News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The two justifiable cases for the death penalty
All Violent crimes committed by members of the military.
Prosecutors where an executed individual has been subsequently vindicated.
Both mandatory minimum sentences. That is all.
So, you would give the death penalty to a prosecutor who has sought justice but condemned an innocent man to death?
That seems somewhat reasonable, actually.
...But not someone who raped and drowned a 23-month-old girl in his care? Assuming he actually did that, of course.
I've always believed in death penalty for sex abuse of minors (and especially preteen/younger kids). I won't debate it because I understand the arguments that capital punishment has no place in civilised society and all that.
This is one of the main points. Whenever the death penalty comes up, proponents like to use what I call the "ultimate evil". They propose some criminal that's guilty of all the worst things they can throw at it (rape, child rape, murder, torture, etc). Then ask rhetorically if that person should be put to death. It's easy to defeat that argument by asking, "After that person is dead, it's uncovered that they were innocent (like actually innocent, not some technicality or only guilty of a lesser crime like manslaughter) and the victim of some elaborate framing by a massively corrupt system. Are you still happy with the outcome?" I'll be one of the first to say there are people in the world that deserve to die. I can name the certain acts too that I'm sure many would agree with and maybe some that less agree with. But then who carries out the act? And are you willing to put 100% trust in them that they get it right every single time?
You reminded me of this wisdom from Gandalf:
Pretty much why I'm anti-death-penalty in all cases. The state shouldn't be allowed to deal death as a punishment, because there's too much at stake. You can't un-kill someone if you get things wrong, and prosecutors have a vested interest in, at the very least, not being wrong. Being right doesn't matter, but being wrong can cost you your position or your credibility within the legal field. Killing the defendant wraps things up nicely because a corpse can't defend itself, and it can't say "I wasn't there" or "I had nothing to do with this", it can't plead its own innocence - so you can put whatever words you like into their mouths and it plays perfectly with a jury.
You really dovetailed into the sex offences here.
We are talking about a man who was literally exonerated due to the primary evidence used for prosecution being absolute horseshit. The girl's mother has also flat out said "he did not do that".
Please remember that
Just going from the article.
The article said he was exonerated because the bite matching science was bunk. But she wasn't killed by biting, she was killed by drowning, so I'm not sure where the bite even came into play.
They never said he didn't rape or kill that baby. Just that he didn't bite her.
The girl's mother wasn't there. She left her baby alone with this guy. She doesn't think he'd do that because, as is commonly the situation (and thus, this becomes speculation), she lacked the self-confidence to meet a man who wasn't a child predator. That's one thing child predators do. They seek out poor women with low self esteem who have children who are a burden to them. "Oh yeah I'll stay at home with your child while you go to work," they say. They don't have to work, and they have free access to the child? Win-win in their book. Of course the guy treats them well, they give him all he wants. Many of them even excuse the abuse, they'll say their child seduced their man, their child was jealous, or the abuse isn't that bad, or whatever. Happens all the time. Again, speculation here but it is pretty common.
You are again building an entire scenario out of whole cloth - and worse, convinced yourself is the only possibility
If you read up a bit more there's further information that supports the conclusion - reached by Judge Sharp - of accidental drowning
Treason.
That's the one. If you fight your own country from within, that's treason. Death by hanging.
not to get in the way of ur patriotic fervor, but what constitutes
fightinghereIn the broad sense.
so like voting for the other guy?
Look I am all about armed revolution, allegedly, so.
I see this as the same allowing prisoners to vote, it protects against governments passing rules to unfairly criminalise something.
Agreed, and legal systems that deny anyone the right to vote are not democracies.
Prisoners are members of society and therefore have the right to vote in any democracy. Even treason and mass murder do not justify removing their right to vote. The only scenario where prisoners voting would have a disproportionate impact are are prisons in low population remote locations, which could easily be worked around by their residency being based on their location before incarceration.