http://www.geocities.com/frankie_meehan/index.html

Vocabulary for Argumentative Writing

When we write an argumentative essay, our opinions carry more weight if we look at both sides of the issue. In other words, we acknowledge our opponents' views but try to convince the reader that our own argument is stronger.

Our essay would be extremely dull if we used the words supporters and opponents all the way through. Similarly, it would be unimpressive if we only used the verb say to refer to people's opinions. The tables below contain lists of useful alternatives. Study them and then do the gap-fill task that follows.

+	-
Supporters	Opponents
Proponents	Opponents
Those in favour of …	Those opposed to …
Defenders of …	Critics of …
Advocates of …	Objectors
Pro-… (e.g. Pro-abortionists)	Anti-… (e.g. Anti-abortionists)

 

say that …

argue

claim

maintain

assert

contend

allege

insist

contend

suggest

point out

Tasks

1. Complete the text below using words/phrases from the tables above. (Solid lines relate to the first table; dotted lines relate to the second.)

 

______________ of TV …….…………….. that it exposes us to too much violence and, as a result, we become less sensitive to real-life violence. They also ………………………. that schoolchildren neglect homework and have problems concentrating in class as a result of spending too much time glued to the box. Finally, ____________ ……………….……. that television has turned many of us into over-weight, unfit "couch potatoes".

_______________________, on the other hand, …………..……… that it is a blessing for lonely, elderly or housebound people. Furthermore, they ………………….., it does not simply entertain; it can be very educational as well. Another argument _____ _________ of TV is that it sometimes plays an important role in fundraising for disaster relief and various charities. For example, the "Live Aid" rock concert in 1984 raised millions of pounds for victims of the Ethiopian famine.

2. Choose another controversial issue (e.g. hunting, car use, school uniforms, meat-eating, the use of animals in medical research, single sex schools, euthanasia). Write some sentences that express the views of people on both sides of the argument. Aim for variety in your choice of language.

Frankie Meehan

Notes for Five Argumentative Essays

• The use of animals in scientific research

• Should motor traffic be restricted?

• Capital punishment (the Death Penalty)

• Euthanasia should be legalised

• Examinations should be abolished

These tables outline the main arguments used when debating five controversial topics. The points have been arranged into simple "For/Against" columns.

It is convenient to have a ready-made list of arguments, but to write an effective essay you must decide upon a structure. There are two basic options:

Option 1: Set 'em up and knock 'em down
Look at my model essay on zoos for an example of this approach. Using this approach, you present each of your opponents' arguments in turn and demonstrate that it is false or weak - you "knock it down". This is a very effective approach because you acknowledge that other views exist but persuade the reader that yours are superior.

Option 2: The balanced approach
You will find an example of this approach for an essay about handgun ownership on the IGCSE Revision page here (produced by the Central European University language teaching centre). Using this approach, you look at both sides of the argument in a more balanced way. In the end, however, you must indicate your opinion. The basic structure is: Introduction >>> Points in Favour >>> Against >>> Conclusion (including your opinion). WARNING: This approach can sound weak because the writer seems to be "sitting on the fence", afraid to take sides.

 

The use of animals in scientific research

FOR	AGAINST
Animals are only used when really necessary and most animal experiments do not involve pain	It is morally wrong to do things to laboratory animals which we would not do to our pets; lab animals are burned, poisoned, blinded, crippled and driven mad Human and animal brains are very different, so surgeons do not gain much from practising on animals
Brain surgery and "replacement surgery" (e.g. replacing hip joints, heart transplants) requires practice; we cannot practise on humans!
When surgery is necessary, an anaesthetic is always used so that the animal feels no pain
We need to test new drugs/chemicals on animals in order to predict whether humans will suffer side-effects; if we don't do this, we will never find cures for AIDS, cancer etc. Lots of research with animals helps to develop new treatments for animal diseases	Most animal experiments are done for trivial reasons - e.g. to produce cosmetics, household goods, food additives etc. A lot of research turns animals into drug addicts or removes part of their brain, just so we can observe changes in their behaviour! Most new drugs are created in order to make profit for the drug companies; only 1-2% are essential for good health Tests on animals do not give reliable results since animals react differently to humans (e.g. aspirin causes birth defects in cats, dogs & monkeys but not in humans) We should be spending more money on preventing diseases instead of focussing so much on cures (many diseases are linked to smoking, bad diet and pollution)

 

 

Should motor traffic be restricted?

FOR	AGAINST
Cars are a major source of air and noise pollution, as well as numerous accidents that cause death or injury.	Motor vehicles make travel more convenient, contribute to economic development and enrich our leisure; petrol is much "greener" than it used to be. The USA has more cars than any other country, yet its accident rate is less than half that of many European countries. The answer lies in better roads, better driver training and better vehicle maintenance.
Motorways are an eyesore in the countryside and disturb wildlife habitats .	Well-designed motorways blend into the countryside just as much as canals or railways.
Traffic in modern city centres moves at roughly the same speed as it did 100 years ago. The solution is to discourage drivers from entering city centres (e.g. by imposing taxes). The govt. should also improve the public transport system and provide free parking on the outskirts of cities.	Public transport is simply not adequate to handle the volume of people who need to enter cities. The real solution to road congestion is to build more roads and carparks.
Railways are more suitable (faster & safer) than cars for traffic between cities; they are also more suitable than large trucks for carrying goods	Railways are inflexible and do not suit our modern desire for "door-to-door" transport; goods deliveries by rail are often delayed

 

 

Capital Punishment (the Death Penalty)

FOR	AGAINST
It discourages criminals from carrying guns and carrying out serious crimes such as murder	Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent: for example, the USA (where the death penalty exists) has a far higher murder rate than the UK (where there is no death penalty) Out of 30 countries that have abolished the death penalty none has reported an increase in murders
Some hardened criminals cannot be reformed; we know that so-called "life sentences" are often reduced, so they are a great risk to society if we do not execute them	The death penalty belongs to a time when punishments were cruel and society was less civilised; the destruction of human life is wrong
It is better for a society to get rid of its enemies than to pay for them to stay in prison	Where the death penalty is used, juries are often afraid to convict someone in case they are wrong; in this way, many criminals escape punishment (if the penalty was imprisonment, juries would be less afraid)
People are not sentenced to death if there is any doubt in the minds of the jury; mentally insane murderers are never convicted	If a jury makes a mistake (and they do!) this cannot be reversed; a civilised society should not take this risk. Also, many prisoners are kept on "death row" for decades; they are often completely reformed individuals by the time they are executed

 

 

Euthanasia should be legalised

FOR	AGAINST
Many people die long and painful deaths from incurable illnesses. We put animals out of their misery rather than let them suffer terrible pain; why should we deny humans the same release?	A doctor cannot draw up a list of incurable illnesses; for example, patients suffering from so-called incurable diseases such as cancer and AIDS frequently are cured and live long, productive lives.
The patient him/herself is the best person to judge when life has become too hard to bear. Suicide ceased to be a crime in the UK in 1961; there has been no increase in the suicide rate because of this, so it is unlikely that large numbers of people would choose euthanasia if it were legalised.	If a physical suffering is a valid excuse for cutting life short, then why not mental/emotional suffering as well? A request for euthanasia might be the result of temporary depression; people in great pain are not always responsible for what they say
If a patient is completely unable to make a decision, doctors should be allowed to make a recommendation and then close relatives could make the final decision.	Doctors do not always correctly estimate a patient's power to recover; they should not have to make the terrible decision to kill a patient. This is a heavy responsibility for relatives too. Some relatives might even misuse their power (e.g. in order to inherit wealth)
If we call it murder to take someone's life with their own consent, then logically it is theft to take a person's property with their consent - which is absurd.	Many religions teach that it is wrong to take away human life; if we are reluctant to kill even murderers, we should be even more reluctant to kill innocent people.
Many unfortunate people are born with severe physical and/or mental defects that mean they will never lead a normal life and will be a huge burden to their families. Relatives should have the right to opt for euthanasia in such cases.	All human lives have equal value. The Nazis, who believed otherwise, killed as many as 200,000 mentally or physically disabled people in a secretive euthansia programme and called it "mercy killing".

 

 

Examinations should be abolished

FOR	AGAINST
Examinations test only a limited range of skills; they favour people who have a good memory and good "exam techniques" even though they may not be very original or imaginative.	Passing an examination shows that the candidate can handle unfamiliar problems and communicate effectively; these are important qualities in the workplace. Examinations have changed a lot in the past 20 years; most include coursework today and this helps to test a greater range of skills.
Examinations depress students and deaden their initiative; teachers, too, become less creative as they are forced to "teach to the exam".	The mental effort of preparation for examinations is valuable; no harm is done to anyone. Without the discipline of examinations, teachers could fail to cover some important topics/skills.
Examinations are set as if all children have reached the same mental level at the same age. However, psychologists and educationalists agree that this is not so. Also, girls tend to mature earlier than boys.	The greatest gaps in development occur at primary age; exams are rare there nowadays. The inequality is much less at secondary level.
Examinations encourage competition and favour academically gifted students; the less able (who actually need the most help) get neglected.	The problem of "mixed ability" classes would exist whether we had examinations or not. The solution is to find better ways of organising classes and to employ more teachers.
Research has proven that different examiners grade student papers differently; indeed, the same examiner will often give different marks to the same paper after a few months!	Modern examination boards have sophisticated "moderation" systems for ensuring that marking is done fairly. In addition, most examinations include practicals or orals, so a student's result does not depend completely on written work.

Frankie Meehan

The Invasion of Iraq was Wrong!

Read the argumentative essay below and think about its structure (the way it is organised). Answer the questions that follow it.

We hear a lot of talk in the media about the US and allied forces bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. Let us not be deceived by these grand words; they are lies. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. Bush and his friends invaded under false pretences; they are selective about where and when to promote so-called democracy; and they have not made the world a safer place by toppling Saddam Hussein.

In the build-up to the war, George Bush and Tony Blair declared repeatedly that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and we had to invade to prevent Saddam from using these against his own people or his neighbours. However, there was no evidence to support this claim and in the end no WMDs were found. In any case, other countries such as Pakistan (and the USA itself!) have WMDs but we do not invade them. Similarly, America and its allies reminded us that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in 1988. However, they did not remind us that the USA supported Saddam at that time and continued to do so for another one and a half years!

Supporters of the invasion also claim that the "coalition forces" removed an evil dictator and are now bringing democracy to Iraq. It is certainly true that Saddam Hussein was a vicious, undemocratic leader but the invasion itself was undemocratic. The USA and UK are members of the United Nations and have, therefore, agreed to follow its procedures. Despite this, their excuse for attacking Iraq was that it had ignored 16 UN Security Council resolutions. But they overlooked the fact that Israel has violated 32 resolutions, and Turkey and Morocco have each violated more than 16 UN resolutions. Why did we not invade these countries first? The Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, has stated publicly that he believes the invasion was illegal. Furthermore, if the invasion was really about justice and democracy, then why did the US encourage Iraqi Shiites to rebel against Saddam in 1991 but then fail to support them? And why does the USA count Saudi Arabia as one of its allies when the government is undemocratic, torture is widespread and public executions are commonplace?

A final argument in favour of the occupation is that the world is a safer place without Saddam. This is a vague claim that is hard to either prove or disprove. However, we can see that even in Iraq itself there is a major conflict (long after Bush announced that the war was over); meanwhile, there have been terrorist explosions in Indonesia and Spain; the conflict in Israel/Palestine is as bad as ever; and public opinion surveys in the USA and Britain suggest that people do not feel any safer. (Meanwhile, of course, it seems we have forgotten about the original "bad guy", Osama bin Laden, who had nothing to do with Iraq.)

In summary, we are being bombarded with lies about Iraq. Firstly, there were no WMDs and the "coalition forces" invaded without a green light from the UN. Secondly, the rhetoric about democracy is a smokescreen; we cooperate with many other undemocratic regimes (including Iraq and even Osama bin Laden when it suited us). Thirdly, the people of Iraq appear just as unhappy today as they were under Saddam, the wider Middle East is still in turmoil and the "west" feels even more threatened than before the invasion. Saddam Hussein was certainly a bad leader but two wrongs do not make a right; the invasion of Iraq was wrong and if Bush and Blair really do care about justice, then they should do more to tackle human rights abuses and poverty in a hundred other countries. Whatever the reason for invading Iraq, it was not WMDs or democracy or the "war on terror"; Bush and Blair lied to us.

TASKS

1. What is the thesis (main argument/idea) of this essay?

_________________________________________________________

2. What are the three supporting ideas? (You can look for these in the opening paragraph but also in the "body" paragraphs.)

1. _______________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________

3. What pro-war argument is presented in Paragraph 2?

_______________________________________________________

What is the writer's counter-argument?

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

4. What pro-war argument is presented in Paragraph 3?

_______________________________________________________

What three counter-arguments does the writer present?

1. _______________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________

5. What pro-war argument is presented in Paragraph 4?

_______________________________________________________

What four counter-arguments does the writer present?

1. _______________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________

4. _______________________________________________________

 

Frankie Meehan

 

Organising a Discursive Essay about Car Use

The two most common types of essays are the argumentative and the discursive.

• An argumentative essay opens with a boldly expressed point of view and then the rest of the essay presents arguments (examples, proof or logic) to support that point of view. Normally, it refers to opposing arguments but demonstrates that these are weak or even false. (Look at this essay about zoos for an example.)

• A discursive essay presents both sides of the issue in a more balanced way. In the end, however, it normally reaches a conclusion; in other words, the writer states what s/he thinks. The following is an example of how a discursive essay on handguns might be structured:

• Introduction: The issue of handgun ownership

A. Some people believe individuals should not own handguns
B. Others believe ownership is an important personal right

• Disadvantages of handgun ownership

- Both adults and children can have accidents
- People can use guns for crimes

• Advantages of handgun ownership

+ People can protect themselves from intruders
+ People can use guns for recreational purposes (e.g. target practice at gun clubs)

• Conclusion (a summary & evaluation of arguments above)

= Problems of accidents and crime make gun ownership difficult to accept
= Gun ownership should not be allowed in the interest of a better society

Your task in this assignment is to write a discursive essay about the advantages and disadvantages of car use. You will be given the various arguments both in favour of, and against, car use. Your first task will be to organise these arguments.

 

TASK 1

Read the following notes.

• Identify all the points in favour of car use and mark them with the symbol  .

• Identify all the points against car use and mark them with the symbol  .

• Not restricted by schedules as you are with public transport

• Comfortable (spacious, cool, radio/CD etc.)

• They cause air pollution (e.g. exhaust emissions contribute to global warming)

• Roads deface the natural landscape and destroy/disturb wildlife habitats

• Fast, less time-consuming than public transport

• Car parks take up valuable space in city centres (could be used for public gardens instead?)

• Fairly cheap to run?

• Car accidents result in many deaths and injuries

• Modern fuels are lead-free and getting "cleaner"

• Traffic jams lead to stress and "road rage" (angry drivers attacking others)

• Car use contributes to a faster, less natural pace of life that often results in high blood pressure and heart disease

TASK 2

Now that you have sorted your points into two groups, you will be able to divide the body of your essay into two sections: advantages and disadvantages (or possibly the other way round). However, each of these two sections still needs to be divided further - into topics. Each topic will then become a paragraph in the essay.

• Take the  advantages above and arrange them under the topic headings of "Convenient" and "Efficient".

• Take the  disadvantages and arrange them under the topic headings of "Bad for the environment", "Dangerous" and "Stressful".

TASK 3

A well-made paragraph usually starts with a topic sentence. This contains the main idea or argument of the paragraph. It is followed by a few illustrations or examples that support it. In the case of your essay on car use, the topic sentences in the body of the essay will cover the points in TASK 2 (above).

• Write topic sentences based on each of the headings in Task 2 (i.e. "Convenient", "Efficient" etc.). Here is an example:

Cars are extremely popular because they are so convenient.

Do not be satisfied with the first thing you write. Rewrite it; share it with a classmate or your teacher; aim for a more effective sentence.

TASK 4

The structure of your essay is going to be as follows:

• Paragraph 1 (INTRODUCTION)

• Paragraph 2 (Convenient …) 

• Paragraph 3 (Efficient ...) 

• Paragraph 4 (Bad for the environment …) 

• Paragraph 5 (Dangerous …) 

• Paragraph 6 (Stressful …) 

• Paragraph 7 (CONCLUSION)

Unless, of course, you decide to deal with the disadvantages first …

You still need to plan an introduction. Basically, this will state that there are both advantages and disadvantages to car use. However, it will sound rather weak if you simply write: "There are both advantages and disadvantages to car use". It will make a stronger impact if you start with a bold or surprising statement, or perhaps a striking statistic. For example:

We have become extremely dependent on cars: there were 580 million worldwide in 1990 and it is estimated that this figure will grow to 816 million by 2010.

You can follow this with a summary of the main arguments contained in the body of the essay. You should present these in the order they will appear later.

• Continue this opening paragraph by adding sentences from the jumbled list below. Present them in the same order as the plan above.

We have become extremely dependent on cars: there were 580 million worldwide in 1990 and it is estimated that this figure will grow to 816 million by 2010.

 

• Thirdly, some people argue that they contribute to the frantic, unhealthy pace of modern life.

• On the other hand, there are powerful arguments against car use.

• Firstly, they damage the environment.

• Clearly cars are so popular because they are both convenient and efficient.

• Secondly, they kill and maim large numbers of people.

TASK 5

Let us save the conclusion for later. (Basically, it will sum up the main arguments again and evaluate them - in other words, you will say whether you think car use should be limited or even banned.)

First, you will try to write the body paragraphs - paragraphs 2-6 in the plan above. Each paragraph already has a topic sentence. The challenge now is to support it with illustrations or examples. For example (paragraph 2):

Cars are extremely popular because they are so convenient. They allow us far more freedom than public transport which is often unreliable, slow or even unavailable. Given a choice between walking in the rain to join a bus queue or stepping straight into a car and driving directly to one's destination, who would prefer the latter? Furthermore, cars are more comfortable than buses or trains since they are less cramped and have luxuries such as an air-conditioner and a sound system.

• Now use the points below to complete paragraphs 3-6. (Start each sentence with your topic sentence from TASK 3.)

• Fast, less time-consuming than public transport

• Fairly cheap to run, especially if you use a small model

• Modern fuels are lead-free and do not cause a lot of pollution

• They cause air pollution (exhaust emissions contribute to global warming and health problems such as asthma)

• Roads spoil the natural landscape and disturb wildlife habitats

• Car parks take up valuable space in cities that could otherwise be used for recreation

• Car accidents result in many deaths and injuries (e.g. approx. 125,000 people were killed in road crashes in the OECD's 29 member countries in 1999, enough to fill 300 jumbo jets)

• Traffic jams lead to stress and "road rage" (angry drivers attacking others)

• Car use contributes to a faster, less natural pace of life that often results in high blood pressure and heart disease

You do not need to change the language much. However, you certainly will need to use some linking words/phrases, such as the following:

• For example, …

• For instance, …

• … also …

• In addition, …

• Furthermore, …

• What is more, …

• Another argument against car use is that …

• Another disadvantage of car use is that …

• Similarly, …

 

TASK 6

Finally, you need a conclusion. Avoid a weak "sitting on the fence" conclusion such as this: "There are some strong points both for and against car use and it all depends on what your opinion is." Instead you should sum up the arguments you have already covered and state whether, on balance, you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages or vice-versa. It may be effective to present the arguments in reverse order this time. For example:

In conclusion, car ownership has several negative effects, including stress, road accidents and destruction of the natural environment. Nevertheless, we have become very dependent on cars because of the comfort and freedom they offer. A total ban seems out of the question, but for the sake of our own health and the health of the planet, we must aim to reduce car use - for example, by improving public transport systems and introducing car pooling schemes.

 

TASK 7

• Now try a discursive essay on a different topic. You could try the one about handguns (see notes above). Other possible topics include:

• Computer use by children

• Television viewing

• School uniforms

You may have a better idea yourself, but please check it first with your teacher. Whichever topic you choose, you will need to do some research first and then draw up an essay plan. Without a plan, you will almost certainly produce a disorganised, ineffective essay!

Frankie Meehan

A.M.D.G Discursive Essay (words and phrases)

A. The chronological or organisation by categories Report

The topic sentences suggest themselves - eg. chronological:

In its earliest stages,.......

Later/in the following century,.....

Some fifty years later,....

By the beginning of......

The most recent developments are.....

B. The proposal/scheme - controversial issue Report

Both of these involve two sides of an issue and group. who support/oppose;

re division:

opinion is divided....

attitudes are polarised....

there is a divergence of opinion….

the issue has generated vigorous debate and differing responses….

there are various schools of thought....

the scheme has attracted supporters and critics……

the issues are not clear-cut and simple…

support is by no means unanimous..... there are dissenting voices....

there is a conflict of interest...

NB. the normal basis for approval/disapproval may be:

financial

environmental/ecological

ethical/moral/religious

cultural

humanitarian

legal

aesthetic

considerations of safety, eg danger to individual/to others

not financially viable

morally questionable

unpractical/impracticable

infringes individual rights

threatens vested interests

The motive for supporting or opposing can probably be described under one

of these headings, though the list is not exhaustive.

Phrases/words for expressing point of view:

Opponents Supporters

A powerful lobby Suggest…point out that…

Vocal insist...allege

Vociferous assert

Influential cite the evidence…produce statistics…

Persuasive allude to a recent case…

Powerful discredit the suggestion…

From a variety of areas counter the argument…

Etc…, etc.., Etc…, etc…,

C. Situation/Problem/Solution

After description of the situation

a) A probable cause of this…

Several factors have contributed to…

The escalation of…the deterioration of…may be attributed to…

The blame for the increase in…

b) One possible implication of this is…

The long term effect of…

An inevitable consequence of such…

c) A suggested remedy…

It is felt by…that…would effect some improvement

Perhaps…would alleviate/reduce/limit/confine/eradicate/minimize/curb/improve etc

Animal Rights

Summary: Do non-human animals have rights?

print this page

Discuss topic

Context

The claim that animals have `rights' was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of `animal rights' comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.

Pros

Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.

Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 we have known that human beings are related by common descent to all other animals. We owe a duty of care to our animal cousins.

We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic rights.

Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery hen farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society - it encourages violence and barbarism in society more generally. A society that respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more civilised one.

The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is not undermined by the fact that a small number of extremists and criminals attach themselves to it. And it is not reasonable to expect AR campaigners not to take medicine - they must look after their own health whatever way they can until a more humane sort of medicine is developed.

Cons

Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given `rights'.

The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having `rights'. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the `right' to life of bacteria, or the `right' of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights.

Only human beings who are members of society have `rights'. Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort of `social contract' - they are neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral. They do not respect our `rights', and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties - they are more like robots than people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but non-human animals do not fall into that category.

It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure - in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process.

Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don't even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal `rights' is a sign of extremism and irrationality.

Cameras in Courtrooms Summary: Should cameras be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be televised?

Context

It is axiomatic in democratic society that everyone has access to the bodies that determine their rights and freedoms. We can watch the proceedings of parliament and of any court by attending in person. Yet, in Britain we can also watch the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on terrestrial television. Why can we not watch the events in court in the same way? In the United States, well-publicised criminal trials are often televised, either as part of news reports or as the subject of separate documentaries. `Court TV' is a channel dedicated to showing footage of the criminal justice system. Famously, the whole of the murder trial of O.J. Simpson was filmed and watched by an audience of millions. The lawyers and the judge became international celebrities. When Louise Woodward, a British au pair, faced trial for murder in the United States, pictures of her courtroom appearances were transmitted in Britain. The public reaction was immense. A national media campaign raised thousands of pounds to pay for the legal costs of her defence and subsequent appeal. The emotive power of television pictures was largely responsible for this outpouring of public sympathy. This debate raises interesting issues concerning constitutional rights, discrimination and individual liberties. In order to avoid a less illuminating discussion of the actual mechanics of putting cameras into court, it is necessary to establish a typical model for any television coverage. A conventionally accepted plan would be that fixed cameras would film the whole of the proceedings in the courtroom. The faces of the jurors would not be shown. The cameras would not be used in trials that are already subject to restrictions on reporting or the presence of an audience, such as those that concern national security or the welfare of children. Pros In a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain the public are even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised. However, at the moment only a few people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We should not have to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. In the age of the television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology to enhance the rights of the citizens.

Courts should be televised for the same reason that we see the proceedings in parliament on our televisions. The laws are made in parliament and developed in the courts. Common law countries employ the doctrine of precedent. This means that the reasoning in an earlier case can determine the outcome of a subsequent one. Consequently, the decisions in courts could have as much impact on our lives as those taken in parliament. We have a right to know about these decisions.Secondly, even if every case does not determine new law, we should know how laws are to be applied. Seeing law made in parliament is only half the story.

Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appear to be a secretive and closed club. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years.

Televised trials will be an antidote to the hysterical and sensationalist coverage of trials that we see in the print media. Instead of relying on a journalist's report of a case, and the sketches of a courtroom artist, we will be able to see for ourselves the evidence, the demeanour of the defendant, and the trial process. Cameras in the courtroom will prevent the public being misled.

Putting cameras into court will improve the trial process, as public monitoring provides a powerful incentive for the judiciary and the lawyers to increase their efficiency and adhere to good standards of behaviour. Would any judge make an occasional ignorant comment if he or she knew that it would be beamed into every home in the land? The introduction of cameras into the British Houses of Parliament resulted in significantly improved quality of debate, punctuality and greater attendance of the members of parliament. We can expect the same procedural benefits from cameras in the courtroom.

A video record of a trial will provide a powerful new tool for both the judiciary and the defendant. At present, an individual who has been convicted may appeal to a higher court. However, the appeal court judges are very reluctant to question the quality of evidence given by the witnesses at the trial, as they were unable to see this evidence being given. Hence the right of appeal against conviction is very limited. Yet, by watching the video record of this evidence, judges would be able to assess the demeanour, body language and overall impression given by each witness ; elements that are inevitably missing from a written transcript. These characteristics are nevertheless necessary in order to ascertain the veracity of the evidence.

Cons

There is a clear tension between the democratic right of the people at large to watch a trial, and the liberty of the defendant in any given case. It is a fundamental precept of many legal systems that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By showing the defendant on television, the general public will be able to reach conclusions about guilt or innocence that may not be reflected in the final verdict of the jury. People will tend to assume that `there's no smoke without fire' - although this principle cannot properly be applied to the criminal justice system. Although the identity of alleged victims of certain crimes are protected by law, the judge in a criminal trial rarely orders that the defendant should remain anonymous. In fact, it would be unlikely that the trial of a defendant whose identity was protected would be televised, as much of the audience and human interest is derived from the behaviour of this central character in the courtroom. By enlarging the constitutional right of access we will be pre-judging the defendant. He will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. Even if he is found not guilty, the publicity he has already suffered may ruin his chances of future employment or anonymity. This would be contrary to the principle of rehabilitation that is at the core of penal policy. In short the rights of the defendant should be placed ahead of the supposed rights of the general population to see trials on television.The real motivation, in any case, behind televising trials is no the pursuit of some noble democratic right, but simply the pursuit of drama and titillation. `Court TV' in the United States features tabloid-style and sensationalist programming. Its audience seeks entertainment rather than education. Fictional dramas, including those set in court, already provide such entertainment. We should not jeopardise individual liberty in the pursuit of a real-life courtroom thriller.

Courts do have some role in developing the law. However, the courts which do so tend to be the courts of appeal, and the supreme courts, or in the case of Britain, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. It would be extremely unlikely that a television channel would seek to cover these hearings, as they consist of dry legal argument, and feature none of the witnesses, the cross-examination or the emotive speeches to the jury that we would associate with courtroom drama. These are proceedings for lawyers, carried out by lawyers. Few members of the audience would have the understanding or the inclination to watch such programs. Likewise, watching the application of law is not particularly enriching. Whilst we can understand the important principles of any new law, the actual details, which may be argued in court, are of primary interest to lawyers. Written reports of every case already provide lawyers with this information.

The system of justice will actually be harmed by televising trials, for two reasons ; the effect upon the witnesses and victims of crime, and the possible corruption of the jury and witnesses.Firstly, the prospect that an alleged victim of a crime will have to give evidence in court already deters many from bringing prosecutions. Victims will be much less prepared to give evidence if they know that this painful experience is going to be seen by an audience of millions. Evidently, we will not have confidence in a system of justice which fails to bring the accused to trial.Secondly, a popular following of a trial will encourage witnesses and jurors to become involved in the media coverage. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness' evidence or the jurors' verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case. In Britain it is unlawful to disclose the proceedings within the jury room or the jurors' opinion on people involved in the case. Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already led to trials being abandoned. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus. Ultimately, payment of participants in the fact-finding process of a trial may lead to the wrong verdict being reached. Wrong verdicts will not inspire confidence in the criminal justice system.

The example of Court TV in America suggests that the sensationalist elements of the print media will pervade on television. In fact, television is likely to distort the representation of the truth to an even greater extent. As trials of heinous crimes typically continue for many days or even weeks, some measure of editorial discretion will be required in order to produce a brief and informative program. Whereas newspaper reports summarise the events of a whole day in court, the cameras can focus on a dramatic incident that is unrepresentative of the entirety of the proceedings. The most memorable event from the trial of O. J. Simpson was his inability to fit his hand into the glove found at the murder scene. However, much less prominence was given in the television coverage to the hours of scientific evidence that proved it was possible that the glove had shrunk.

Lawyers and the judiciary are already sufficiently accountable. Barristers are self-employed and the likelihood of continuing in work, and receiving a `repeat brief', largely depends on the quality of their performance in court.Although the judiciary enjoys much greater security of tenure, their competence is constantly monitored by means of reports from the solicitors and barristers appearing before them. Therefore, nothing is to be gained by making the lawyers and judges `accountable' to a mostly uneducated public through the medium of television. Moreover, television cameras actually harm the standard of debate. The coverage of debates in the House of Commons, and particularly `Prime Minister's Questions' has contributed towards `soundbite politics'. Depth of analysis and discussion is replaced by pithy comments that sound striking on news bulletins. During the course of a trial it is crucial that every issue is investigated as thoroughly as possible, in order to determine the defendant's guilt or innocence. The search for the truth will not be assisted by encouraging the protagonists to rely on one-liners for the cameras.

Every moment of every crown court trial in Britain is already recorded and stored for the assistance of judges or lawyers involved in any potential appeal. In addition, a stenographer in the courtroom records every word for the benefit of the people involved in the trial. A video recording is unnecessary. Furthermore, the reason that appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts is not because they were not present themselves at the original trial. In the common law system, the jurors, and not judges, try the facts. It is for a jury to reach a decision on the facts, as presented by each witness. It is for the judge to advise and apply the relevant law. Using a video record in order to overturn jury verdicts would require a revolution in the criminal justice system. The jury would effectively have to be abolished.

---