When they play the same standard as men they should get the same pay as men.
When they play the same standard as men they should get the same pay as men.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50297794
The way this article is written makes it seem like she'd been adrift for 3 months. 2 days
Mogg should be sacked for those Grenfell comments, absolutely fucking shameful. If any more evidence were needed he's a sociopath then that's it.
A combined 20 years, if even that, for what they did to her is disgraceful. But at least the judge can rest easy in his mansion away from such annoyances.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019...el-sentencing/
They are children. It is in everyone's interest to give them an opportunity to reform and live a different life as adults, desire for vengeance aside.
Through the whole thing they have had zero remorse for any of it. At that stage they should never see daylight again but in this age a lot of people seem to always have more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victim. Remember, she was a child herself and there's no reform for her.
I guess it comes down to the larger question of the purpose of the justice system. I think there's still hope for kids of that age to reform.
What sort of life do you think they might have led up to that point to be doing something like that? I imagine you might be surprised what you were capable of given the right (wrong) childhood. People just like to detach themselves from kids like that and make them out to be filth, because it makes them feel superior.
But it's not about sympathy anyway. Purely from the point of societal benefit, it's much better if you can reform them rather than keeping them in prison for 70 years.
Last edited by randomlegend; 05-11-2019 at 07:23 PM.
They've had no hard life. They wanted to expense a rape and a kill and did it without remorse.
How do you know?
I personally think that when the day comes when we can determine whether someone is psychopathic by scanning their brain or analyzing their DNA we should kill them on the spot. Preferably before they're even born.
I never understand why even if people like that do 'reform' they deserve to walk amongst the rest of us. Oh, fair enough lads. You're reformed now. You didn't mean it. All the best. Meanwhile, she's still raped and dead.
Ultimately then you believe the death penalty or life imprisonment is the only solution and rehabilitation is impossible, fair?
In cases where you're obviously dealing with psychopaths, yes. From the details of the case and them during the case, a rehabilitation attempt on them isn't worth the risk to an innocent future victim of theirs. Protect the people who haven't committed the crime.
I believe in the death penalty in principle but not in practice. What I mean is that I would have no problem with certain criminals being offed. However, seeing as you can never be absolutely one-hundred per cent certain of their guilt, the possibility always remains that you end up doing the wrong person in. With that in mind, I'm quite happy for those people to spend the rest of their lives inside. I don't necessarily believe that rehabilitation is 'impossible'. I just don't think reforming yourself should be considered enough to escape the most severe punishment.
I do wonder how many people have been falsely imprisoned due to 'indisputable' forensic evidence. Must be a terrifying amount.
That's was some doing that Kevin Lunney got from the provos. Interview was an awful listen.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/...-kevin-lunney/
.
Last edited by Giggles; 06-11-2019 at 10:10 PM.
Ian Simms still pleads innocence (“how can I tell you where the body is when I didn’t do anything?”) but his whole ‘someone must have broke into my house and dressed in my clothes’ schtick is far from convincing.
I'm a twit
Suing L'Oréal as well as the chemist and winning it is new levels of impressive.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...-38685711.html
They run this thing called The Innocence Project here where they push DNA testing for a lot of these cases and they've actually exonerated more than 20 people off of death row.
So basically we know for a fact the court of law has killed innocent people. Just one is terrifying enough for me.
DNA testing is a complex subject. Prosecutors will use clever wording to make it sound like DNA evidence is indisputable, and juries hear "DNA evidence" and immediately assume it's a slam dunk.
I have a massive fear of being falsely accused of a crime. I've told my wife that if I die unexpectedly, to refuse to answer any questions from the police no matter what. I'd much rather she didn't end up falsely imprisoned than my killers getting caught.
Unless the bitch actually murders me.
In case anyone was interested https://www.innocenceproject.org/all...-death-penalty
We've all got the alibis that we were posting on here at 11.49pm that night.
'Can you think of any reason he could have sweated to death in his coat?'
I’ve read a lot of innocence project cases before and in 90% it’s obvious that the defendant committed the crime, and they’re trying to get off on a technicality. I’d take them a lot more seriously if they focused on cases where there was a reasonable doubt
So do you support the death penalty? @mugbull
This isn't a gotcha question so feel free to answer freely.
I think he's more likely trying to point out that the 'Innocence Project' would get more support if they were trying to help people who were actually innocent.
Oh no sure I understand that I was just segwaying into another thought because ironically up until like two years ago I supported the death penalty in certain situations. Once I found out about the Innocence Project and started thinking about how awful it must be for an actual innocent person to have nothing but time on their hands to countdown the remainder of their life to the exact second I started thinking twice about it as a whole.
On one hand, I've always felt like some of these things are cut and dry, like the Sandy Hook guy I would've gave a bullet and been done with it if that makes sense.
But then it's like... where do we as humans get off on the idea we should have the right to decide whether someone lives or dies? Aren't we deriving that "right", for the most part, based out of religious text (eye for an eye or what have you).
So since I've kinda.. i don't wanna say struggled but.. tossed the idea around and still really don't know how I feel about it if I'm totally honest.
For example, the latest big news story case like this, a gentleman by the name of Rodney Reed is scheduled to be executed I believe within the next couple weeks. Reading about his story, however, leaves a lot of pause for me that... how can we be so sure to kill this man?
I believe it may have been you Spikes or someone else that said something about how DNA evidence isn't fault proof. In this instance it appears once DNA was found in the victim (who was having a consensual affair with the accused) they basically tossed aside all other evidence, did very little investigating on other leads, and just went straight for the accused and later convicted. A lot of racial undertones, for example.
I say all this because then you have instances like we're talking about... where it seems pretty evident and obvious that the accused is guilty and the Innoncence Project is looking for technicalities.
On one hand, even if I feel they are guilty, do I think we have the right to kill them?
And furthermore, if there's even any doubt whatsoever, shouldn't that bring pause to actually killing the person? And then folks will say, oh, but why should taxpayers subsidize the cost to keeping this person alive when they could be done with it. Well what is the price on a person's life? How do you determine that?
So that's why I made sure to say it wasn't a gotcha question because I was looking more for different perspectives than an argument xx
sry for the essay but it's just something I've thought a lot about over the passed few years and even going back to the case of Troy Davis.
Where in some instances it seems as if obviously they're going to keep trying whatever method they can to stay alive as long as they can regardless if they're innocent or not.... so for me it's like... okay, where do we draw the line and stop letting people preach their innocence in that case? How many chances do you get? How long is too long to introduce new evidence?
Why wouldn't we want to continue to hear new evidence if it's pertinent to the situation? What line do we set that says "Okay buddy look, we've given you x amount of chances, we just can't be bothered listening anymore?"
All of this with a person's life in the balance.
A person is killed and the person who kills them is killed by the state. Two lives lost. Two families affected.
And then you have instances where evidence was destroyed that could have now been used because of new technology.
It's all very scary to think about IMHO.
I can see how when a person has done a horrible thing how somebody might want the culprit put down but you can't really, as a government, be going "Oh no it's okay if we do a revenge murder, we just won't call it that."
It's not a deterrent and I don't think it actually saves money does it? Or have I made that up and just think I read it somewhere?
It's nonsense regardless of whether you can be 100% certain.
The number of Death Row inmates that actually get executed must be a tiny percentage. Most of them just sit on a cushy wing, in a single cell, until they die of natural causes. The prisoners in 'Gen-Pop' have it much harder.
With regards to death sentences themselves - I am opposed. But I find it difficult to actually care when they're carried out.
The state only exists insofar as it retains the monopoly on organised violence, so it's not really a contradiction. Otherwise how come they can steal off me and imprison me for not going along with it?
The state makes decisions that kill people all the time but I reckon we're probably better off minimising that as much as we can, plus you inevitably get the wrong person sometimes.
This'll lighten the mood a bit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertain...0s8TN-l77G8DA#
What do the state steal from you anyway?
Our hearts.