Major Arguments:
On War Crimes:
"Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies." This is an example of how the International Court is taking over the countries right to rule. The given scenario is in a state of warfare, therefore, as the warring nation sees fit, the killing of prisoners of war and inhumane conduct towards the persons involved is a fine way to reach victory in war. The point of warfare is to defeat the opponent, by any means necessary. The so-called, 'murder' of prisoners-of-war SHOULD be mandated, given that the prisons are overflowing and that there needs to be room for more POWs. Also, in a warring environment, a deterrent to escaping or causing trouble, is to execute those responsible.
Scenario A- Three Prisoners of War escape. Under the current resolution, this doesn't allow for the guards to shoot down the escapees, as would be mandated and done by guards of any normal penitentiary, without judicial punishment.
"The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties." In warfare, the only way to win is to kill the opposing side, so that they may not in turn kill your people first. This proposal will never be upheld because of the nature of how many people are responsible for it, (whether the head of state is, military leader, manufacturers, the resolution has left out.) The foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties is a given. The more civilian casualties give the more likely chance that the other country will be ready to surrender. The restriction of weapons used, also stunt the ability for the nation to grow on a militaristic scale and stunts the research in the possible benefits received from manufacturing such weapons. This statement restricts the ability for a nation to grow technologically.
Section E,:
"Once acquitted by the ICC, no person shall be retried by the ICC for the same offense." This doesn't allow for the prosecution to bring forth new evidence that wasn't found or even legalised to do so at the time of the first trial. A no-retrial law will see more guilty criminals no longer subjected to do jail time for their crimes because of the unknown evidence at the time wasn't there to prove their guilt. If this is repealed, then, the new found evidence which will guarantee the persons guilt, will never be able to surface and will leave potential criminals still in the public. Another point, for mass murders, where the defendant is found guilty for several crimes, but not more, they are somewhat acquitted, and therefore not subjected to an added sentence by proving their guilt for the other crimes.
Section F:
"The ICC shall never impose the death penalty." This is essentially encouraging re-offending in some ways because they are not going to be punished to such an extent that their lives will end. Swifter Capital Punishment being practiced will save much more money for the ICC, if still in existence, or for the countries themselves, because tax payers will not have to pay for their murderers, rapists and drug dealers to be given food, shelter and unemployment. The death penalty SHOULD be used for heinous crimes, such as First-degree murder and arranged murders. This will act as a crime deterrent and free up prisons and give countries the ability to lower their taxes slightly for their citizens benefit.
