Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
David Norris - Post-Revelations
Options
Comments
-
See previous post - but summarised (again):
Norris supports a lover.
Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.
One kills TWICE.
One assaults once.
In all honesty, that is rubbish Biggins.:eek:
I too would like Mitchell to clarify why and/or who prompted him to send a clemency letter on behalf of this particular offender exactly because Mitchell is known as a rabid pro-lifer plus he's involved in (IMO) some very shady 'hard right' Catholic organisations in both Ireland and Europe.
However, he is also a known opponent of the death penalty.
If it does turn out this is the only clemency letter he has sent during all his anti-death penalty years then it will merely raise some very awkward questions for him in his bid to become President.
Hopefully this will lead onto more questions being asked about his affiliations - I don't want a President whose first allegiance is to a foreign country/entity.
Unless there is something else that crops up in this instance, there is no way IMO that this will stop him from running.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Yet has pressure been put on him to drop out of the race? No.
The question is only beginning to gain traction.
And unless some crazy GUBU thing appears out of the blue about this matter, it would never be enough to stop Mitchell from running.
However, it may just be enough to get people looking a little more closely at Gay Mitchell.0 -
In all honesty, that is rubbish Biggins.:eek:
I too would like Mitchell to clarify why and/or who prompted him to send a clemency letter on behalf of this particular offender exactly because Mitchell is known as a rabid pro-lifer plus he's involved in (IMO) some very shady 'hard right' Catholic organisations in both Ireland and Europe.
However, he is also a known opponent of the death penalty.
If it does turn out this is the only clemency letter he has sent during all his anti-death penalty years then it will merely raise some very awkward questions for him in his bid to become President.
Hopefully this will lead onto more questions being asked about his affiliations - I don't want a President whose first allegiance is to a foreign country/entity.
Unless there is something else that crops up in this instance, there is no way IMO that this will stop him from running.
Well we can agree to disagree.
I think further pressure should be brought to bear upon Mr Mitchell to clarify why the selection of this particular killer?
It is very open - possibly very wrongly as you rightly allude to if I read right - to wrong interpretation in action and background of the killers actions.0 -
That they possibly share a stronger religious faith.
Still the question goes unanswered. Why seek clemency for this man and not others?
What makes this double killer more important above the rest on death row?
We can strongly agree on one thing - nether of us would like to see this man in the Presidents office.
(Nor would I like to see Dana)
(1) I NEVER said you had "any sympathies towards the killer".
(2) I NEVER stated Mitchell said he had any. Nice try.
(3) ...And so I ask the question out of genuine puzzlement - NOT MALICE - why this killer and not the rest on death row?
(4)...And if the Irish public wanted to hold him answerable for that, so be it.
Fine sorry, but you are being incredibly difficult on this topic. I understand you support norris and are dissappointed. (3) How do you know he hasn't? But more likely he was asked by people to look into this particular case and after doing so he felt he should write a letter. I'm not mitchell so I don't know why he wrote it? (4) But they don't because thankfully most people can see the difference between these type of appeals and the ezra case. You are only answering the points you wish to address and then you keep bringing up stuff which is not relevant.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The reason? Because that's what generally happens in real life, maturity wins out over the rashness of youth. Perfectly evident in the Norris bid for the Park.
Go on!, have a look at his FB supporters page....it's mostly people who think protest is putting his name on the ballot paper anyway ala Dustin The Turkey :rolleyes: or middle aged women who just want to hug him. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but this is ageist bull****. Older doesn't mean more mature, and even if it did it wouldn't explain your disdain for Norris's naivety as surely wisdom would have come with age.
This is the exact opposite of what's called "Logic" and "Reason" and your attack on Norris's supporters is ignorant and immature in of itself.
I already explained to you the tactic of using maturity to goad people into changing their minds, but you apparently ignored it or aren't willing to come to terms with reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
When it comes to any election, I consider everything relevant if it touches upon a candidate to be honest.val_jester wrote: »Fine sorry, but you are being incredibly difficult on this topic. I understand you support norris and are dissappointed. (3) How do you know he hasn't? But more likely he was asked by people to look into this particular case and after doing so he felt he should write a letter. I'm not Mitchell so I don't know why he wrote it? (4) But they don't because thankfully most people can see the difference between these type of appeals and the ezra case. You are only answering the points you wish to address and then you keep bringing up stuff which is not relevant.
Firstly though before I go further, I wish to apologise if I come across as 'difficult'. Not my intention.
I sometimes ask tough - and admittedly stupid - questions sometimes that run through my mind.
If Mitchell come out tomorrow and states (or words to the effect) "I have written to the USA authorities concerning my stance against every person on death row" - I will say fair play to him and leave it at that.
Until then I do raise what is to me, a clear obvious question in regard to this one double killer.
If a person is running for any office, there should be clarity.
If they are running for whats even more so one of the highest positions, he/she should be definitely making a point of being clear as to actions in the past and similarly possibly in the future.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but this is ageist bull****. Older doesn't mean more mature, and even if it did it wouldn't explain your disdain for Norris's naivety as surely wisdom would have come with age.
This is the exact opposite of what's called "Logic" and "Reason" and your attack on Norris's supporters is ignorant and immature in of itself.
I already explained to you the tactic of using maturity to goad people into changing their minds, but you apparently ignored it or aren't willing to come to terms with reality.
In matters of sexual relations 'older' generally means more 'mature' and realistic behaviour. Do the terms, 'Young love', the 'rashness of youth and all that stuff mean anything to you???
Are you gonna deal with any of the points being made or are you just gonna continue with the pseudo bull**** psychoanalysis?0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but this is ageist bull****. Older doesn't mean more mature, and even if it did it wouldn't explain your disdain for Norris's naivety as surely wisdom would have come with age.
This is the exact opposite of what's called "Logic" and "Reason" and your attack on Norris's supporters is ignorant and immature in of itself.
I already explained to you the tactic of using maturity to goad people into changing their minds, but you apparently ignored it or aren't willing to come to terms with reality.
What a shame you're debating style seems to consist totally of slightly abusive and insulting retorts to try and give some foundation to the weakness of your argument.0 -
When it comes to any election, I consider everything relevant if it touches upon a candidate to be honest.
Firstly though before I go further, I wish to apologise if I come across as 'difficult'. Not my intention.
I sometimes ask tough - and admittedly stupid - questions sometimes that run through my mind.
If Mitchell come out tomorrow and states (or words to the effect) "I have written to the USA authorities concerning my stance against every person on death row" - I will say fair play to him and leave it at that.
Until then I do raise what is to me, a clear obvious question in regard to this one double killer.
If a person is running for any office, there should be clarity.
If they are running for whats even more so one of the highest positions, he/she should be definitely making a point of being clear as to actions in the past and similarly possibly in the future.
I think you are taking a ridiculous position on this. There are plenty of issues on which mitchell should be attacked but this is not one of them. I guarantee that if he had written for every single person on death row he would be crucified for it. In all likelihood someone in a group is involved with came to him about this case and he acted on it.
You seem to have been willing to give norris the benefit of the doubt but are less willing to give others the same.
I think at this stage it is pointless for us to continue this debate as we have both given our points of view and are unlikely to change our minds. I apologise if I've misconstrued your point of view at any point.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I personally would hope not - honestly.val_jester wrote: »...I guarantee that if he had written for every single person on death row he would be crucified for it.
Well that would be a simple matter to explain then - and I hope he does.val_jester wrote: »...In all likelihood someone in a group is involved with came to him about this case and he acted on it.
It clearly would be to his benefit.
I hold (or did hold) Norris accountable just as much.val_jester wrote: »...You seem to have been willing to give norris the benefit of the doubt but are less willing to give others the same.
I'd question Norris just as much and anyone else if they did similar.val_jester wrote: »...I apologise if I've misconstrued your point of view at any point.
Absolutely no bother and I, likewise.
0 -
I'm not sure that a job reference is relevant.
But a judge in deciding a sentence might well find it useful to get a picture of the familial relationships that the defendant has.
Why? If you come from a "nice, respectable" family who talk to each other and say that they like each other, you should be treated differently?0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Says someone who is no doubt a heterosexual man....
Oh here we go again. Hang on, I'll get my violin.CrystalLettuce wrote: »One could easily say an opposition to the harsh nature of Israeli law fueled...
The harsh nature of Israeli law? Wtf are you on about? Seriously?Welcome to the hypocrisy that is Irish politics.
Yes, and you're up to your neck in it yourself.No.
BOTH was asking for clemency.
One man was convicted of killing someone.
One man was convicted of sexual assault.
Which is the legally lesser crime?
Yet who was forced to quit of the two crimes?
It's not a question of which was the lesser crime. It's a question of who abused their position to help out a personal friend, and who abused their position in opposition of our national stance. Ireland and the EU object to the death penalty being used. Ireland and the EU do not object to custodial sentences for statutory rape. Quit while your behind, trying to compare the crimes of the two subjects of the letters is going beyond ridiculous.No you didn't (obviously). I'm trying to get at why you are introducing the fact that they are both Christians into this.
It's either a red herring, or that Mitchell had some empathy for the guy because they share the same religion or that Mitchell somehow sympathised with the actions of the guy because of their shared religion.
I think its a red herring.
Not to mention of course Norris' own self professed Christian beliefs. Added into it his own inability to actually clarify where he stands on the issue of abortion either. His piece on abortion on his website was a showpiece of ambguity, and I emailed him asking him weeks ago where exactly he stood on abortion but got no response. For all we know he could share the position of Mitchell.A legal assault beats a legal double murder just because its AT THE MOMENT more sensitive? Madness in twisted legal thought!
The only one exhibiting twisted madness is you Biggins. How many people have tried to argue that statutory rape is worse than double murder? The crimes of those involved are not the bloody point.I have more sympathy for them than I do for a fool trying to get their killer a lighter sentence!
..and who has no sympathy for the victims? Does seeking to have the death sentence commuted mean Mitchell had no sympathy for the murder victims? Speaking rationally now do you think he should have been executed? You reject the death penalty yourself, why do you object to Gay Mitchell standing by his convictions which are identical to yours?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73563028&postcount=38That they possibly share a stronger religious faith. Still the question goes unanswered. Why seek clemency for this man and not others?
Mitchell has intervened in the cases of others sentenced to death. That fact has been gloriously ignored however. Do you think Mitchell is a big fan of adultery Biggins? Is that why he got involved in the case of a woman sentenced to death for adultery in Nigeria?0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »This is the exact opposite of what's called "Logic" and "Reason" and your attack on Norris's supporters is ignorant and immature in of itself..
Ignorant and immature, you wouldn't know anything about that.. lolCrystalLettuce wrote: »I hate when people(or conservatives rather, who don't act like real people a lot of the time)...0 -
Well, your entitled to an opinion. I think we can disagree over this one.Yes, and you're up to your neck in it yourself.
"...in opposition to national stance" ? Seriously?It's not a question of which was the lesser crime. It's a question of who abused their position to help out a personal friend, and who abused their position in opposition of our national stance. Ireland and the EU object to the death penalty being used. Ireland and the EU do not object to custodial sentences for statutory rape. Quit while your behind, trying to compare the crimes of the two subjects of the letters is going beyond ridiculous.
I never said that Europe objects to custodial sentences for rape - but thanks for that.
Trying to compare two sentences? Indeed - one is only far worse (in my opinion) than the other - but hell, sorry for bring that up! Gee...
Maybe he does but then also maybe he was busy too at the time to answer every persons email in Ireland....I emailed him asking him weeks ago where exactly he stood on abortion but got no response. For all we know he could share the position of Mitchell.
Nice....The only one exhibiting twisted madness is you Biggins.How many people have tried to argue that statutory rape is worse than double murder? The crimes of those involved are not the bloody point.
...But are very important and relevant to the crime victims, their families who might want ultimate justice (?) and the killer being on death row.
Did I say anyone had less sympathy? Did I?..and who has no sympathy for the victims?You reject the death penalty yourself, why do you object to Gay Mitchell standing by his convictions which are identical to yours?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73563028&postcount=38
Mitchell has intervened in the cases of others sentenced to death. That fact has been gloriously ignored however.
In the cold light of day, yes. I've stated that a number of times.
If Mitchell has done so for every death row inmate presently, AGAIN I say fair play - but until then clarity is called for - is it too much to ask?
Sorry for asking! Gee!
Frankly, I find it strange that two people - one for a sex crime and another for two murders are treated as one lightly and the other not.
I'm asking that equal clarity through public pressure be brought to bear so that there is fairness and clarity to electorate questions.
How does the cherry-picking of one case of another happen in the case of Gay Mitchell?
A case that involves a man that clemency is sought for - for a man that cold bloodily put a shotgun to a man’s head and pulled the trigger - then and still shows no sign of remorse, in fact still the opposite!
I as a voter think clarity is called for - is it too much to ask?0 -
Well, your entitled to an opinion. I we can disagree over.
Yes, should pressure be brought down on Norris to explain his reasoning for everytime he objected to the death penalty? Should pressure be brought down on Mitchell to explain his reasoning for every single time he objected to the death penalty? If not, then you are singling out one instance in many desperately trying to portray Mitchell as having some special interest in the killers of abortion doctors."...in opposition to national stance" ? Seriously?
I never said that Europe objects to custodial sentences for rape - but thanks for that.
Great, so you agree that what Mitchell did in appealling for a life sentence (meaning life) in lieu of the death penalty goes no further than restating his own position, Ireland's position and the EU's position on the death penalty. Now why are you so desperately trying to portray that as being worse than looking for clemency to a couple of months prison time for statutory rape? Did Mitchell and the man in Florida have a personal relationship?Trying to compare two sentences? Indeed - one is only far worse (in my opinion) than the other - but hell, sorry for bring that up! Gee...
Yes the death penalty is far worse. A penalty you yourself has rationally decided to oppose.Maybe he does but then also maybe he was busy too at the time to answer every persons email in Ireland.
Maybe he was. In that case perhaps it would be wise not to invite questions then.Nice.
It's clear as day. You ave repeatedly tried to argue that the crimes of Ezra Nawi and yer man in Florida are what matters. It isn't, what each repsectively did is irrelevant. It is the actions of Norris and Mitchell and whether either of them over stepped the mark. In making representations for a personal friend and ex lover Norris definitely did. I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that Mitchell did anything other than repeat his party's, the country's and the EU's official stance....But are very important and relevant to the crime victims, their families who might want ultimate justice (?) and the killer being on death row.
So you agree it's not actually relevant at all in deciding whether Mitchell made an error in judgement as Norris definitely has. Progress. Before now it was very important in determining whether Norris or Mitchell had committed the bigger error.Did I say anyone had less sympathy? Did I?
No, it was just more meaningless bluster.In the cold light of day, yes. I've stated that a number of times.
If Mitchell has done so for every death row inmate presently, AGAIN I say fair play - but until then clarity is called for - is it too much to ask?
Sorry for asking! Gee!
.and what if it is only for 99%? I have already linked news reports on this thread of Mitchell getting involved in questioning death sentences going so far as summoning the ambassador to explain it and lodge an official complaint. Where does that go? Whoooooosh, over some people's heads.
For the record I'll add that I won't be voting for Gay Mitchell, frankly think FG made a massive mistake in choosing him.0 -
Frankly, I find it strange that two people - one for a sex crime and another for two murders are treated as one lightly and the other not..
Because they're not equal. Norris used his position in attempt to help a personal friend. There is no evidence that Mitchell abused his position in any similar way. That's why they are treated differently, not because one was a sex crime and one was murder. How difficult a concept is that to grasp?A case that involves a man that clemency is sought for - for a man that cold bloodily put a shotgun to a man’s head and pulled the trigger - then and still shows no sign of remorse, in fact still the opposite!
If you are against the death penalty, as you yourself have claimed to be, then whether he shows signs of remorse is irrelevant Biggins. It's called standing by your convictions. It's easy to moan about the death penalty when the convict is begging for mercy and full of remorse. If you are against the death penalty on principle you must also be against it in cases where the killer committed even more heinous acts than that and show no signs of remorse whatsoever. It seems at least Mitchell has the balls to stand over his position. By the by what temperature is the blood of a doctor performing abortions? What temperature was Nawis when he had sex with a 15 year old boy?I as a voter think clarity is called for - is it too much to ask?
..and strangely enough when other voters were seeking clarity after the Magill Norris interview reappeared on the scene you were amongst the first to wave it away. Why the sudden interest in clarity? When other people wanted clarity they were tarred as homophobes, yadda yadda yadda.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »In matters of sexual relations 'older' generally means more 'mature' and realistic behaviour. Do the terms, 'Young love', the 'rashness of youth and all that stuff mean anything to you???
Are you gonna deal with any of the points being made or are you just gonna continue with the pseudo bull**** psychoanalysis?
Sorry, but in that case, older people would tend towards more traditional values and be against homosexuality, a type of sexual relation, being wrong, does that make them more correct? No.
Just because such terms as those exist does not mean they apply to everyone.
And how many times have you ignored all the points I've made in favour of ****ting out the same point again? Seriously.
Arguing that older automatically equals more correct is a logically fallacious argument. If you can't accept this, we can't continue this argument. Wisdom can come with age but so too can "traditional values", arrogance and forgetfulness.0 -
Oh here we go again. Hang on, I'll get my violin.
Talk about showing your privelege!
I made a valid point that people who are socially conservative and not gay are far from the best to comment on how much discrimination as they exist outside that realm of experience.
And then you retort on his behalf with this bull****.
Oh, here we go again. Those homosexual peasants are complaining about how we treat them again. Tut, tut! Having to listen to them is such a bother.
You are essentially admitting that you do not, in any way whatsoever, care about the issues of discrimination and exclusion homosexuals still face today.
People like you should not be allowed within 100 feet of an argument.
Regardless of whether there was homophobic motive in the smear campaign against Norris, there is a vast amount of insensitivity being displayed here.0 -
...Until he shows that he has objected in writing to every death sentence of every person on death row presently - the question arises, how or why did he single this particular case out? Why?Yes, should pressure be brought down on Norris to explain his reasoning for everytime he objected to the death penalty? Should pressure be brought down on Mitchell to explain his reasoning for every single time he objected to the death penalty? If not, then you are singling out one instance in many desperately trying to portray Mitchell as having some special interest in the killers of abortion doctors.
Are we as voters, not allowed ask that of a possible presidential candidate?
So far no one in FG has showed that he has done so for all the current rest on death row.
If anyone can show this by FG link or article, I'd be very grateful.
Its always good that people ask questions. Sadly we don't always get the answers we seek.Maybe he was. In that case perhaps it would be wise not to invite questions then.
I wouldn't argue that Norris overstepped - he did. Mitchels might be representing others/country stance - but again why (if only?) for this case?It's clear as day. You ave repeatedly tried to argue that the crimes of Ezra Nawi and yer man in Florida are what matters. It isn't, what each repsectively did is irrelevant. It is the actions of Norris and Mitchell and whether either of them over stepped the mark. In making representations for a personal friend and ex lover Norris definitely did. I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that Mitchell did anything other than repeat his party's, the country's and the EU's official stance.
Its a simple question that not only I is asking. so far from him there is silence. The silence is deafening as they say.
An error might have been made in the selection process of this chap over any other murderers currently on death row.So you agree it's not actually relevant at all in deciding whether Mitchell made an error in judgement as Norris definitely has. Progress. Before now it was very important in determining whether Norris or Mitchell had committed the bigger error.
If Mitchell can step forth and produce copies of letters written previously calling for clemency for ALL on death row currently - he can blow those asking current questions, away.
...And again, if he can, fair play!
Well if you have then fair play to you for you have done more (to your good credit) than he has done since this matter has arisen..and what if it is only for 99%? I have already linked news reports on this thread of Mitchell getting involved in questioning death sentences going so far as summoning the ambassador to explain it and lodge an official complaint. Where does that go? Whoooooosh, over some people's heads.
Indeed. Big time.For the record I'll add that I won't be voting for Gay Mitchell, frankly think FG made a massive mistake in choosing him.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because they're not equal. Norris used his position in attempt to help a personal friend. There is no evidence that Mitchell abused his position in any similar way. That's why they are treated differently, not because one was a sex crime and one was murder. How difficult a concept is that to grasp?
But why is acting on behalf of a friend worse than what could be seen as acting in favour of some rather dodgy political values? The fact that the man he defended was his friend doesn't make it automatically worse than seeking clemency for someone who committed a much worse crime. You refuse the acknowledge the possibility even.
You are working backwards from the assumption that Norris is the worst no matter what. I very much doubt anyone consciously thought about what you were saying before the reached the conclusion they did.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but in that case, older people would tend towards more traditional values and be against homosexuality, a type of sexual relation, being wrong, does that make them more correct? No.
Just because such terms as those exist does not mean they apply to everyone.
And how many times have you ignored all the points I've made in favour of ****ting out the same point again? Seriously.
Arguing that older automatically equals more correct is a logically fallacious argument. If you can't accept this, we can't continue this argument. Wisdom can come with age but so too can "traditional values", arrogance and forgetfulness.
Older or younger had nothing to do with why Norris did what he did.
He is elected and shielded from us 'great unwashed' by an elite, the voters of Trinity College.
His ego convinced him that he would never be called to account for writing these letters...he was wrong, the system worked and he has been taken out of the running.
It was nothing to do with his sexuality it had everything to do with his arrogance and distance from real life.
None of your boloxology is dealing with that fact, you are huffing that it is discrimination, when it is not.
Others committing the same offence have gone from the political scene.
Mitchell has just made the 2nd story on the main evening news so that is being dealt with too.
Grow up and deal with the real issues here.0 -
HarryPotter41 wrote: »What a shame you're debating style seems to consist totally of slightly abusive and insulting retorts to try and give some foundation to the weakness of your argument.
Also, pointing out fallacious reasoning is a perfectly valid tactic. I would hardly say my style consists "entirely" of insults, as opposed to yours which lies entirely on idiotic assumptions such as "older=better".0 -
I can grasp that - honestly - however as a member of the public, I ask of an elected representative for further detail as to his selection process of those he seeks clemency for, on death row.Because they're not equal. Norris used his position in attempt to help a personal friend. There is no evidence that Mitchell abused his position in any similar way. That's why they are treated differently, not because one was a sex crime and one was murder. How difficult a concept is that to grasp?
Its a good question - I DO give credit where its due.If you are against the death penalty, as you yourself have claimed to be, then whether he shows signs of remorse is irrelevant Biggins. It's called standing by your convictions. It's easy to moan about the death penalty when the convict is begging for mercy and full of remorse. If you are against the death penalty on principle you must also be against it in cases where the killer committed even more heinous acts than that and show no signs of remorse whatsoever. It seems at least Mitchell has the balls to stand over his position. By the by what temperature is the blood of a doctor performing abortions? What temperature was Nawis when he had sex with a 15 year old boy?
I do not know what was going through the minds of either criminal nor know of their body temperature.
In fairness - I didn't try to wave it away...and strangely enough when other voters were seeking clarity after the Magill Norris interview reappeared on the scene you were amongst the first to wave it away.
I tried at the time to explain my reading of it and how possibly Norris was trying to explain it.
Clarity from elected politicians is a big thing with me and many (now, especially after the decades of FF continuous fiasco's)...Why the sudden interest in clarity? When other people wanted clarity they were tarred as homophobes, yadda yadda yadda.
As for those classed as homophobes - some were unfairly tarnished - however it was suspected that there was some closet ones too by others.
Many might think Mitchell (by his previous actions) might have a lot of reluctance to be possibly associating with a homosexual given his then and as far as I know, current feelings on the matter.
(for the record: He strongly defended Italian MEP Rocco Buttiglione’s remarks when he referred to homosexuality as a sin some time back. Mitchell also spoke out against the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1993.)0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »You are essentially admitting that you do not, in any way whatsoever, care about the issues of discrimination and exclusion homosexuals still face today. People like you should not be allowed within 100 feet of an argument..
Yeah boss, whatever you say. :rolleyes:...Until he shows that he has objected in writing to every death sentence of every person on death row presently - the question arises, how or why did he single this particular case out? Why?
LOL seriously? Laughable. So where else do we carry this? Until you show that you have objected to every instance of racism everywhere, any objection you have will be deemed dodgy? Perhaps this case was 'singled out' as it was a cause célèbre at the time. A lot of people on all sides of the abortion debate questioned the execution in that case. A different killer of another abortion doctor also in Florida only months before Hill's crime was given life imprisonment. In fact Hill was the first person to be put on death row because of an abortion doctor/clinic related murder. Yet he was far from the first person guilty of such a crime.He is due to be executed today by lethal injection. Gay Mitchell says that Hill committed a senseless crime, but that executing him only perpetuates the cycle of taking life
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html
Note, not that Hill was set-up or lured into committing the crime.Are we as voters, not allowed ask that of a possible presidential candidate?
So far no one in FG has showed that he has done so for all the current rest on death row.
If anyone can show this by FG link or article, I'd be very grateful.
Perhaps because it's the most ridiculous argument on the matter yet. Why do you repeatedly ignore the previously linked to article on Mitchell getting involved in a death sentence in Nigeria which had nothing to do with abortion? Should we question the motives there? Is it only valid if Mitchell has done the same thing for every single death penalty passed in Nigeria?Its always good that people ask questions. Sadly we don't always get the answers we seek.
True, and he's far from the first politician not to respond in any way to correspondance from me.I wouldn't argue that Norris overstepped - he did. Mitchels might be representing others/country stance - but again why (if only?) for this case?
But it's not only for this case as I have pointed out. Mitchell has always spoken out against the death penalty.Its a simple question that not only I is asking. so far from him there is silence. The silence is deafening as they say.
Perhaps because a twenty second google can result in news articles showing Mitchell getting officially involved in other death sentence cases.An error might have been made in the selection process of this chap over any other murderers currently on death row.
If Mitchell can step forth and produce copies of letters written previously calling for clemency for ALL on death row currently - he can blow those asking current questions, away....and again, if he can, fair play!
That's just bloody daft. Why the case below? Why was Amina Lawal singled out? Do you demand explanation there?
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/EUS/2002/09/11/00004.asp
The Chairman in the above transcripts is none other than Gay Mitchell.0 -
Multiple replies...
In not trying to be clever or smart to your good self - but actually in credit to you, you should be working for the man.
You at least try to answer it seems many questions better it seems than he is currently. He's not doing himself any favours at the moment (and that also indicates non-Presidential material).
Long boring story short, many might like to see him clarifying matters.
Possibly many that are not internet savvy too.
I wish I could vote for Dustin the Turkey!0 -
In not trying to be clever or smart to your good self - but actually in credit to you, you should be working for the man.
You at least try to answer it seems many questions better it seems than he is currently. He's not doing himself any favours at the moment (and that also indicates non-Presidential material).
Wouldn't want to work for him. I don't think he was ever made of Presidential material, always comes across as a bit goofy and clumsy.0 -
-
CrystalLettuce wrote: »But why is acting on behalf of a friend worse than what could be seen as acting in favour of some rather dodgy political values?
Why is acting for personal reasons worse than a politician acting on their own publicly known political views? Just because you don't agree with his political views doesn't mean his views are dodgy or that anything untoward happened.CrystalLettuce wrote: »The fact that the man he defended was his friend doesn't make it automatically worse than seeking clemency for someone who committed a much worse crime..
Actually it kind of does, yes. What crimes were involved is irrelevant.CrystalLettuce wrote: »You are working backwards from the assumption that Norris is the worst no matter what..
Er no. I had my doubts about Norris to be sure, but I also said on this thread that depending on who else was running I might still have been voting for Norris, (that was before the latest news). There might still be skeletons in Mitchell's closet. Trying to portray what we do know he did as being equal or worse than what Norris did is madness.0 -
Advertisement
-
I guess a judge might consider the type of family support system an offender might have when considering sentencing. He might think that someone who has a strong, stable family committed to them would be less likely to reoffend, a key measure when considering a custodial vs non custodial sentence.whydoibother? wrote: »Why? If you come from a "nice, respectable" family who talk to each other and say that they like each other, you should be treated differently?0
Advertisement