badly damaged, and the United States will face a hostile insurgency within the countries that they invade.  [1] Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2011,   [2] Larson, Eric V. et al., Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes Towards the U.S., RAND Corporation, March 2004, p.93  (n.b. before north detonated nuclear bomb)


[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc.  For all the censure Iran has faced as a rogue state, it has not, in fact, invaded another country for more than three centuries and despite internal aggression against western embassies the Iranian revolution seems to have made little difference. On the other hand, it has faced invasion on numerous occasions, whether from Russia, Britain or Iraq. Both Britain – whom the Iranians are still extremely suspicious off due to events such as the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mosadeq [1] – and Russia – who together with Britain occupied Persia during world war II [2] - are nuclear weapons states.  Iran therefore has legitimate defensive reasons for developing Nuclear weapons. While Iran’s current government has pursued destabilizing policies in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine, the presence of Russia on its northern border and tensions with the United States justify their development. This is one reason why Iran’s nuclear program predates the current government and in fact goes all the way back to the Shah’s time. [3] Rather than being the product or continuation of Iran’s policies in the region, the nuclear program is independent of them, and justified on those basis.  [1] Abrahamian, Ervand, ‘The 1953 Coup in Iran’, Science & Society Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp.182-215,   [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Azerbaijan crisis (1945-1948)’,   [3] Milani, Abbas, ‘The Shah’s Atomic Dreams’, Foreignpolicy.com, 29 December 2010,


The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.  States are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  States go to war with other states when they think they can win the conflict they will provoke. By making victory impossible, MAD makes wars unprofitable, and thereby prevents them from beginning in the first place. The Cold War never turned hot partially for this reason, and it is possible that the Israeli-Iranian relationship could be stabilized by both states possessing a nuclear deterrent. North Korea may well desire to Nuke the United States and Japan, and may well feel that there would be no moral issues with doing so, but they have refrained from doing so. As they have refrained from invading the South since 1950. There is substantial evidence that even the most irrational regimes can be deterred. No matter how dictatorial and authoritarian a state government, the prospect of complete nuclear annihilation will be effective in restraining its ambitions. [1]  In the case of Iran, the threat to Iranian cities by the Iraqi army moving on to the offensive and using chemical weapons motivated Khomeini to make peace in 1988. [2] It is worth noting that they have not explicitly attacked Israel themselves, preferring to work through proxies. It would seem unlikely that Iran, if it were to become the only nuclear power in the Islamic world, could avoid responsibility if Hamas or Hezbollah were to utilize a weapon.  [1] Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” I, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981),   [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)’,


Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.  The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm.  The result is that the list of countries with such weapons, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, represents the balance of power as it existed at the time that the non-proliferation treaty was drafted. Countries that have entered the club subsequently, like India and Pakistan, did so in violation of the treaty and international law.  Any sort of treaty that seeks to limit access to nuclear arms has to provide opportunities for countries like Brazil to enter the “club” as they gain political or economic power. In the absence of any such mechanism the current treaty system is nothing more than a tool of Western dominance in order to keep the status quo which is favorable to the current nuclear powers something which is bound to build up resentment.  This would in effect offer not only to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the targeted regimes, but to the rest of their policies. States like South Africa and Brazil already find it difficult to support a strong international line against Iran [1] due to seeing the inequality of allowing some countries nuclear weapons programmes but seeking to punish others, especially when the nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT have not moved towards disarmament as the treaty stipulates. [2] This would in effect alienate them completely.  Second, even if the harm was justifiable by the ends, it would seem that in the long run, invading- or even censuring- every country that attempts to develop Nuclear Weapons in violation of the NPT is impractical as the United States and the rest of the world have de facto admitted by ending sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001, two years after their nuclear tests. [3] As such, there needs to be a political means that can separate states like Brazil from states like Iran, lest the policy collapse under its own weight.  The West, rather than using force, should attempt to repair the existing non-proliferation treaty framework, such that the standards for possession of nuclear weapons are based on behaviour rather than history.  [1] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011,   [2] Spektor, Matias, ‘How to Read Brazil’s Stance on iran’, YaleGlobal, 16 March 2010,   [3] BBC News, ‘US lifts India and Pakistan sanctions’, 23 September 2001,


What is not at issue is whether Iran will invade anyone. No one expects that, at least not immediately. Rather, the harm of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is that they will provide Iran with immunity from retaliation which will encourage it to escalate its Cold War against Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, and increase its assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas.  As noted above, Pakistan has in fact behaved in exactly this manner. Safe behind its nuclear shield, it has provided increasingly blatant backing to anti-Indian terrorist groups and opp is right to note that there is little that can be done about that. The best bet is not to allow Iran to do the same thing


The United States would ideally move with the backing of the world community, but even if that is not present, we think that the United States is more than capable of making clear that it is not anyone’s puppet and that it is intervening solely to uphold international law.  Any military action whether justified or not will cause resentment, but this not a reason to let genocide run amok or dictators get away with invasions nor is it a reason to let the same dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons, security is a vital interest whereas being liked by the rest of the world is not.


Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and "territorial disputes".  As noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate "cure" for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.  Under these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.


Imprisonment punishes offenders' families  Even though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.  Imprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender's family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.  The negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.  Corporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families.


Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – nor are they instantly or reliably effective. The risk of an individual committing crime can only be reduced by long-term engagement with reform schemes. In 2009 violations of parole- the rules, conditions and schemes offenders are required to engage with on being released from prison- led to a third of all state prison admissions in the United States [i] .  This being the case, the best location in which to rehabilitate offender is prison. Prison serves, in some cases, to separate prisoners from poverty and desperation, and to help them access the structure and routine that was missing from their lives.  Moreover, contrary to the proposition’s argument, offenders are less likely to originate from stable family environments, to have secure employment, or to have the skills that will let them seek employment in the future.  Additionally, it does not seem proportionate for a white collar fraudster, whose actions could affect the livelihoods of thousands of individuals, to receive a flogging while retaining his freedom and his assets.  Prison also quarantines offenders from the influence of gangs or damaged family structures. Offenders may have difficulty cutting themselves off from close knit social groups of this type; the activities of these groups (drug taking, organised violence) may compete with the positive behaviours fostered by rehabilitation.  It cannot be assumed that dramatic changes in an offender’s behaviour can be brought about without a correspondingly dramatic change in their environment and lifestyle. Criminality is as dependent on context and environment as it is on the choices and values of the criminal.  If there are minimal restraints put on an offender’s freedom while he rehabilitates, it will be easier for him to avoid complying with rehabilitation programmes. As noted above, the threat of further floggings will not motivate offenders who have become habituated to brutality and violence.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,


Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment  The criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?  Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.  Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.  In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.  The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.  The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.  [i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011,   [ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011,


What pretends to be an argument in support of the resolution is in fact an argument in favour of reforming the prison system. It is true that in an alarming number of prisons the rehabilitative objective of incarceration has been forgotten. In many other prisons, however, innovative rehabilitation programmes are flourishing. The prison system is not a monolith – it is a network of different institutions, each serving a specific purpose, each subject to different standards of management. Schemes such as the HOPE (Honest Opportunity Probation) drug offence sentencing programme in Hawaii [i] should be used as an example of best practice, communicated to other prisons and replicated in other jurisdictions.  Doubtless, knowledge sharing, professional standards and levels of accountability could be improved in many prisons. However, this does not mean that a prison sentence will inevitably lead to an offender suffering harm.  Moreover, if an increase in the prison population has failed to reduce rates of offending, an explanation could well be found in a poorly administered corpus of criminal law, rather than poorly run prisons. As a study conducted by The Economist points out, American law makers are fond of attaching criminal sanctions to otherwise innocuous misdemeanours in order to appear tough on crime. An increase in the number of activities being described as criminal can mask the success of prisons in reducing the number of individuals likely to commit truly harmful, truly criminal acts.  If we cannot be certain that the prison system has failed, if we cannot be certain that the prison system is uniformly harmful to inmates, why should we hasten to replace it with an untested alternative such as “supervised” flogging?  Finally, incarceration, apart from being used to punish criminals, also helps to protect the public, by physically preventing offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Dramatically reducing sentences or attempting to rehabilitate criminals within the community will not prevent them from carrying out further offences. Rehabilitation is not immediately effective; moreover, its usefulness is often reduced when the positive messages that it tries to communicate have to compete with poverty borne of long-term unemployment, or loyalty to a local gang.  The proposition assumes that the pain associated with corporal punishment will be sufficient to discourage offenders from engaging in further criminal activities while they are being rehabilitated. Empirical proof of this deterrent effect is hard to come by. A large number of offenders live lives characterised by chronic brutality, often the result of parental abuse or long term involvement in gang violence, and they may come to regard state administered flogging as little more than an occupational inconvenience, one more aggressive act among many.  [i] “A revival of flogging?”, The Economist, 25 April 2010,


While the conservative press may advocate the reintroduction of corporal sentences, an equally vocal section of society would condemn any attempt to use flogging as a means of punishment. The inherently pragmatic political discourse that prevails in most liberal democracies would be as reluctant to replace prison with the lash as it currently is to reduce prison populations and confront under-investment in rehabilitation schemes.  It should be noted that corporal punishment was initially abandoned as a result of the activities of penal reform campaigners in the early eighteen hundreds. These thinkers, politicians and professionals were able to convince members of a much more conservative political class of the wisdom of sentences focussed on rehabilitation. Moreover, they sold the idea of penal reform to a public who lacked the robust defences against disorder and criminality (the police, electronic surveillance, cheap insurance) that we take for granted today. Victorian-era citizens had much more to fear from crime than we do. If such dramatic change could be brought about in the nineteenth century, why should it be out of the grasp of politicians in the twenty first?


Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely  A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57%1. The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality2. The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release1.  The long-term damage done to an offender's life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender's relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos' own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to "move on" with the process of reform.  It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender's behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender's day to day life.  1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011, 2"A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America". Drucker, E. The New Press


Prison reform is politically unachievable  The failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals' dishonest or violent activities.  Politicians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as "soft" on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges' discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.  The use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive "justice". Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public.


The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.  It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.  The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.  The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.  The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.  The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence.


As distasteful as debaters, moral philosophers and constitutional lawyers may find it, society still has a need to punish criminals. Although it seems to lack logic or reason (inflicting suffering on a criminal cannot be recompense for what he has taken, and may even prevent him from properly compensating his victim), a criminal justice system which does not punish will not command the confidence of the public.  If a criminal justice system is unable to command the confidence of the public, alternative methods of addressing criminal behaviour will be sought. Eliminating the role of punishment in criminal justice would put our entire judicial system at risk.  The resolution calls for a minimal and carefully controlled use of force by the state. This use of force is necessary in order to provide protection for the state’s citizens in the long term – by leaving the prison system free to treat and control offenders who are truly violent and dangerous, and by preventing the social exclusion of non-violent offenders.  While a state should endeavour to demonstrate the virtues of non violence and compromise, it can also fail in its duty to its citizens by being negligent of the needs of offenders, and wilfully ignorant of the most effective solutions to criminality.


Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised  The “packaging” of flogging with a revitalised approach to rehabilitation that proposition suggests may be a feasible response to some crimes, but politicians are much more likely to treat the lash as a panacea for any activity or trend that affects the public’s confidence in the justice system.  The public and the mass media are not inclined the probe the depths of criminal sentencing. Criminals are hard to sympathise with, and public confidence rests largely on the visible aspects of a sentence – has a criminal been locked away? Will they be closely monitored on release? Has a criminal received a sufficient number of lashes? As a consequence, as with custodial sentences, cutbacks to reform programmes can be achieved with little objection, leaving only the empty and brutal gesture of flogging itself. Political reality will neutralise the aspirations of the proposition  Lawmakers are currently too keen to invoke imprisonment as a response to crime. They are likely to be just as hasty in ordering the use of whipping as a sanction for criminality. A 1995 US Department of State Report on the use on penal practices in Singapore noted that 3244 sentences had incorporated caning [i] . A subsequent Department of State briefing published in 2008 stated that the Singaporean judiciary had handed down 6404 sentences that included either mandatory or discretionary use of caning [ii] . The corporal sentences handed down to Malaysian women that were discussed above were widely held to have been influenced by a clamp-down on “moral” offences mounted by the Malaysian judiciary [iii] .  Flogging will not prevent politicians from making grabs for political capital by criminalising the ill-judged actions of otherwise harmless, well-adjusted and compliant members of society. Moreover, law makers are likely to discount or overlook the close link between flogging and rehabilitation that the proposition case is dependent on.  [i] “Singapore Human Rights Practices, 1994”, US Department of State, February 1995,   [ii] “Singapore”, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State, 11 March 2008,   [iii] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010,


Poorly constructed laws are not an excuse to abandon the prison system  The proposition does nothing to address the root cause of overcrowding in prisons and “over-inclusive” penal codes. The problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by flogging. The strain placed on penal institutions and systems of sentencing originates in a political culture that cynically exploits public fear of crime and social breakdown to win votes and project power.  As noted above, many law makers frequently set out to “discover” or “invent” new forms of criminal offence, in order to appear proactive in reducing criminality or protecting communities from state or corporate graft [i] . Dogmatic and over-zealous responses to existing problems can also transform civil or disciplinary issues into crimes. A case in point is Indian anti corruption campaigners’ insistence on the use of a broad and open definition of “bribery” in a proposed open-government law. Under the “three strikes” implemented in the US state of California, approximately 3700 non-violent repeat offenders are serving life sentences [ii] . A US medical specialist received a twenty five year prison term when a number of his patients, without his knowledge, were found to have been illegal selling the drugs he had prescribed to them. Additionally, the practice of electing judicial officials in states such as the US incentives candidates to hand out sentences or file charges that generate a positive public response, whether or not they are suitable response to the actions and circumstances of offenders [iii] .  The resolution purports to discipline and restrain criminals, but does nothing to discipline and restrain law makers. Simply replacing custodial sentences with flogging will do nothing to address the factors that have led to an unreasonable expansion of penal law. The process of excessive criminalisation may even be accelerated, as the reduced cost of flogging over imprisonment encourages policy makers to turn to corporal punishment as a populist, knee-jerk response to civil disorder or moral panics.  Evidence of the inappropriate use of corporal punishment has already emerged from states such as Singapore, where, in 1995 a 48-year-old French citizen was caned for breaking the conditions of his Visa. Corporal sentences have also been given to Singaporean citizens convicted of vandalism and criticising Singapore’s judiciary. In Malaysia during 2010 and 2009 [iv] , state-sanctioned religious courts ordered the caning of four women who had admitted to extra marital affairs and drinking alcohol [v] – the first sentences of their kind in the history of the modern Malaysian state.  [i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [iii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [iv] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010,   [v] “Malaysia in heated debate over caning of woman”, World Corporal Punishment Research, 25 July 2009,


States' duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems  How will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity.  The mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals.  Violence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power.  At its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing.  No citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state.


There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and "strengthening" probation and parole systems1.  The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.  The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.  There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.  1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011,


Prison reform is politically unachievable  The failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals’ dishonest or violent activities.  Politicians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as “soft” on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges’ discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.  The use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive “justice”. Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public.


Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment  he criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?  Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.  Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.  In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.  The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.  The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.  [i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011,   [ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011,


Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and “territorial disputes”.  As noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate “cure” for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.  Under these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.


Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely  A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57% [i] . The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality [ii] . The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release [iii] .  The long-term damage done to an offender’s life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender’s relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.  A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos’ own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to “move on” with the process of reform.  It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender’s behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender’s day to day life.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,   [ii] “A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America”. Drucker, E. The New Press  [iii] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,


Imprisonment punishes offenders’ families  Even though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.  Imprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender’s family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.  The negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.  Corporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families.


The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.  It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.  The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.  The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.  The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.  The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence


States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems  How will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity.  The mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals.  Violence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power.  At its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing.  No citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state.


There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and “strengthening” probation and parole systems [i] .  The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.  The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.  There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,


Migrations for economic reasons is part of the modern global economy. Tibet in 1950 was massively underdeveloped with very low literacy rates, and little modern economic infrastructure. Given the determination of the Chinese government to modernize Tibet, the importation of workers was vital. Educated Chinese were needed to run the administration in the absence of qualified local elites willing to work with them, while Chinese teachers were needed to run the schools. In turn, they brought their families, and a host of businesses followed.  By the same token, teaching Mandarin is not an issue. There are 6 million Tibetans surrounded by 1 billion Chinese who speak Mandarin, teaching the language of commerce is an effort to integrate the Tibetans.  And integration is what the Chinese are after, as while no exact figures are published, it is overwhelmingly clear that Tibet is a net loser financially for them, and has been consistently since the 1950s. The costs of subsidizing a largely unemployed populous along with educational and infrastructure improvements has cost far more than the revenue coming in. If Tibet is a colony, China is not in it for the money. [1]  [1] Coonan, Clifford, ‘Behind the façade of Chinese rule in Tibet’, The Intependent, 3 July 2010,


Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority in their own country  Due to systematic campaign of Sinocization, millions of Han Chinese have been encouraged to settle in Tibet, and with the support of the government they now dominate the economy and upper echelons of the administration. Demographically Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority within their own country, and administratively this has already taken place.  While short of open genocide, the intent of the Chinese government is quite clearly the elimination of the Tibetan people as a distinct national, cultural and linguistic group. Not only are they attempting to drown them through settlement, but Tibetan students are forced to learn Mandarin in the schools and are being taught that they are Chinese.  While there may well have been past periods of Chinese sovereignty, the policies of the current Beijing government seem designed to produce an outcome far more permanent than those past efforts which respected Tibetan identity and culture.


On the contrary, this situation almost ensures that the Tibetans will become a puppet of one or another foreign power. Weak states almost invariably need allies to maintain their independence. An independent Tibet, especially one that has inherited the history of the last sixty years would likely be dominated by politicians who are militantly anti-Chinese, but would be too weak to defend itself against China. It would almost certainly become an Indian proxy, as its only hope of survival would be to attempt to gain the support of the United States and India against China.  In effect the creation of an independent Tibet, rather than avoiding conflict, would make it more pressing by moving the effective frontline hundreds of miles northward. Right now China and India may not like each other, but the Tibetan-Indian border is sufficiently mountainous as to make military action difficult if not impossible. By contrast, its northern border is much more easily crossed as the Chinese themselves showed in 1950. An independent Tibet would be a security threat to China and the region.


Tibet is a distinct nation with a distinct history that China illegally invaded  Tibet has a long history of independence going back more than 1500 years. Even in times of Chinese “domination”, Tibetans largely governed themselves independently of the small number of Chinese officials in Lhasa. [1]  Tibet at most was a tributary of China, and was no more part of it than Thailand, Myanmar or Korea. And from 1911 until 1950 it was entirely independent and conducted its foreign relations as such, for example remaining neutral in World War II despite both its neighbours the Republic of China and the British Empire being on the side of the Allies.  Tibet’s annexation by China occurred under the guns of 40,000 Chinese soldiers, and the precedent begun by the invasion stands as one of the few post-1945 cases in which the national principle was abandoned and the only one in which a fully independent state vanished from the map.  When one notes that Tibetans have their own language, and a history that includes far more wars with the Chinese than examples of kinship, Chinese arguments of sovereignty have little bearing on the reality. [2]  [1] van Walt, Michael C., ‘The legal status of Tibet’, Cultural Survival Quarterly (Vol. 12, 1988),   [2] Tsering, Lhasang, ‘India’s Tibet: A Case for Policy Review’, 17 March 2000,


In order for Tibet to have traditionally been viewed as part of the Chinese nation, there is no requirement that it have been under Chinese rule continuously. Like many other parts of “China”, it was ruled by China during times of imperial strength, and when governments weakened, so too did central authority. In this sense Tibet has a lot in common with Manchuria, another region that tended to drift towards autonomy during times of dynastic weakness.  One thing however has been clear – the variation in sovereignty in Tibet has been between autonomy and Chinese sovereignty. Even in the 9th century when Tibetan armies were outside the gates of the Tang Dynasty Capital of Chang’an, the Tibetans remained nominally the Emperor’s subjects as proclaimed by a monument from 823 stating “their territories be united as one”. [1]  Tibet’s independence between 1904/11 and 1950 was consistent with this cycle. Tibet gained autonomy when China weakened, and this autonomy was as much a product of British influence as it was of any Tibetan desires themselves. In 1950, with China reunited under a strong government, Chinese sovereignty returned. It was undoubtedly the case that the local elites who were displaced resented this change, just as their predecessors did the previous times throughout history when Chinese sovereignty was restored, but this does not justify independence, especially when Tibetan independence in the past has always been a product of the dual factors of Chinese weakness and the strength of foreign powers in the region, neither of which is operative right now.  [1] China Daily, ‘From dynasty to republic’, 9 April 2008


Everything is comparative. The major reason why China does not face more serious domestic unrest is that its international and economic progress have allowed it to appeal to Chinese nationalism. Withdrawing from Tibet would be viewed as an act of weakness, one which would do far more to undermine the Communist party’s legitimacy and support base than remaining there.  Secondly, attacks on China’s Human Rights record matter less and less each year as trade with the PRC becomes more and more valuable to the West. It barely affected the Olympics and increasingly it is viewed as an effort by the West to divide China.  Thirdly, the cost of the province has to be compared against the potential security risks an independent Tibet, especially one under anti-Chinese leadership, would pose to Chinese security.


An independent Tibet would serve as a buffer state between India and China, reducing the chances of a regional clash  An independent Tibet would serve a useful purpose as a neutral and demilitarized buffer state between India and China. Given the rising economic and military clout of both powers, a future conflict is becoming ever more likely, and they already fought one war against one another in 1962.  An independent Tibet would mean that the two nations would no longer have a common border, making their rivalry less practical and far less pressing. This would reduce military obligations for both, and prevent the Tibetans from being caught in the middle of a future conflict.


Tibet presents an explosive domestic political issue for China which the latter would benefit from eliminating  Tibet, and the resistance Tibetans continue to show to Chinese rule presents a toxic domestic and international political problem that costs far more than it worth.  Domestically, violence in Tibet is the most serious domestic disturbance facing the Chinese government, and the fact that there is nearly constant violence between Han Settlers and Tibetans forces the Chinese to alienate everyone in order to contain it. Furthermore, the economic and political disenfranchisement of the Tibetan people is an enormous domestic problem, as it has led to large numbers becoming unemployed and moving to other parts of China where they form an underclass.  Internationally, the Tibetan issue keeps China’s Human Rights record in the news and almost torpedoed the 2008 Olympic games. Given that China is already losing money on the province, it may well be worth it for China to jettison it in order to gain much greater international benefits.


While of obvious interest, it is hard to see how Chinese opinion is of vital relevance to whether or not Tibet should enjoy independence. Serbian opinion was almost certainly overwhelmingly against Kosovar claims in 1998, and it can be assumed that Southern Sudanese Secession may have been less than popular on the streets of Khartoum than Juba.  Furthermore, a large part of the reason for the reaction of the Chinese Public is that the Communist Party has consistently encouraged nationalist sentiment in an effort to deflect its own population from their lack of human and political rights. An independent Tibet would serve as a beacon of freedom in the region and might well inspire Chinese citizens to begin to make demands of their own for political and social freedoms.


Such progress has been self-serving, with many of the economic gains made by Han Settlers. Secondly it has come at the cost of Tibetan culture and the very national identity that Tibetans hold dear.  It is also absurd to suggest that these gains would disappear upon independence. Tibet would likely seek to continue to trade with China, and if that is not possible, there would be opportunities to gain investment from India or the West. The benefits of such trade could then be used to help the Tibetans themselves rather than Han settlers. As Ten Zin Samphel, a leader of the Tibetan community in Britain remarks "At the moment, the economic development is for the benefit of the Chinese… If Tibet were free, we could develop it ourselves." [1]  [1] McGivering, Jill, ‘China’s quandary over Tibet’s future’, BBC News, 20 March 2008,


Tibet is almost 50% Han Chinese and they dominate the economy. Expelling them would be catastrophic  Whatever the reasons or the moral legitimacy behind the move, Tibet is a very different place today than it was in 1950. According to the 2000 census, 2.3 million of Tibet’s 7.3 Million citizens are Han Chinese, and if temporary residents are added the numbers nearly double.  In the event Tibet achieves independence it is likely that these Han residents will face discrimination if not open pogroms. Already they are a constant target of riots launched by Tibetan Nationalists, events that often end in the destruction of Han businesses and property.  Such an outcome would not only be morally abhorrent – it would also be catastrophic for Tibet’s economic and political position.  This minority plays a key role in the Tibetan economy, and their departure would create a vacuum that could lead to an economic collapse.  Furthermore, any mistreatment of the Han Minority would likely push Chinese opinion, already of the view that the Tibetans are coddled according to Faread Zakaria, into support for military intervention.  The Economist’s James Miles remarked of the 2008 riots that "What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa." [1]  [1] ‘Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet’, CNN, 20 March 2008,


Tibet could never be a viable independent state and would either become a Chinese puppet or a launching pad for American and Indian power against China.  Given the realities of geography, Tibet has little prospect of real independence. Landlocked, with few natural resources, and no clear way to get any resources it does have out, Tibet would be poor, and overshadowed by its much larger neighbours, China and India.  It would be faced with the choice of either becoming a prize to be fought over between those two powers or aligning itself with one or the other, most likely India given its difficult recent history over the last few decades.  The consequence would be that rather than giving the Tibetans greater freedom, independence would render them pawns, and rather than reducing tensions in the region, it would likely increase those between India, Pakistan and China. Tibet would be in the same position it was at the end of the 19th Century when it was a weak power at the mercy of the British and Chinese having to toe the line for whichever neighbour was stronger at the time.  Its hard to see how the United States could avoid being drawn into such a geopolitical quagmire, with likely negative consequences for the Sino-American relationship as well. The US having played a key role in gaining freedom for Tibet could hardly stand aside if that freedom was threatened, and the Chinese in turn would view any US influence in a free Tibet as further evidence of the existence of an American hand behind the Tibetan Freedom Movement.


China has viewed the last century and a half as non-stop efforts by Westerners to divide China. This looks like another.  The last century and a half of relations between China and the West have from the Chinese perspective been one long period of national dismemberment. In 1842 the British took control of Hong Kong after the first Opium war, and after its sequel, China lost control of Shanghai and its own customs service. Efforts were made to sever Manchuria, Taiwan from China in the 20th, and Korea and Vietnam were fully removed from Chinese authority.  As a consequence the Chinese are quite paranoid about outside efforts to divide Chinese territory, and support for the Tibetan Independence, due to the fact that the West has no clear interests in the region, is interpreted chiefly as an effort to divide and weaken China. [1]  As a consequence, western condemnation tends to be counterproductive, leading to public sentiment in China turning far nastier towards legitimate Tibetan demands.  These sorts of views on the part of the Chinese Public are far from unwarranted given the likely consequences of Tibetan independence, namely the creation of a Pro-Western, anti-Chinese state on their borders, and the Chinese are therefore likely to respond to future moves in favour of Tibetan independence the same way Americans would have reacted to Pro-Confederate moves on the part of Great Britain or France during the US Civil War.  [1] II. Origins of So-Called ‘Tibetan Independence’,


Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule  Contrary to the impressions forwarded by the proposition, Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule. The urban population has increased seven-fold since 1950, [1] literacy has increased from the teens to being as high as 95%, [2] and the average life expectancy has increased from the low 30s to the 60s.  Furthermore, with few natural resources and the economy in Han hands, there is a need for investment capital, and that capital can only come from China. Even the Dalai Llama acknowledged this in 2006, suggesting that a relationship with China similar to that between EU countries would be ideal. [3]  [1] European Space Agency, ‘The Himalayan region’, esa.int, 18 February 2010,   [2] Literacy rate among young people climbs in Tibet, People’s Daily Online, 31 July 2008,   [3] Liu, Melinda, ‘Fears and Tears’, Newsweek, 19 May 2008,


Simple geography makes a general conflict over Tibet unlikely. Located on some of the most mountainous terrain in the world, moving large armies would be next to impossible in the region, with the consequence that conflicts like the Sino-Indian war of 1962 were contained by the simple inability of the combatants to bring supplies and reinforcements to the front.  Making Tibet a neutral buffer state would simply exacerbate these challenges by denying the likely combatants a common border behind which to build up military infrastructure. It may well be that China and India would become rivals for influence in Lhasa, but this would be a diplomatic war of shadows rather than a physical one, just like the current competition for influence in Myanmar which is in a similar position, [1] and it would be a conflict which would provide Tibet with the opportunity to play the rivals off against each other in a way that would safeguard its independence as well as peace in the region.  [1] Kuppuswamy, C.S., ‘MYANMAR: Sandwiched between China & India and gaining from both’, South Asia Analysis Group, 31 January 2008, Paper no. 2574,


First of all it is worth noting that the Chinese settlers are themselves the product of deliberate campaign of cultural genocide on the part of the Chinese government. While individually they may be innocent, by their participation they have become targets. In this sense there is little difference between them and Israeli settlers in the West Bank or the former French settlers in Algeria.  But even granting that, there is no reason to assume this violence would continue if Tibet became independent and the major cause of conflict, namely the Chinese occupation, was removed as a major issue of contention. It could be expected that a new Tibetan government would have an incentive to avoid all of the harms outlined by the opposition.  Symbolic of this is the Dalai Llama’s remarks that Tibet’s future is linked to China’s and that an independent Tibet would benefit from a close relationship with China.


This simply shows a need to either expand the law enforcement agencies or else have locals who are deputised. There is no need to turn schools into an armed environment in order to ensure that someone who is responsible who is armed is close enough to respond to any crisis at a school.


Not all schools have police available to protect them.  All schools and schoolchildren need to be protected yet not all schools are anywhere near a source of protection. Arming some teachers is most urgent in areas police provision is scarce due to diminished funds. Places like Harrold county in Texas have a sheriff’s office situated 17 miles away, and unlike more urban areas they cannot afford to hire district police officers. With the law enforcement officers so far away a lot of children could be killed before there could be any possibility of response from any police of law enforcement agencies. Arming teachers in predominantly rural areas of the USA is therefore a logical and necessary step to protect schools that do not already have dedicated protection. [1]  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,


Why shouldn’t they carry guns if teachers can? Surely in such uncertain situations as Columbine they should also carry the right to protect their classmates? Even if children aren’t legally meant to carry them anyway then what’s to stop moral gray areas from occurring in situations of self-protection for an entire class/school?  Taking this to its natural conclusion, what is to stop teachers’ guns simply falling into the wrong hands? A child could steal a teacher’s gun and use it against a classmate, causing unintentional or intentional fatalities, arming teachers simply makes such events possible rather than protecting against them. [1] The logic of trying to make schools less vulnerable to violent attacks by introducing more firearms is hugely flawed.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,


Arming teachers would mean safer schools  If school teachers, as people in positions of authority over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers would be able to act as a first line of defence. [1] Furthermore, having schools as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms, introduced legislation in January this year after the incident. [2] It illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care.  [1] Hernandez, Selena, ‘Should Teachers Carry Guns On Campus’, CBS 11 News, 21 January 2011,   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Teachers Carrying Guns: Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen Introduces Bill To Keep Schools Safe’, 18 January 2011,


The logical fallacy here is the assumption that teachers will always have pupils’ best interests at heart. There’s little to stop children from becoming extremely vulnerable if they are under the supervision of someone who could turn on them. Gun attacks like Columbine and Virginia Tech are often by people whose potential for violence was not spotted by anyone until it was too late. People in positions of authority are not always reliable or rational, and no amount of safety checks can guarantee that some teachers will not abuse the powers they have. This measure would simply increase the potential threat from those who have been authorised to carry guns in schools.


That teachers may also sometimes need protection does not alter the debate. They could equally be protected by having better police services and officers closer to schools. If teacher needs a gun for protection from someone threatening them then they are putting the children they are responsible for in danger. If Jane Doe’s ex husband had come after her and both had been armed her students could very easily have been caught in the crossfire.