Won't hear too many people complaining about these verdicts

nlgbbbblth

as daveirl said on another forum

Another nail in the coffin of the 'they would have got it much tougher if they were working class' argument.

:rolleyes:

pricks
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0315/forsmarkl.html

MorningStar

You have a point but ...

It is heavily rumoured the person who most certainly did damage in Anibels was whizzed out of the country and has not returned since. There were also apparently over 30 witnesses who saw no details. Over 6 people kicking one person is a little different to 3 people both unacceptable.

Compare the Anibals case to the case at Coolock UCI and you may have a fairer example.

Somebody from a priviledged situation commiting the same crime as a person with a lot less options I think should be treated more harshly.

Linoge

MorningStar wrote:

Somebody from a priviledged situation commiting the same crime as a person with a lot less options I think should be treated more harshly.

Well, considering that that guy in Coolock was stabbed for his mobile phone (ie. a knife was carried around with the killer), and in the Annabels case they was a drunken brawl with both parties fighting (with no lethal weapons involved), I think there is a great difference.

MorningStar

Yeap, the knife would make me want them to go to jail but It was the cases that should be looked at.

Two of the ones involved in the robbery became a witness for the prosecution. THey admitted involvement and got a sentence (not too sure how long) They all had state provided lawyers. The person who did the stabbing had also been drinking and smoking for 8 hours.

6 people kicking a person to death. They got the best lawyers and the one person who admitted hitting the person in court was released.

How the cases were handled is really the point of comparison not the actual outcome.

Linoge

Its hard to make a judgement on the case about the Swedish guy though. In the link no background information was given on the accused, or how the death happened. It's also worth noting that none of the dead mans family were even present at the trial - "to see justice done" as it were.

I admit that I don't have all the information regarding the Coolock or Annabels deaths, but I can imagine that in the case of the Coolock stabbing, the 3 defendants probably had about 70 previous convictions each. Of course I'm just speculating. Does anyone know?

MorningStar

As far as I know none of the three had convictions prior to this. Not 100% sure.

I was mugged at the same place in Coolock a few years ago and the Garadi knew it was a trouble spot as did the security gaurds. The guy who actually stabbed the kid went home and got a knife and his older brother tried to stop him but still let him go out.

The area these kids came from is one of the most disadvantaged places in Ireland with all the social problems that entails. If anybody was raised in this area there is a high chance they will get involved in crime and have little social consience.

I want these people in prison beside those involved in the anibels case.

The worst part is the people from Coolock would probably end up in prison one way or the other.

Hobbes

MorningStar wrote:

The worst part is the people from Coolock would probably end up in prison one way or the other.

Way to go with that tar brush.

_blank_

Yeah, thanks.

:rolleyes:

In fact the place the lad who did the stabbing is from is not even in Coolock, so there goes your "one of the most disadvantaged areas in Ireland" crap. If someone is prepared to go home and get a knife, they obviously have the intention of stabbing someone. I don't care if they are from Calcutta or bleedin Monaco, they are still scum.

Someone dying in a drunken brawl is completely different. I doubt the lads in the Annabels case actually decided that night to go out to kill someone.

MorningStar

Hobbes wrote:

Way to go with that tar brush.

Yeap considering I am from there. The highest drug seizure rate is Coolock. It also had the largest prison population in Ireland for about 10 years. I use Coolock as the name as it the police district that the murderer was in

seansouth wrote:

Yeah, thanks.

:rolleyes:

In fact the place the lad who did the stabbing is from is not even in Coolock, so there goes your "one of the most disadvantaged areas in Ireland" crap. If someone is prepared to go home and get a knife, they obviously have the intention of stabbing someone. I don't care if they are from Calcutta or bleedin Monaco, they are still scum.

Someone dying in a drunken brawl is completely different. I doubt the lads in the Annabels case actually decided that night to go out to kill someone.

You are both missing the point all should be in jail.

If you don't think the environment you are brought up in effects your future or values you are mad. Not everybody will be evil scum but if there is a good chance that many will be. If you think your great moral views are a gift from God as opposed to social consqences from your environment I bow to the chosen one.

Kingsize

i wish people would stop using the evening herald type "killed for his PHone" excuse in the coolock case, the kid was stabbed to death after the scumbags had taken his phone,also as far as im aware nobody in the anabels case threatened witnesses in the courtroom.anyhow there was a clear cut perpertrator in the coolock case not in the annabels one.
im from coolock i grew up in bonnybrook & Darndale i didnt end up in jail with
little or no social conscience .btw the kid who was convicted was from Edenmore -no offence but its hardly any different from coolock.

MorningStar

I agree these guys are scum just saying they have been treated very differently . The legal system was not equal in both cases was the point. Not everybody from a disadvantages will becomne a criminal but they are more likely. It's not genetic but situation that drives many parts of your life

_blank_

MorningStar wrote:

If you don't think the environment you are brought up in effects your future or values you are mad. Not everybody will be evil scum but if there is a good chance that many will be. If you think your great moral views are a gift from God as opposed to social consqences from your environment I bow to the chosen one.

There is more of a chance of me stabbing someone to death than someone from, say, Foxrock?

Because I grew up in a so called "Deprived Area"?

Get a grip lad, I am a person from Coolock, and I would never think of stabbing someone. Neither, might I add, would my friends, some of whom are also from Coolock.

You say you are from Coolock, but I don't care where you are from. You seem to think that a majority of people from this area have the potential for evil.

Not everybody will be evil scum but if there is a good chance that many will be.

Have you any evidence to back this up?

I can say that I know NO-ONE currently serving a prison sentence. Good luck? I doubt it.

MorningStar

seansouth wrote:

There is more of a chance of me stabbing someone to death than someone from, say, Foxrock?

Because I grew up in a so called "Deprived Area"?

Get a grip lad, I am a person from Coolock, and I would never think of stabbing someone. Neither, might I add, would my friends, some of whom are also from Coolock.

You say you are from Coolock, but I don't care where you are from. You seem

Have you any evidence to back this up?

The sad truth is yes you are more likely to be involved in criminal activity, die a violent death, be paid below average industrial wage, become a drug addict, have a poor diet and generally do worse than the guy from Foxrock. If you need actual data I don't think it will do you any good because you are blind to the obvious. :rolleyes:

Ever heard about the poverty trap? Why do you think the majority of criminals in Dublin come from 4 areas? Do you think it's the geography or the social circumstances in the areas?

If you are from Foxrock you will have good chance of going to college if your from Coolock you have less chance of going to college and more chance of going to prison. If you don't believe that I am not going to search the net to give you data.

nlgbbbblth

Linoge wrote:

Its hard to make a judgement on the case about the Swedish guy though. In the link no background information was given on the accused, or how the death happened.

The accused (bar one) are all from "working class" estates in New Ross. I know for a fact that they are scumbags.

Linoge wrote:

It's also worth noting that none of the dead mans family were even present at the trial - "to see justice done" as it were.

Well, he was Swedish - so perhaps the distance
Friends of his were there though.

nlgbbbblth

MorningStar wrote:

Somebody from a priviledged situation commiting the same crime as a person with a lot less options I think should be treated more harshly.

That's inverted snobbery rubbish.

They should be treated the same way.

The simple fact is that most people who live in deprived areas are normal, decent individuals. A small minority are not. Blaming society or lack of opportunities is a cop-out.

My point is that there is no outcry about the sentences in the Forsmark case as the perpetrators were "working class". It is as if this excuses the murder - going by your logic.

gurramok

MorningStar wrote:

Ever heard about the poverty trap? Why do you think the majority of criminals in Dublin come from 4 areas? Do you think it's the geography or the social circumstances in the areas?

Care to enlighten us on these 4 areas or are you inciting a flame war ?

Crania

I actully live in New Ross where Forsmark was murdered and I honestly believe that the people who were accused of killing him didn't kill him but they are guilty of being a scumbag like most people in this dirty rotten excuse for a town.

Nermal

seansouth wrote:

There is more of a chance of me stabbing someone to death than someone from, say, Foxrock?

Because I grew up in a so called "Deprived Area"?

Get a grip lad, I am a person from Coolock, and I would never think of stabbing someone. Neither, might I add, would my friends, some of whom are also from Coolock.

Did you fail statistics?

Megatron

Justice is blind .. well it should be.

However with the right "money" you can restore sight to it.


The law is there for everyone, the point in where it becomes the spirit of the law is when you have a Judge and/or jury . Lawyers play on the heartstrings of both of these to try and win the case when the evidence is not there to do the case for them.

Yes you came from a bad area, yes you had a tough child hood.
You still killed someone, there for you get sent to prison and serve you time for your crime ... plain and simple.

Stark

Nermal wrote:

Did you fail statistics?

People from Coolock have a 110% chance of failing statistics. That's statistical fact

MorningStar

gurramok wrote:

Care to enlighten us on these 4 areas or are you inciting a flame war ?

Look don't believe me if you want. I don't Normally store newspaper articles and radio shows to prove everything I say. I have read on numerous articles about crime, poverty and education and no matter what country you are in certain elements remain. Poorly educated people are more likely to poor. Poor people are more likely to comit crime. This is fact

There are 4 areas in Dublin that produce the majority of Dublin prisoners. If I remember correctly it's Tallagh, Coolock, Inner city and Blancherdstown. Not sure about the exact details. It has been mentioned on the radio and newspapers many times. Sorry If I don't have the stats to hand but if i ever find a link I will post it.

Who is more likely to punch you in the face a guy wearing a tracksuit and soverin rings or a guy in a suit with a brief case? If you see many people in suits in an area I will take the area is safer than an area with people mostly in tracksuits. If you feel differently that is your right but If you think Coolock is as good an environment to bring up your kids as Foxrock most people will say you are wrong without any statistics.

Hobbes

MorningStar wrote:

Yeap considering I am from there.

Wow.. so do I. I also have relations in coolock area and friends in Coolock/Darndale general area. None of them are criminals, but have to put up with the same crap you spout from people when they are going for job interviews and what not.

Just because your quoting figures or happen to hang around with Criminals doesn't mean everyone who lives there is one.

Look don't believe me if you want. I don't Normally store newspaper articles and radio shows to prove everything I say. I have read on numerous articles about crime, poverty and education and no matter what country you are in certain elements remain. Poorly educated people are more likely to poor. Poor people are more likely to comit crime. This is fact

So you are basing your opinion on what exactly? So you dont have paper cuttings yet you cited you read numerous articles. So search your memory and find relevent material on the net.

Stark

Wow.. so do I. I also have relations in coolock area and friends in Coolock/Darndale general area. None of them are criminals, but have to put up with the same crap you spout from people when they are going for job interviews and what not.

Really? What gets said to them in job interviews? I'm pretty sure social background falls under the categories of illegal discrimination according to the Equality Act.

Hobbes

Stark wrote:

Really? What gets said to them in job interviews? I'm pretty sure social background falls under the categories of illegal discrimination according to the Equality Act.

Indeed it is. It is not as bad as it was say 10 years ago, but they wouldn't even get a foot in the door into an interview. Many of my friends would put a different address on the CV as they had to put up with that crap.

Myself had a similar problem when going for work experience in development for a certain famous company. Up until the point where I told them where I lived the interview went well. 5 minutes after telling him the area (he went out to check where that was) the interviewer removed all the items from the desk that they let me play with and then told me I would be better suited for a job for my level.

I would of thought people would of grown beyond that in all that time. Guess not.

nlgbbbblth

CoolCiaran wrote:

I actully live in New Ross where Forsmark was murdered and I honestly believe that the people who were accused of killing him didn't kill him but they are guilty of being a scumbag like most people in this dirty rotten excuse for a town.

I spent the first nineteen years of my life in New Ross and my parents still live there. It's not a good town but it's the only place I can call "home" - despite having my own house now and not having lived in New Ross since 1991

WhiteWashMan

MorningStar wrote:

Somebody from a priviledged situation commiting the same crime as a person with a lot less options I think should be treated more harshly.

why do you think a different sentence is needed for someone because of the amount of money they have, or their background?

what a ridiculous thing to say!

Hobbes

MorningStar wrote:

Who is more likely to punch you in the face a guy wearing a tracksuit and soverin rings or a guy in a suit with a brief case?

The guy with the brief case is liable to punch you in a different way. Your rational doesn't make any sense though. Inner city is on your list yet there are loads of people there with suits and some even carry briefcases too.

If you see many people in suits in an area I will take the area is safer than an area with people mostly in tracksuits.

So your basing your crime figures now based on people wearing tracksuits. :rolleyes:

but If you think Coolock is as good an environment to bring up your kids as Foxrock most people will say you are wrong without any statistics.

Well general Foxrock area just recently had a huge drug seiziure so by your flawed logic that means that everyone in Dublin 18 are drug dealers.

MorningStar

Hobbes wrote:

The guy with the brief case is liable to punch you in a different way. Your rational doesn't make any sense though. Inner city is on your list yet there are loads of people there with suits and some even carry briefcases too.

So your basing your crime figures now based on people wearing tracksuits. :rolleyes:

As I said you don't have to believe me. I have produced no evidence but I based my opinion on the physcology I studied and crime stats I have read. Just because this information is not generally avilable on line with ease doesn't make it untrue. You have not produced any proven facts making your point either. If you can get the stats my point will be proven.

Hobbes wrote:

Well general Foxrock area just recently had a huge drug seiziure so by your flawed logic that means that everyone in Dublin 18 are drug
dealers.

If you paid attention to what I siad you would know I am saying if you come from a deprived environment you are more "likely" to be involved in criminal activities. More "likely" to earn less than the average wage or be poorly educated.
If 1 In 10 people are more likely to own a pirate DVD in one area (A) and 2 in 5 people in another area (B) are. You will be more "likely" to find a pirate DVD in area B. Not everybody in area B buys pirate DVD but they are more "likely" to.
I don't know where you live now but where I live now I can see the difference between the people in this area and Coolock. There isn't as much graffiti, rubbish on the streets, teenagers drinking on the streets and I haven't noticed a drug dealer on the streets. There are trees,grass verges and people keep their houses presentable. If I based my views on this it would be opinion but I know that there is a link between poverty,crime and education. I want to make sure people in such areas need extra help to become educated as a means out of poverty and hence away from crime. What do you want to do? Just leave them alone as there are no problems in these deprived areas over richer areas? If you think as a Coolock resident you had the same chances as somebody from Foxrock I am shocked you should feel really gratfull because the majority of your neighbours didn't.

MorningStar

Some reading material that I could have based my opinion on

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7405.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/worpap/94-16.html

And this shows how media and the social structure effects individuals around crime and its perception.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v99y1991i6p1272-95.html

I couldn't find anything saying poor neighbourhoods were the best places to live but if you can I'll read it. :cool:

WhiteWashMan

MorningStar wrote:

I couldn't find anything saying poor neighbourhoods were the best places to live but if you can I'll read it. :cool:

now i think you are just deliberately changing the argument becasue you are just plainly wrong and cant back up anything you say.

i have absolutely no proof, no statistics and no scientific evidence, but in my opinion, i think youre a twat.

besides, you havent answered my question.
please do. im very interested to hear what waffle, worry, your opinion on that

PullMyFinger!

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i have absolutely no proof, no statistics and no scientific evidence, but in my opinion, i think youre a twat

How do I report a post to a Mod?

WhiteWashMan

PullMyFinger! wrote:

How do I report a post to a Mod?

you click the little triangle in the bottom left hand corner of the post.

oh no, are you going to report me?

at last, a bold shining new hero for the downtrodden....

MorningStar

WhiteWashMan wrote:

why do you think a different sentence is needed for someone because of the amount of money they have, or their background?

what a ridiculous thing to say!

I missed this question, so sorry. I believe that people of certain backgrounds are unable to identify what is crime to the same extent people from other backgrounds would. Social economic conditions will effect your perception of crime and laws. I think it is therfore unfair to treat everybody equally even though ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Pirate DVDs are a good example. Many people don't see this as a big crime or problem. I will never buy one due to social awarness that money raised from them funds criminal activity which I believe will inevitably move into drug dealing and I also believe pirate DVDs are theft. If I believe this and buy a pirate DVD and somebody else buys the same DVD with no concept of the criminal elements of the DVD. I would think my crime is more than that of the ignorant person and therefore I should be punished more harshly. A €20 fine to me would mean less to me than somebody on the dole. So to treat us the same would not have equal consequences either.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

now i think you are just deliberately changing the argument becasue you are just plainly wrong and cant back up anything you say.

i have absolutely no proof, no statistics and no scientific evidence, but in my opinion, i think youre a t**t

I haven't changed my point I just siad people in poor situations are more likely to comit crime. If you read the articles I posted you would see some proof of the genral theory. As I am "plainly wrong" show me some evidence how I'll read it. I was being given out to because I had no proof so I provided some. You are entitled to your opinion but please keep it civilised and try to learn how to debate a point.
I'll take the point that everybody in a tracksuit is not a scumbag but it can indicates their scocial economic situation. That scocial economic group is more likely to be involved in crime.

MorningStar

Well I must have proven my point as nobody is challanging me now :cool:

passive

*yawns*
wow...you put the B in subtle. I see you'd like some attention? aw wow..i disagree... grr.. stab...blahblahblah.. oh no, i concede your point. argh!!!

(psst...if nobody replied it means they A) don't care are researching day and night to counter your points or C) you said nothing new).

*big warm hug to make you feel loved*

(edit: and it's challenging*)

(edit 2: (for an actual contribution to the discussion), how do you propose they guage this different rules for different classes thing? perhaps each citizen should be tested and given a mark out of ten for their social conscience? or would it be based solely on area code?
ooh.. then they could set up different courts for different score brackets
A) i got 5 years for murder and rape cos i live in scumville and have a 10% social conscience rating
well I got 300 years for shoplifting cos i live in richtown and i have a 100& social conscience rating..what can i say, i was bored...)

I think it is therfore unfair to treat everybody equally even though ignorance of the law is no excuse.

MorningStar

Well it's obvious some people don't know how to discuss a subject. Passing insults doesn't mean you are right or expand your point.

My points remain

1) A disadvantage background means you are more likely to comit a crime
2) The legal system is not fair on the disadvantaged as they are unable to afford decent legal advise.

Don't agree? Fine argue your point. I never suggested a solution just pointed out where the system can fail if a simplistic approach is taken.

The current legal system does take into consideration the social situation the criminal come from. If you want see how they gauge a social background and conscience I suggest you ask a judge.

The whole lock them up approach isn't working. Ireland has a horrible track record for repeat offenders. If there needs to be a solution it has to be improve the conditions and opportunities in disadvantaged areas. It would be cheaper to send somebody to college than to prison for the rest of their lives.

I am not a bleeding heart lliberal it just makes economic sense. I'd rather somebody didn't rob me at all than have somebody who robbed me go to jail for 10 years.

passive

oh no... don't get me wrong, I don't take great offence to your posts. It was just childish to bump the thread up and declare victory because nobody felt like continuing the discussion. Perhaps because this is a politics or humanities issue rather than after hours banter and you're just going off on your own little tangent regardless of the setting and response from those around you?

nlgbbbblth

MorningStar wrote:

My points remain

1) A disadvantage background means you are more likely to comit a crime
2) The legal system is not fair on the disadvantaged as they are unable to afford decent legal advise.

1 - true. anyone who disagrees is clearly being painfully right-on in an attempt to assuage their own personal middle class guilt.

2 - crap


As the topic starter I would like to return the point I made

The guys in question (the New Ross case) are from an underprivileged background. Yet there is no outcry at the verdicts handed down despite the fact remaining that a person is dead.

UNLIKE the Anabels guys who were relatively well to do.

Take these two different scenarios

1) A group of working class junkies are shooting up in the city centre and are hassling/abusing people.

2) A group of predominately middle class students/assorted people are protesting on May Day.

Whom are the Gardai likely to take on?

Experience would suggest the answer is 2) - proving that "the working class have it tougher" concept is rubbish.

segadreamcast

nlgbbbblth wrote:

Take these three different scenarios

1) A group of working class junkies are shooting up in the city centre and are hassling/abusing people.

2) A group of predominately middle class students/assorted people are protesting on May Day.

Whom are the Gardai likely to take on?

Experience would suggest the answer is 2) - proving that "the working class have it tougher" concept is rubbish.

I'm no math whiz but... that doesn't look like three different scenarios to me. That's the first flaw in your tragically poor argument.

You then go on to attempt to justify your "middle-class = DISADVANTAGED!!!!" argument with some logic which is, frankly, pathetic. Firstly, you take two hypothetical (and isolated) situations - juxtapose them to each other - and then somehow decide, with no statistics, proof or indeed coherent thought as to how you reached such a verdict, that May Day protestors are more likely to be picked on. How? Why?

I've seen many, many people in scenario 1 being arrested.

I've seen May Day incidents too where people got arrested.

I don't see how, or indeed why, you think a Guard would choose one over the other.

nlgbbbblth

NoelRock wrote:

I don't see how, or indeed why, you think a Guard would choose one over the other.

They would chose the second option because they know the people involved are an easier target

Anyway - getting back to the topic of the thread - any views on that?

nlgbbbblth

NoelRock wrote:

Firstly, you take two hypothetical (and isolated) situations - juxtapose them to each other

not hypothetical
the May Day protest attack is well-documented

the other incident took place in 2003 in the Temple Bar area and was well covered in the daily newspapers of the time - particularly seeing as the men were there for some time with the Gardai doing nothing about it.

segadreamcast

Okay, right then - now we're moving somewhere:

You're talking about May Day 2003.

Then you compare it to drug users and say that may day protesters are the easier target...

Justify it.

Are you claiming that Guards purposely ignore drug pushers to pursue 'innocent' protesters? Or worse, are you taking two ISOLATED incidents and claiming them to be the status quo.

Therein lies both the logic and the flaw in your argument.

nlgbbbblth

NoelRock wrote:

You're talking about May Day 2003.

Then you compare it to drug users and say that may day protesters are the easier target...

Justify it.

think about it.
whom would you rather tackle?
a bunch of relatively non-violent, left-leaning pacifists or some edgy and aggressive thugs?

NoelRock wrote:

Are you claiming that Guards purposely ignore drug pushers to pursue 'innocent' protesters? Or worse, are you taking two ISOLATED incidents and claiming them to be the status quo.

well these were two specific incidents which assist illustrate and back up my point.

I can pick two more I witnessed one day last summer
- Group of Celtic jersey-clad, sovereign-ringed youths drinking at Butt Bridge and hassling passers-by.
- Busker on Grafton St.

The Gardai are nowhere to be found in the former situation but have no difficult in getting the busker off the street.

Now I can hardly claim or prove these to be the status quo. But they are possibly indicative.

WhiteWashMan

MorningStar wrote:

I missed this question, so sorry. I believe that people of certain backgrounds are unable to identify what is crime to the same extent people from other backgrounds would. Social economic conditions will effect your perception of crime and laws. I think it is therfore unfair to treat everybody equally even though ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Pirate DVDs are a good example. Many people don't see this as a big crime or problem. I will never buy one due to social awarness that money raised from them funds criminal activity which I believe will inevitably move into drug dealing and I also believe pirate DVDs are theft. If I believe this and buy a pirate DVD and somebody else buys the same DVD with no concept of the criminal elements of the DVD. I would think my crime is more than that of the ignorant person and therefore I should be punished more harshly. A €20 fine to me would mean less to me than somebody on the dole. So to treat us the same would not have equal consequences either.

of course, im unsure of how exactly that shows up the difference between punishing crime based on your background or your bank balance.
in your 'example' one person knows about DVD piracy, and someone else doesnt.
which one is the working class stiff? it must obviously be the innocent one right, becuase he didnt get to go to school?

come one, you talk about a debate, you cant even defend your own points. come to think of it, you cant even make a point.

so far i have 'people from different backgrounds should be punished differently'

you have yet to give a simgle reason for that.

i await your reply

WhiteWashMan

ooopppss!

no reply in the last 5 seconds, i guess i must have outwitted you there.

MorningStar

WhiteWashMan wrote:

of course, im unsure of how exactly that shows up the difference between punishing crime based on your background or your bank balance.

Well read it again and think for a minute!

WhiteWashMan wrote:

in your 'example' one person knows about DVD piracy, and someone else doesnt.
which one is the working class stiff? it must obviously be the innocent one right, becuase he didnt get to go to school?

I never said anything about working class, I have always said deprived areas. I never said people in such areas didn't go to school. In such areas the people tended to be poorly educated. I didn't say innocent either I suggested that the person who knew the full ramifications was more guilty. I also said that equal punishments didn't have equal consequences on the people.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

come one, you talk about a debate, you cant even defend your own points. come to think of it, you cant even make a point.

so far i have 'people from different backgrounds should be punished differently'

you have yet to give a simgle reason for that.

i await your reply

I numbered my points earlier so if you are unsure read that post. I also have made a few additional points along the way. One of which is peoples' punishments should be different based on their "situation" (not background). if you know something is wrong when you do it I think your crime is more than if you didn't know it was a crime. That what I think and why I think it can't make it any simpler than numbered points and an example.

MorningStar

nlgbbbblth wrote:

2 - crap

Well argued point.