1.That we should publish the names of children who commit serious crimes
There are two main things to consider in this debate. Firstly, whether children are responsible for their crimes and should therefore be held to a similar standard as adults. Secondly what the impact of publishing their names will be, on both the children and society.
Some important cases involving children who commit serious crimes
Culpability of Children
In Australian criminal law any children under the age of 10 are considered to be incapable of committing a crime. This means that NO child under ten can ever be convicted of a crime. Between the ages of 10 and 14 we presume that children do not understand enough to have been responsible for the crime, but this can be proven otherwise in a court of law. This is important, because it means that any child who is convicted of a serious crime has been found by a court of law to be mentally capable of committing the crime. On the Affirmative it is important to establish that these children knew that what they were doing was wrong, and therefore should be held to the same standard as adults when they commit these crimes.
On the Negative it is important to question whether, even if children are culpable to some degree, is it the same degree as adults. Children obviously have much less awareness of the world, and probably do not understand the consequences of their actions to the same extent as adults.
Impact on Society - Protection
One of the biggest arguments in favour of releasing the names of children who have committed serious crimes is that the public has a right to protect themselves. In many cases children who commit serious crimes have reoffended. In the case of the Bulger boys (a UK case where two children murdered a toddler) , one offender was found to have committed a series of child pornography offences after he was released from prison. Parents, for example, should know if their child is attending the same school as another child who has previously been convicted of assault. Similarly schools may want to put in place certain measures to protect both the child offender and the rest of the community.
Victims Rights -
NOTE – This is about the UK justice system, but it deals with the same arguments as would apply in Australia.
Impact on Children - Rehabilitation
On the Negative side it is important to frame rehabilitation as the main focus of the justice system. Rehabilitation aims to stop criminals from committing crimes again by educating then and providing supportive environments for them to make good choices.
This is often considered particularly important in the case of children. We currently treat children very differently in the justice system
- Reporters cannot print the names of children during cases
- The primary focus is on rehabilitation
- In the Children’s Court, children can only be sent to juvenile detention for a maximum of two years
Releasing the names of children would have a number of harms for their rehabilitation prospects.
- In the immediate time of their conviction and sentencing it would result in high levels of media scrutiny on the child and their family.
- The child would likely be vilified in the media, and face threats from the public
- Even after the end of their prison sentence it is likely that they will be harassed and forever viewed as a criminal. This may make it harder for them to continue their education safely, or to get a job when they are older. This would likely have a very negative impact on their mental health and potentially push them back into criminality.
- The permanency of information on the internet would ensure that these children would be unable to escape their past. Even after their prison term has ended they would be known as a criminal and this would continue to punish them beyond what the courts intended. Particularly since these individuals were young when they committed these crimes, it is very harsh for them to spend their entire lives haunted by a terrible mistake they made as a child.
Extra Reading
2. That we should not allow police to carry guns
There is currently a problem with gun related deaths in Australiainvolving the police. By allowing police to carry guns all police interaction becomes potentially deadly.
Why Guns Are Dangerous
Having a gun in your possession obviously increases the likelihood of using it in high stress situations. Even though police have a lot of training, in high pressure situations it is likely that police will use their guns as part of their natural instinct to protect themselves. It is incredibly difficult to use a gun in a way which isn’t potentially deadly, and even if police do not kill people when their gun is discharged, they are likely to cause very serious bodily harm. Although the use of force may be necessary to stop an offender, the conseuqences of using a gun are incredibly severe, and other weapons could achieve the same result without the risk of serious harm.
However when police officers have a gun they are likely to rely on it as the most forceful form of deterrence. Even if they have a Taser, or a non deadly weapon as well as a gun, they are still likely to use their gun to ward off danger even if a less deadly deterrent could have been used. There are many alternatives to guns which are equally effective at protection, yet do not increase the likelihood of police killing individuals. Weapons such as tasers deliver electric shocks to individuals, and pepper spray incapacitates dangerous individuals in a close range. Of course, these weapons are not exactly “safe”. Excessive use of Tasers can cause heart attacks and kill people, and pepper spray can cause serious harms and result in suffocation. However these weapons do not have to be perfect, even though they can also be dangerous the crucial point is that they are much much safer than a gun, and in comparison they are much less likely to result in someone’s death when used.
There are also a number of general problems in the police force which are exacerbated when guns are used, such as excessive use of force, and racism in police interactions. These problems are made worse when police are able to carry guns. Although stopping police from carrying guns wouldn’t solve the problems of racism or over reactions it will at least lessen the consequences of these problems. For example, police may still be more likely to taser or pepper spray indigenous Australians for disorderly conduct, which is obviously very bad. But these physical harms would be much less serious and permanent than the harms of potentially killing individuals when police use their guns.
The Need for Guns
Police have an incredibly dangerous job in which they are constantly required to put their life on the line to protect Australians. They face many violent criminals and are often in life or death situations. Given that we require police to risk their lives on an everyday basis, they deserve to be able to protect themselves as well as possible. Especially in a situation where the other party may have a gun, it would be very difficult for police to protect themselves to the same degree. Weapons such as tasers and pepper spray have a much shorter range than a gun, which means that police could be under fire from someone who was too far away for their tasers to be able to effectively stop them. This police may result in increased police deaths, or reduce the ability of police to effectively respond to threats because they fear for their own safety.
Guns also have a significant deterrence effect. If potential criminals know that police are equipped with guns this may make them less likely to undertake violent attacks or try to take on police with their own weapons. It also arguably makes individuals respect police more and be fearful of breaking the law. Even if people aren’t planning to commit serious crimes, the knowledge that police officers have guns ensures that the general public are aware of the authority that police have, and makes them more likely to respect the authority of police.
However on the Affirmative team you should focus on other sources of police authority apart from their weaponry. For example their uniform and power to arrest individuals will continue to make them a formidable presence even if they don’t have guns. Also most people are very unlikely to consider breaking the law, and whether or not police have guns will not influence their decisions. If you are a criminal you are also not likely to carefully think about whether police have guns when you commit a crime. Many of the crimes we are talking about involve rash and poor decision making, and people are likely to not be thinking clearly about the consequences.
Extra Reading
- Good Case Study, discusses how police in the UK don’t carry guns
That We Should Ban Mining Operations near the Great Barrier Reef.
Problem
The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s most beautiful natural attractions. It is an important tourist attraction in Queensland with people coming from all over the world to view colourful corals and fish habitats. However in recent years increased activity around the Great Barrier Reef has caused signficant pollution and damage to the reef. The reef is currently experienced severe coral bleaching, where previously vibrant coral colours are fading to white and grey. This is the result of a combination of factors, including global warming, building of ports and industrial complexes, and mining.
Mining in particular is a major source of pollution in the Great Barrier Reef. In 2014 a report showed that Queensland Nickel discharged nitrate-laden water into the Great Barrier Reef in 2009 and 2011—releasing 516 tonnes of toxic waste water on the latter occasion. In June 2012, Queensland Nickel stated it intended to release waste water, continuously for three months, which is at least 100 times the allowed maximum level.
Mining also contributes indirectly to global warming which is another threat to the Great Barrier Reef. The process of mining is very energy intensive and often involves the extraction of fossil fuels like coal. These fuels are then sold and used to further pollute the environment, contributing to rising global temperatures and overall damage to our planet. These temperature rises cause coral bleaching and contribute to the destruction of the reef.
Currently coal miners are campaigning to be allowed to mine coal reserves in central Queensland, and this will result in the seafloor of the Great Barrier Reef areas being dredged to construct coal port expansions. There will also be an increase in industrial activity on the reef, with coal ships passing through and causing further environmental destruction.
Solution
The solution is very straightforward. Essentially all mining activity will be banned. Currently the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 prohibits any mining actually in the Great Barrier Reef, however a number of projects exist near the reef. Although this may not fix all the problems in that are threatening the Great Barrier Reef it is still a very important step that will stop a lot of damage being done.
Reasons for Allowing Mining
- Environmental damage to the Great Barrier Reef has already occurred, and it is largely due to problems of global warming which cannot be stopped by stopping mining. Global temperatures will continue to rise and destroy the reef, and there is nothing the Australian Government can do to singlehandedly stop the problem.
- Coal mining is a very important potential source of wealth and income for Australia. There is high demand for coal around the world, and these mining projects would create many jobs and fuel investment in the Great Barrier Reef region.
- There are many disadvantaged Australians who need jobs and support from the government. Although environmental protection is a noble goal, it is important to be realistic and consider whether it is worth prioritizing the Great Barrier Reef over generating a lot of income to help support individuals. The taxation revenue and wealth that would be created from these projects could be put to very good use and meaningfully change the lives of Australian citizens.
Extra Reading