Motions from the Oxford IVs (12-13 November, 2004)
Updated 28th November.
Round 1: THW exempt from prosecution armed police in the line of fire.
(Here are some links which help to indicate the issue that appears to be driving this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/stan-n08.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3976939.stm)
Round 2: THBT the developing world should not be held at the same environmental standards as the developed world.
Round 3: THW abolish state pensions.
Round 4: TH supports the use of truth and reconciliation commissions instead of war crimes tribunals in Iraq.
http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=295
Round 5: THBT the systematic harassment of individuals is a legitimate means of protest.
Novice Final: THW criminalise smoking when pregnant.
Quarters: THW give the Palestinian Authority a vote in the UN General Assembly
Semis: THW privatise the BBC.
Final: THW ban reporting of hostage taking in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3702574.stm
posted by Song at 3:32 AM
3 Comments:
Round 1: THW exempt from prosecution armed police in the line of fire.
this oxford motion is very interesting. I am wondering how to argue this as government. the only thing that comes to my mind is that -
(a) if a police officer has been shot in an incident, he may be in trauma and would not be in proper mental condition to testify - but that is already covered for in current insanity / mental condition laws.
(b) that a police officer not be allowed to testify against a person who shot him (even if it is by mistake) cos he wud be biased. but again, being biased does not prevent you from testifying - ur opinion still counts in the court of law as an opinion.
any one with a brilliant legal mind to solve this motion????
i forgot to sign off the previous comment. its by suraj. i am signing off cos the hokkien beng is insistent that i sign off!!
Hey Suraj,
Judging from the wording of the motion, I'm not sure if that's what one would expect. I would think the motion's wordings are targeted at the idea of armed police being prosecuted. As such,
1. "if a police officer has been shot in an incident, he may be in trauma and would not be in proper mental condition to testify - but that is already covered for in current insanity / mental condition laws." - you've said it.
2. "that a police officer not be allowed to testify against a person who shot him (even if it is by mistake) cos he wud be biased. but again, being biased does not prevent you from testifying - ur opinion still counts in the court of law as an opinion." - if he's being prosecuted, then him testifying against somebody else doesn't help to prove his innocence. so what impact does such a motion really have?
I think this motion is really more applicable to military police. If you're out in 'the line of fire' (for example, Iraq) and you do something a bit controversial (for example, get a bunch of prisoners in Abu Ghraib to pose naked for pictures), then you won't be prosecuted. I am not sure how one can propose such a case, however. Even within the military, there is a judicial system to deal with cases of indiscipline (military trials or summary trials). I think this boils down essentially to cases where legal exemptions are allowed, and how this parallel can extend to these military policemen. Suggestions, anybody?
Post a Comment
<< Home