Argument: Fear of prosecutions cause leaders to do more damage

Instead of giving up fighting, leaders continue to fight, disrupting the ability of a country to move on, for fear of prosecution. Pol Pot, for example, rebuilt armies and continued to fight long after his regime was overthrown, killing thousands more people. Had an amnesty been offered, he might well have given up and allowed the country to heal with far less death. Joseph Kony also continues to plague Uganda from within bush land even though he has offered to surrender for amnesty, because the ICC refuses to grant him any indemnity for his crimes [1].

[1] BBC news Africa, ‘LRA leader Joseph Kony 'in surrender talks' with CAR’, bbc.co.uk, 20 November 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25027616

Candidate 1: "Prosecutions are needed for victims

Prosecutions are the only way for victims to see those who caused pain against them brought to justice. The alternative of some kind of reconciliation often leaves those who perpetrated crimes able to retain power as has happened in countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Guatemala[1]. When this happens there is clearly a concern both that these individuals are not being held to account and that they could act in a similar way again if given the opportunity. Under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, victims have a right to see offenders prosecuted[2]. And it is only prosecution that will ensure that such acts cannot occur again so giving peace of mind to victims.

[1] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147 http://www.princeton.edu/~bsimpson/Human%20Rights/articles/Osial,%20Why%20Prosecute%20-%20Critics%20of%20Punishment%20for%20Mass%20Atrocity.htm

[2] Akhavan, Payam, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities' American Journal of International Law, 95(1), 2001, pp.7-31"
Candidate 2: "The only just method

Prosecuting offenders is the only way to get a just outcome when there have been horrific crimes committed. At a most principled level, those who commit a crime ought to be held accountable for their actions even if they are powerful or it damages the chances of peace because the powerful must be shown not to be above the law. Even where the law did not exist, or the leaders were in control of the law, international norms provide a standard for what actions merit prosecution, and judiciaries have been very good at convicting those who committed atrocities[1]. Having those who committed crimes convicted by law courts helps prevent those affected by atrocities holding grudges and put the past behind them so aiding the healing process [2].

[1] Moore, John J Jr ‘Problems With Forgiveness’ 43 Stanford Law Review 733, February 1991

[2] abc news, ‘Dallas Holocaust survivors welcome prosecution of former Nazi guard’, wfaa.com, 20 August 2010, http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Dallas--101185974.html"
Candidate 3: "It is the threat of prosecutions that cause leaders to fear committing crimes in the first place. The best way to stop leaders causing damage is for them to be deterred from doing so by being held accountable of their deeds."
Candidate 4: "Deters future offences

By prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes future leaders are dissuaded from committing such acts [1]. When criminals are held accountable, the belief in the reliability of the legal system is enhanced, society is strengthened by the experience that the legal system is able to defend itself and the sense of justice is upheld or rectified [2].

Since the Office of the Prosecutor announced its interest in Colombia in 2006, the government has taken a number of measures particularly the Peace and Justice Law to ensure domestic prosecution of those who could potentially be tried by the ICC. The threat of ICC prosecution appears to have concerned former President Pastrana. Vincente Castrano (AUC) a paramilitary leader was fearful of the possibility of ICC prosecution, a fear that reportedly directly contributed to his group’s demobilisation[3].

[1] Safferlin, Christoph J.M., ‘Can Criminal prosecution be the answer to massive Human Rights Violations?’, issafrica.org, http://www.issafrica.org/anicj/uploads/Safferling_Human_Rights_Violations.pdf

[2] Grono, Nick, ‘ The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders ’, globalpolicy.org, 5 October 2012, http://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/51978-the-deterrent-effect-of-the-icc-on-the-commission-of-international-crimes-by-government-leaders.html?itemid=id"
Candidate 5: "International prosecution encourages domestic justice

By introducing internationally based prosecution, the laws are able to effectively filter down into the domestic system. The international system takes care of powerful offenders who might otherwise not receive a fair trial or be brought to justice. This then allows domestic courts to prosecute those involved in the crimes at a lower level. This has worked in Ivory coast where the former leader was brought to face charges committed at home and also helped stabilize the situation in the country [1].

[1] Smith, David, ‘Laurent Gbagbo appears before international criminal court’, thegurdian.com, 5 December 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/05/laurent-gbagbo-international-criminal-court1"
Candidate 6: "This often leads to a scenario where leaders grant themselves immunity, or continue to commit atrocities, in the comfort of knowing that immunity is coming. Those in the CIA who committed what many consider to have been torture were granted immunity by the justice department claiming that it would be unfair to prosecute men and women working to protect America [1]. Such an immunity or amnesty can then be used to close discussions to find the truth and effectively shut of the healing process.

[1] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers’, thegurdian.com, 31 August 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer"
Candidate 7: "Prosecutions allow an equal chance for both prosecution and defense to show the truth as they believe it with the result that far more facts are brought to life than a process that is reliant only on the individual being ‘truthful’. Moreover an amnesty may not be forever as it is against the norms of international justice so it is unlikely that they will tell the whole truth.[1] Argentina for example has seen the prosecution of those who were given amnesties two decades earlier [2].

[1] Ahmed, Anees and Quayle, Merryn, ‘Can genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be pardoned or amnestied?’, sas.ac.uk, 28 January 2008, http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/2563/1/Amicus79_Ahmed%26Quayle.pdf

[2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012, http://www.hrcolumbia.org/rightsnews/may2012/trials_in_argentina"

It is the threat of prosecutions that cause leaders to fear committing crimes in the first place. The best way to stop leaders causing damage is for them to be deterred from doing so by being held accountable of their deeds.
