Search Results

Should juvenile offenders be tried as adults when they commit heinous crimes? At the heart of this debate lies the tension between justice, rehabilitation and moral responsibility. Many countries, including the UK and the United States, maintain a clear distinction between juvenile and adult courts. Historically, this separation has been driven by the belief that those under the age of eighteen lack cognitive maturity. They may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, and therefore deserve a system focused primarily on rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, this distinction becomes deeply contested when the crime committed is one of extreme violence, such as murder or battery. Regardless of the offender’s age, a life lost represents the destruction of human connection, love, and future potential. If the harm inflicted is the same, should accountability differ drastically based on age? Furthermore, who determines that individuals under eighteen are inherently more capable of rehabilitation than those just beyond this legal threshold? If society maintains that all humans possess the capacity for change, then age alone appears as an arbitrary basis for differentiated justice. Historically, particularly in the UK and the US, juvenile justice systems emerged in response to concerns that children were being over-policed and over-criminalised. The creation of separate juvenile courts aimed to “treat” rather than merely punish young offenders, prioritising rehabilitation to foster a more cohesive future society. There was also a strong concern for the safety of children, as exposure to hardened adult criminals was believed to increase the likelihood of further offending. Yet even within this framework, exceptions have existed. In cases of especially heinous crimes, juveniles have occasionally been tried in adult courts and subjected to lengthy sentences. This raises a crucial question: Does this approach better serve justice, or does it undermine the foundational principles of juvenile justice? By the late twentieth century, youth crime appeared to take on a more brutal and remorseless character. Cultural representations such as A Clockwork Orange , alongside real-world cases like the murder of James Bulger, shocked the global public conscience. Crimes committed by children were increasingly perceived as senseless, merciless, and devoid of empathy. This moral panic spread internationally, prompting governments to abandon rehabilitative ideals in favour of harsher punitive measures. Many US states lowered the age at which juveniles could be tried as adults, and in some cases, children were sentenced to life imprisonment. The impact of these policies was significant: following a peak in youth crime rates, a sharp decline occurred after these measures were implemented. From a deterrence perspective, trying juveniles as adults appeared to offer a restoration of public safety, albeit at the cost of humane principles. Yet this shift raises a deeper philosophical question: why does violence among children occur at all?  The eighteenth-century philosopher John Locke proposed the concept of tabula rasa , suggesting that individuals are born innocent and shaped by their environment. From this empiricist perspective, youth violence reflects societal failure rather than inherent moral corruption. Factors such as parental neglect, social isolation, poverty, and most importantly, the influence of social media, play a substantial role in pushing young people over the edge toward crime. If society itself contributes to shaping violent behaviour, should the legal system not respond with greater understanding and a stronger commitment to rehabilitation? Viewing children as individuals with future potential implies that justice should be applied circumstantially, with genuine belief in their capacity to change. However, historical evidence complicates this optimism. In the James Bulger case, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released after eight years on the basis of their youth and the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile system. Yet Venables later reoffended and returned to prison for possessing and sexually abusing material towards children. This outcome, alongside many similar cases, exposes the fragility of the assumption that those of a young age can be successfully rehabilitated. It also raises the question of who truly benefits from such leniency. Certainly, the parents of James Bulger do not believe justice was served. The middle ground The jury is still out on this conundrum. The issue of whether juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes resists a simple conclusion. Multiple social, psychological, and environmental factors contribute to youth violence, and these must be addressed if long-term prevention is to be achieved rather than a sole belief in rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it remains essential to acknowledge that a human life is irrevocably lost or degraded due to the actions of individuals, regardless of age. While separating juvenile and adult courts may serve a broader societal purpose, punishment must still reflect the severity of the crime. Reduced sentences for children may be appropriate, but this must not occur at the cost of trivialising the atrocity committed. There is, perhaps, no punishment that can truly equate to the loss of a life, but it is clear that eight years for the murder of a baby cannot be morally or socially justified. Courts must take into account the difficulty in improving individuals who have been involved in crime from a young age. As a result, for the benefit of society, crimes must be judged accordingly and not softly.

Is violence quintessential in protests? Is there any precedent involving violence in protest movements? Are systems themselves the main perpetrators of this violence? Just a note before, I am not advocating violence, but exploring potential reasons behind protestors tendency to resort to violence. Protests occur because of disagreement or disapproval with a particular idea, policy, or action. To express this opposition, many protesters resort to some form of violence to get their message across. Force is often seen as a natural response to dispute. Historically, this has frequently been the case. The suffragette movement in the early twentieth century, the civil rights movement in America against racial segregation, and the French Revolution in the eighteenth century are all pertinent examples that highlight humanity’s tendency to resort to violence. Is this instinctive within human nature? Is force not so much easier than passive protest? One reason many protesters advocate violence is a feeling of insignificance. Gargantuan monopolies and institutions hold vast political and economic power, making it difficult for small unions or minority groups to compete. Think about when you're at school. Do we not get the feeling of insignificance to teachers and the educational system, despite outnumbering them? Violence becomes a tool that both attracts attention and allows the minority to exert influence. Is this not, for some, the very purpose of protest? Furthermore, protests often concern grand narratives such as environmental protection or opposition to war, as seen in the anti–Vietnam War protests. If a small minority uses violence to reduce violence on a much larger scale, could this be considered a legitimate justification? Despite limited legal grounds supporting violence in protest, some cases have alluded to narrow circumstances in which force may arise. ‘ R (Ziegler) v DPP’  primarily concerned peaceful protest, yet judicial reasoning touched upon the boundaries of unlawful conduct. In exceptional situations, violence may occur lawfully, such as in self-defence against unlawful police force. While most protest-related violence remains illegal, there is limited space within the law where force may be acknowledged rather than outright dismissed. Is peace the solution? However, most people would agree that violence is not the desirable approach. Violence is widely viewed as immoral and socially taboo, yet this alone is often insufficient to deter it. Instead, legal authority plays a central role. An array of legislations have been introduced to restrict the use of violence, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. While these statutes collectively discourage violent behaviour, arguably the most influential instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 19 and 20 of the Declaration state that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” and “the right to peaceful assembly and association.” This universal framework strongly opposes the use of violence in protest. When violence occurs, fundamental rights may be lost and innocent civilians often suffer the consequences. While violence may sometimes appear effective, is it ethically and morally defensible? Mahatma Gandhi provides a powerful counterargument: can peaceful protest genuinely challenge authority and achieve meaningful results? Gandhi’s ideology centred on non-violence combined with deliberate civil disruption. By encouraging millions to openly defy British colonial laws, he undermined the legitimacy of British rule in India. This approach paved the way for future peaceful movements that achieved significant change while minimising loss of life. More recently, figures such as Greta Thunberg in Sweden demonstrate how non-violent protest can mobilise global attention and influence policy. How effective her protest was that she gained global attention at only 15. Peaceful protest can also expose corruption or unlawful conduct by governments and institutions. When the state responds with force while protesters remain peaceful, protesters gain moral authority and public sympathy. This aligns closely with the protections offered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly freedom of expression and assembly. By avoiding punishment and maintaining moral legitimacy, peaceful protest arguably maximises both ethical standing and impact. Is this not the ideal form of protest? The Middle Ground As demonstrated, force is often the type of protest that generates the greatest immediate attention. Conversely, peaceful protest also carries significant advantages; while sometimes perceived as less effective, it raises awareness while limiting harm to human life. On this basis, non-violent protest may appear to be the preferable option. But what if there is a more balanced solution? Two potential middle-ground approaches emerge: conditional non-violence  and disruption without harm . Conditional non-violence  proposes that peaceful protest should always be the starting point, with escalation only occurring after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted and failed to produce change. This approach acknowledges the moral and legal strengths of non-violence while recognising historical instances where force followed prolonged inaction. Violence is not celebrated or deemed morally right; rather, it is framed as a reluctant response to systemic failure. In matters of significant public interest—such as opposition to war or challenging harmful industries—could limited force be justified to protect the wider population? This approach raises serious ethical dilemmas but may offer a pragmatic explanation for escalation. This issue is highly relevant to our generation because many protests begin at the student level. A key example is the Vietnam War, when university students in Ohio organised anti-war protests against U.S. involvement during the 1960s. This led to the ‘Kent State shooting’, in which police unlawfully opened fire on students, resulting in several college students being killed and others injured. In such circumstances, the question arises: is violence ever appropriate? As discussed above, student protest plays a crucial role in society, which is precisely why this debate is so important. Alternatively, disruption without harm  advocates forceful protest that avoids violence against individuals. Methods such as mass civil disobedience, road blockages, and property damage have historically been employed. This approach blends elements of peace and force, though it leans closer to the latter. However, unintended consequences may arise. For example, protests aimed at protecting animal rights may inadvertently harm animals themselves, going against the cause of the protest. Nevertheless, all forms of protest present challenges, whether violent or peaceful. Ultimately, these middle-ground approaches attempt to reconcile moral restraint with political effectiveness. Arguably, the most effective solution would be ethical and accountable conduct by powerful institutions themselves. While this may appear idealistic, it highlights a deeper issue: meaningful reform is still required—within law, rights, and systems alike.

Order. Without legislation, chaos would ensue. It is undeniable that legislation and statutes are fundamental to the functioning of society, but can they be improved? As outlined by multiple provisions in the law, statutes exist to improve society. But do elected MPs, the Prime Minister, and the Monarch fully understand what is socially perfect for society? Should public opinion be involved in this decision-making process? This article delves precisely into these questions. The Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Court, and the Supreme Court are all designed to operate independently of public opinion in order to remain neutral and unbiased. This separation exists primarily to uphold fairness and justice. Like many judicial processes, judges strive to remain consistent in their interpretation and application of the law. However, if emotion and public opinion were to infiltrate judicial decision-making, outcomes could become highly variable. Judges might rule against a defendant in one case and dismiss a similar case in another. This lack of certainty would undermine the very foundation of judicial reasoning, which is why the judiciary divorces itself from public judgements. Because law has a national impact, a single inconsistent decision can have severe unintended repercussions. This is the fundamental reason why law must maintain consistency. Is justice better when it is consistent or variable? Undeniably, consistency is preferable. Furthermore, if statutes were influenced by fluctuating public value judgements, this could spiral into widespread corruption - precisely what the law seeks to prevent. Continuing with the idea of corruption and value judgement, Winston Churchill stated that there was “no such thing as public opinion.” Expanding on this perspective, Churchill suggests that public opinion is filtered and often manufactured. What we perceive as free will may in fact be shaped by political narratives and societal issues that have persisted throughout our lives. His view raises the question: is there ever such a thing as public opinion free from political influence? From this perspective, incorporating public opinion directly into policy and statutes would be a grave mistake. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln, famously claimed that “public opinion in this country is everything.” This opposing view touches upon the fundamental building block of any democratic state: the public. If the law exists to serve the public, and politics exists to represent the public, then why should the public not influence how statutes govern society? (1) Historical evidence suggests that public opinion does have the power to influence policy and decision-making. During World War II, President Roosevelt was initially reluctant to commit to anti-German war efforts, particularly due to the lingering effects of the Great Depression. However, through increasing public pressure, boycotts, demonstrations, and ultimately the bombing of Pearl Harbour, the American president aligned himself with public sentiment. While this example concerns policy rather than statutes, it demonstrates the potential for public opinion to shape national direction and could support the argument for incorporating public opinion into overarching statutes when it benefits society. However, research suggests that public opinion is constantly changing, shaped by the circumstances of each decade. Public opinion in the 1940s would be strikingly different from that of today. If statutes fail to change proportionally, can they still maintain order rationally? This argument can be viewed from both perspectives. On one hand, statutes and provisions are regularly updated to reflect new social developments. For example, proposals such as the under-16 social media ban backed by the House of Lords show Parliament responding to modern social concerns that were irrelevant centuries ago. On the other hand, it can be argued that the pace of legislative change does not match the rapid transformation of the modern world. International law, for instance, appears increasingly ineffective in the face of global conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel–Gaza conflict. These laws aim to curb conflict and maintain order, yet their enforcement remains limited. This raises the question of whether incorporating public opinion could accelerate necessary change. The Middle Ground As this discussion draws to a close, it becomes clear that the contrast between past and present is central to this debate. During the Brexit process in 2019/2020, Theresa May famously stated that “the public have had enough.” The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union was driven largely by public opinion and resulted in significant changes to statutes, trade relationships, and national politics. This moment illustrates the growing influence of public opinion on MPs, who possess the authority to amend statutes. However, fifty to one hundred years ago, the relationship between Parliament and the public was far weaker. Parliamentary proceedings were largely inaccessible, and decisions were made with minimal transparency, epitomised by the absence of cameras in Parliament. This dynamic has shifted significantly in the twenty-first century due to increased public engagement and accountability. (2) As discussed, there are clear limitations to public opinion influencing statutes: minority voices may be overshadowed, and the risk of corruption increases, undermining the core principles of law—fairness and consistency. However, a balanced approach may offer a solution. Rather than excluding public opinion entirely, MPs and councillors should acknowledge public judgement while remaining open-minded and selective in its application. This approach would allow for well-informed decision-making while preserving legal integrity. After all, law can only function effectively when the public adheres to it. Has your opinion now changed?   1.        Public opinion can play a positive role in policy making | Public Leaders Network | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2012/sep/03/public-opinion-influence-policy 2.        How can the public effect real change in Parliament? | The British Academy [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/summer-showcase-2019-public-effect-change-parliament/

The monster article: "Intelligence without emotion?" The world we are living in is ever-changing; continuous developments and innovations are shaping the modern world, with the paramount discovery being in ‘Artificial Intelligence.’ It is a problem solver. The legal profession is not exempt from its impact. Many would believe that it would be a disadvantage not to implement AI in a firm. But is this really so? The use of AI can open many possibilities: not only would it improve the access to justice, but also can bring in a greater clientele by increasing the efficiency of work. After all, time is what the firm is selling. Whilst on one level this could benefit both clients and the firm, it could result in job displacement, vulnerabilities in data protection and ethical risks, all which carries immense costs. Therefore, a firm looking to implement AI within their infrastructure would need to weigh up both the pros and cons, deciding how best to utilise AI in the short and long term.  Income: A legal firm is a business. Like any business, income is what allows the firm to function - from paying wages and training future lawyers to hiring offices to run the firm. Therefore, the clients and cash flow the firms bring is of utmost importance. A firm’s vast earnings come from the number of hours that are billed. How could the introduction of AI influence this flow of income? The increase of efficiency AI provides by saving a significant amount of time would reduce the number of hours lawyers and paralegals can bill. Since the traditional method was to bill clients using the ‘hourly rate,’ which allowed for flexibility and transparency, the use of AI would make this extremely uneconomical for firms. Clients would benefit extremely by paying less for a task that can be completed at a faster rate through AI than if the task was worked on by a lawyer. On top of this, the cost for the firm to implement AI in their work is substantial, ranging from ‘$5,000 to $500,000’. This would suggest AI may disadvantage firms in both the short and long term. However, impending changes the firms are implementing would reverse these inconveniences. Restructuring the firm’s charging model to a ‘fixed fee’ model would result in AI improving the firm. This would mean that the firm has a guaranteed bill, meaning that the amount of time and resources spent on the case would not impact the income coming in. This would result in firms putting more money in AI to improve their efficiency, expediting tasks to handle a greater number of clients and increasing their income. However, many would argue that firms' quality of work and productivity would reduce, prioritising speed over quality. But this argument is rendered meaningless due to the profits the firm makes through client retention. Studies show that client retention by 5% can increase profitability by ‘25% to 95%’ because of the lower cost in retaining clients than acquiring others. Therefore, firms will also prioritise quality and results, making AI a tool that not only improves speed of these outcomes for the firm, but also benefits the client immensely in the work provided for them. Whilst this may be theoretical, the use of AI to benefit both the client and the firm can be seen in a real-life case study. This involved the UK ‘Serious Fraud Office (SFO)’ investigating the famous ‘Rolls Royce’ for large-scale international bribery in 2017. This case involved the reviewing of 30 million + documents, which would have been impossible in time and cost if done manually for the SFO. Therefore, SFO worked in partnership with the AI company - ‘RAVN’ - to process these documents. This processed around 600,000 documents daily, cutting 80% of the workload in review. Ultimately, due to the inconsistency in which the company’s AI discovered, ‘Rolls Royce’ settled for £671 million, which would not have been possible without this AI tool. These staggering figures reflect the power of AI and the benefits were immense. Not only did this bring justice, it helped the SFO to secure future government funding and public trust, as well as the AI company gaining international recognition. This boosted credibility and influence across the entire legal field. Therefore, despite this case being in the public sector, this case reflects that AI can have significant benefits for all parties involved financially as well in seeking justice. But this case did not show that AI only has benefits. It highlighted that it could increase the number of unemployed lawyers. When the SFO partnered with the AI company, many barristers were offloaded because of how effective the AI was. Whilst the firm may benefit from the profit, employees may be disadvantaged. Not only the job insecurity, but it will create unequal access; those most comfortable with technology will benefit. However, this can also be balanced with the new career paths it opens as well as using the skills of workers to the greatest use. Despite there being ethical concerns of discrimination in terms of skills, it could also be balanced with the new skills it can offer to present and future employees.  Data Protection: Like most ideas and innovations, benefits always come with problems. Whilst AI allows firms to process and review ‘2000 times’ (5) faster than human lawyers, the problems that arise are because of the type of data that is being handled with. Much of the information on these documents are extremely sensitive and a liability. It is an obligation for any lawyer to maintain confidentiality with clients' information. When AI is used to process this information, they become a third-party, which weakens confidentiality. However, poor handling of this information can have immense repercussions - if the AI breaches privacy, under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act (2018), firms can face huge fines, can face negligence claims as well as trust. This can reduce the number of clients retained, which can have huge losses for the firm. Furthermore, the greater firms push towards using AI, it opens the firm to vulnerabilities against cyber attacks. This problem has already arisen in the past concerning ‘Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (USA).’ In April 2024, this law firm had to make an $8 million settlement over data breach affecting 600,000 individuals due to a malicious attack. Not only these costs, but extra costs are made through the implementation of cybersecurity and staff training. All this would suggest AI can have disastrous outcomes for any law firm. So is it worth this risk? Use of AI in international law: International law (the ‘law of nations’) is the ‘set of rules, principles and agreement that governs how countries interact with one another. The main purpose of international law is to maintain peace, protect human rights and advocate security. These rules come from treaties e.g the Paris agreement, judicial decisions and unwritten rules that act in good faith. Therefore, the introduction of AI within this sector of law would have global implications. AI can assist in drafting international agreements as well as predicting outcomes of cross-boarder disputes - all which could improve how effective the law is globally. However problems can occur within the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These laws are used to regulate human behaviour, but if an autonomous weapon is used (which could cause mass destruction), who is at fault? The programmer, the state? These problems of ‘accountability’ are blurred with the use of AI, however, many still believe human oversight is still fundamental in tackling this problem. Furthermore, AI systems are being increasingly used in border control and surveillance, for example the AI biometric recognition software installed in Heathrow. However, under international human right laws, there are legal obligations to maintain privacy and to prevent discrimination, which is difficult when AI makes biased decisions. However, the ‘Council of Europe’s 2024 AI convention’ passed a binding treaty that forced governments to ensure AI operates within the rule of law in terms of human rights. The demand for transparency means that AI can be used fairly and still greatly impact international law enforcement. This is explored further through organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and G7 for a shared responsibility of AI to ensure fairness during regulation but also encourage innovation within the use of AI internationally. In the future, AI can be used to arrive at agreements much more quickly than treaties and enforce much more effectively, however, this must not be at the expense of global stability and human rights. Human vs AI: The debate between the skills of humanity and the skills of artificial intelligence continue as AI enters the legal field. AI comes with many benefits for firms during cases: analysing thousands of documents to find inconsistencies and loop holes to be exploited. It could also offer equality in punishments and remove bias upon decision making. But can these machines ever truly understand justice when it is all about emotion and empathy? Especially during family and criminal law, logic and reason are not the only determining factors in the case. Rather empathy, genuine emotion and moral nuances in the case play a significant role - which AI can easily miss, but not by human lawyers, juries and judges. This is extremely evident in the Re G children [2006] UKHL case (names omitted for privacy protection). This case involved the splitting of a same-sex couple and the question of who cares for the children. Lower courts ruled that the biologically-linked mother should hold custody. But the case was re-opened in the House of Lords, in which the judge looked at the emotional reality of the case rather than biological facts. The judge stressed that the decision must be for the welfare of the children, ruling for shared-custody. This decision would be illogical for AI to compute, which would suggest the need for humanity in the field of law. AI can only achieve justice to an extent. Rather, human lawyers are still needed to achieve justice when AI misses. The future in law: By weighing all the pros and cons AI brings to the legal industry, making a right decision is extremely difficult. Looking through any perspective, whether it is the lawyer, firm, client - the introduction of AI carries immense risks, but can also reap rewards. A solution to this problem could be to mediate halfway - implement AI slowly, allowing for current and future lawyers to adapt, aiding to reduce discrimination  as well as reduce reliance on AI. With universities and firms already providing technological education, future lawyers will be able to use their empathy as well as technological knowledge to best support their clients and firm. Therefore, there will not be a competition between the human and the AI - rather there will be a relationship which will benefit all.