Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: Omar Aly on June 02, 2012, 02:07:30 pm
-
Well here goes nearly 2 years and more than 1,500 people for nothing... Why do they have death penalty in egypt if they're not using it on that guy, who should be sentenced to death then? Can you believe that megaupload founder got a longer jail time then a guy who killed protestors serious WTF... Here's the charges..
Former president Hosny Mubarak sentenced to only 25 years as well as the ex-minster of interior (Chief of the police) who was sentenced to 25 years also, while both his sons, and assistance of the minster are free of charges.
- Stealing, accept bribe etc..
Free of all these charges, as not enough evidance was represented, so techinally all the money he stole won't come back..
That's pure shit, I expect more protests to happen in Egypt soon...
-
Well, wasn't this guy 80 years old?
Then 25 years is enough, you know. :roll:
-
Well, wasn't this guy 80 years old?
Then 25 years is enough, you know. :roll:
+1.
-
What about the stealing, and his sons, and minster's assitances?
-
Caltson is right, 25 years, and he's already 80 ..
But .. What about the money he stole? The bribes he accepted? The underdevelopment he caused to Egypt along the past 3 decades?
At least he MUST be obligated to give back all the money he stole (70 billions as for the latest static).
Catherine Ashton stated not long ago, that the money that were stolen and wasted during the past 3 decades were enough to make EACH PERSON in Egypt a millionaire! So I guess now you might be able to imagine how big the financial losses are.
-
What would you suggest for punishment then?
-
Well for mubarak 25 years, + somthing like 100 million dollars or they hang him, and for the assistances and minster of interior, death penalty
-
Would you rather let him have a quick death or rot in jail for the rest of his life?
-
Seems like most of you don't understand the true meaning of punishment. Punishment is not a tool for revenge.
-
Can you believe that megaupload founder got a longer jail time then a guy who killed protestors serious WTF
Kim Dotcom hasn't been sentenced yet..
-
Well for mubarak 25 years, + somthing like 100 million dollars or they hang him, and for the assistances and minster of interior, death penalty
Yea, all his cash was conficated. PS i heard that he was sentenced for life? It was on CNN. Whell, 25 years is a life for him.
-
"An Egyptian court has sentenced ex-President Hosni Mubarak to life in prison for complicity in the killing of protesters during last year's uprising"
Taken from the BBC website, kthxbai.
-
I see some people in Egypt still believe fairy tales. For the last 50 years the true leaders of Egypt are the military leaders. Anyone named president or minister is a face for the people, nothing more.
While preparing for elections the military has removed several candidates, probably because they were too independent.
The uprising has destroyed most of the tourism, and damaged Egypt more as 30 years of Mubarak.
I will be very surprised if Egypt will recover from this in the next 10 years.
-
inb4 next president will be military supported... :)
-
inb4 next president will be military supported... :)
Of course..
-
Of course..
In few days you'll find a topic called Gandalf was right on this board, you'll be knowing what is it for.. ;)
-
Who gives a sh*t? He'll probibly die fro mold age before his release, and if not people will kill him if he ever gets released, just like they've said they will kill his sons.
-
Who gives a sh*t? He'll probibly die fro mold age before his release, and if not people will kill him if he ever gets released, just like they've said they will kill his sons.
Haha. "we democracy now" "we kil u cuz we don lik u!!!"
-
25 years is the max sentence in a lot of countries around the world. They wanted a democracy, welcome to the legal system of one :lol:
-
Umm, where did you get that 25 years news?Hes in for life imprisonment..
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mubarak_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_over_protester_deaths?dpl_id=451535 (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mubarak_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_over_protester_deaths?dpl_id=451535)
-
Umm, where did you get that 25 years news?Hes in for life imprisonment..
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mubarak_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_over_protester_deaths?dpl_id=451535 (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mubarak_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_over_protester_deaths?dpl_id=451535)
Life is really 25 years in many places.
-
Life is really 25 years in many places.
Same here and in many countries. That's why you hear the expression "25 to life"
If the prisoner hasn't changed his attitude and commited other crimes after 25 years he will be released. Ofcourse there are exceptions.
-
Sometimes I think that peoples who did not sign the human rights charters (due to being in a different era or having an autocratic government) are better at making people suffer duly for their crimes than we are. :devroll:
A good example are those "hotel-prisons".
-
Sometimes I think that peoples who did not sign the human rights charters (due to being in a different era or having an autocratic government) are better at making people suffer duly for their crimes than we are. :devroll:
A good example are those "hotel-prisons".
You are missing the point of imprisonement. It is not mean to give the victims revenge, but to make those who committed crimes realise their mistakes, repent and learn to function better in society.
Putting someone in prison as revenge for their victims is barbaric.
This is the opinion of those who invented modern imprisonment. ;)
-
You are missing the point of imprisonement. It is not mean to give the victims revenge, but to make those who committed crimes realise their mistakes, repent and learn to function better in society.
Putting someone in prison as revenge for their victims is barbaric.
This is the opinion of those who invented modern imprisonment. ;)
In barbaric times though, a prisoner who was jailed after being caught molesting a child would never get out of prison by appealing his case based on many little technicalities which constitute today's very exploitable red tape. The village leader would order him punished (could be stoning to death, tearing apart by horses, hanging, fed to lions, etc), without any chance to escape his crimes, unlike what they have today.
Personally though, I think the best process for deciding most solutions is a case-by-case basis rather than applying a one-solution-for-all process.
-
People are saying the other system is better..trust me it isnt..
People here in India are super jealous of such systems, its not all good and amazing as it seems...
Wanna escape a death sentence?Just keep appealing the same thing over and over and over in the court for 10 years, since theres no limit on number of appeals/denials and you get released after 10 years..
Wanna get someone else a death sentence?Just make some phone calls and have 100k ready..
Theres almost nobody who ever gets out of prison in here, only the rich and powerful do...A supreme court judge himself admitted that approximately 40 percent of all the people doing time in prison are probably innocent.
-
In barbaric times though, a prisoner who was jailed after being caught molesting a child would never get out of prison by appealing his case based on many little technicalities which constitute today's very exploitable red tape. The village leader would order him punished (could be stoning to death, tearing apart by horses, hanging, fed to lions, etc), without any chance to escape his crimes, unlike what they have today.
Personally though, I think the best process for deciding most solutions is a case-by-case basis rather than applying a one-solution-for-all process.
In barbaric times the village leader would declare them married. Still happens.
-
You are missing the point of imprisonement. It is not mean to give the victims revenge, but to make those who committed crimes realise their mistakes, repent and learn to function better in society.
Putting someone in prison as revenge for their victims is barbaric.
This is the opinion of those who invented modern imprisonment. ;)
SURE! I kill a person and i get imprisoned in a villa look-a-like with free food, gym and etc. Sure, i will learn! I will get out kill another person and get back to the same place, but i dont give a shit! I dont have to pay tax or break my head trying to get something to eat.
That made no sense.. Sorry.
-
SURE! I kill a person and i get imprisoned in a villa look-a-like with free food, gym and etc. Sure, i will learn! I will get out kill another person and get back to the same place, but i dont give a shit! I dont have to pay tax or break my head trying to get something to eat.
That made no sense.. Sorry.
If you do, society is still safe. You will not learn more if you are put on water and bread, only that you do not want to go back...
-
If you do, society is still safe. You will not learn more if you are put on water and bread, only that you do not want to go back...
You do not want to go back, and you know if you commit crimes, you will go back.
That does prevent from comitting crimes.
-
You do not want to go back, and you know if you commit crimes, you will go back.
That does prevent from comitting crimes.
Or make you kill as many people as possible then getting killed yourself or commit suicide.
After all if you kill someone and are not having a problem with doing it again you are having huge mental problems.
-
Or make you kill as many people as possible then getting killed yourself or commit suicide.
After all if you kill someone and are not having a problem with doing it again you are having huge mental problems.
Killing someone is already being mentally sick, ofcourse, except the extraordinary situations.
-
Killing someone is already being mentally sick, ofcourse, except the extraordinary situations.
And in such extraordinary situations people would not object to prison giving a limited quality of life and the chance to return to a normal life in society.
-
By extraordinary situations i meant cops, military and self defense
-
By extraordinary situations i meant cops, military and self defense
The last one.
-
And in such extraordinary situations people would not object to prison giving a limited quality of life and the chance to return to a normal life in society.
if you have a criminal record, even if self defence, its incredibly hard to get a job. Self Defence is not a crime anyways.
-
if you have a criminal record, even if self defence, its incredibly hard to get a job. Self Defence is not a crime anyways.
And why are there no privacy laws who forbid that employers can check such records ?
-
And why are there no privacy laws who forbid that employers can check such records ?
Cause the employers are rich.
-
And why are there no privacy laws who forbid that employers can check such records ?
Because an employer has the right to demand any record or drug test before hiring someone. Its their business, they can run and hire the people they want. Privacy laws regarding criminal records only apply when someone tries to get your record without your permission. You need to give an employer the record before they hire you. I worked in the records department doing background checks at my local police station when I first started and its a very secure system when it comes to privacy, however you need to willingly provide the required information before your hired at almost any job, unless your being paid under the table... but still, no one is going to take the risk of hiring someone who went to jail.
-
Mubarak's slipping away soon, the doctors used the defibrillator on him twice earlier this week.
-
Because an employer has the right to demand any record or drug test before hiring someone. Its their business, they can run and hire the people they want. Privacy laws regarding criminal records only apply when someone tries to get your record without your permission. You need to give an employer the record before they hire you. I worked in the records department doing background checks at my local police station when I first started and its a very secure system when it comes to privacy, however you need to willingly provide the required information before your hired at almost any job, unless your being paid under the table... but still, no one is going to take the risk of hiring someone who went to jail.
Which makes it exactly why employers should be disallowed to do such checks.
Having a criminal record should not exclude one from society, and any employer who does so should be sued for discrimination.
-
Which makes it exactly why employers should be disallowed to do such checks.
Having a criminal record should not exclude one from society, and any employer who does so should be sued for discrimination.
What if the applicant has a record of always being brought back to prison (for offenses such as, let's say, rape) shortly after being set free, and was only set free a short while back?
Not that I'm against your post (as I share a similar view on that issue), but I like to try and look at problems from alternate angles.
-
What if the applicant has a record of always being brought back to prison (for offenses such as, let's say, rape) shortly after being set free, and was only set free a short while back?
Not that I'm against your post (as I share a similar view on that issue), but I like to try and look at problems from alternate angles.
Would you expect such a person to be able to successfully apply for a job ?
-
Would you expect such a person to be able to successfully apply for a job ?
What about those individuals who experience periods of "normalcy" between bouts of psychological illness?
Checking records should not be done for discriminatory purposes, but rather, as security measures.
-
What about those individuals who experience periods of "normalcy" between bouts of psychological illness?
Checking records should not be done for discriminatory purposes, but rather, as security measures.
That would be a medical record, not a jail record.
-
Would you expect such a person to be able to successfully apply for a job ?
Just because someone is a sexual predator or a murderer does not make them incapable of applying for a job. Now, if you want a child molester working in a store where your kids visit, or in your schools or hospitals then sure, lets get rid of background checks.
Having a job is not a right, its a privilege, and if you commit a crime you lose certain abilities within society. Now, we have programs to give criminals jobs after jail, but they are usually minimum wage, $10 an hour jobs cleaning floors. You say that it is against a persons rights to discriminate because of criminal history, but putting them in a workplace where they could re-offend infringes the rights to safety that ALL of society has. So individual vs society comes in to play and you always go with society first.
-
Just because someone is a sexual predator or a murderer does not make them incapable of applying for a job. Now, if you want a child molester working in a store where your kids visit, or in your schools or hospitals then sure, lets get rid of background checks.
Having a job is not a right, its a privilege, and if you commit a crime you lose certain abilities within society. Now, we have programs to give criminals jobs after jail, but they are usually minimum wage, $10 an hour jobs cleaning floors. You say that it is against a persons rights to discriminate because of criminal history, but putting them in a workplace where they could re-offend infringes the rights to safety that ALL of society has. So individual vs society comes in to play and you always go with society first.
Indeed it is better to get rid of background checks as to let someone without a chance to redeem themselves. As for certain jobs being allowed to deny a certain type of offenders that is not a problem.
But if you wish to be a manager in supermarket and are denied because of a criminal record that has nothing to do with your job, that is pure discrimination and should be fully and wholly disallowed.
Employers are abusing the fear of society and that means the society has gone corrupt.
If the same person would be denied because he has a record of being homosexual everyone would speak shame.
-
Indeed it is better to get rid of background checks as to let someone without a chance to redeem themselves. As for certain jobs being allowed to deny a certain type of offenders that is not a problem.
But if you wish to be a manager in supermarket and are denied because of a criminal record that has nothing to do with your job, that is pure discrimination and should be fully and wholly disallowed.
Employers are abusing the fear of society and that means the society has gone corrupt.
If the same person would be denied because he has a record of being homosexual everyone would speak shame.
Oh I think I have described how the system works in a bad way. let me explain again how we do background checks
So a person comes in and up to our counter and says they need a background check for an employer, they fill out a form with their information and give it to us, we take a couple days to check the Sex offenders database, Our local database and the national database for anything they have done.
We then check off on the background check if they have a criminal record relating to the job they are applying for. However, Assault, attempted murder, murder and sexual offences are ALWAYS listed, other crimes like hit and run, stealing etc are only listed if it relates to the job they apply for.
What you said is close to what we have, however certain serious crimes or crimes related to the job are still put on the background check. Sure, we need to give people a chance to become better in society, but we also understand that people re-offend frequently so people would rather not take the risk. Even though there is some flexibility with the system, its still hard to get jobs as a criinal because the police and government would rather not take risks with criminals released from jail.
-
The amount of incidents in the record of a person should be taken into consideration and prioritized over the mere presence of a person's record. If someone has been jailed for child abuse and set free at least 3 times, then that tells you something about letting them work in a place where you leave your kids.
-
Oh I think I have described how the system works in a bad way. let me explain again how we do background checks
So a person comes in and up to our counter and says they need a background check for an employer, they fill out a form with their information and give it to us, we take a couple days to check the Sex offenders database, Our local database and the national database for anything they have done.
We then check off on the background check if they have a criminal record relating to the job they are applying for. However, Assault, attempted murder, murder and sexual offences are ALWAYS listed, other crimes like hit and run, stealing etc are only listed if it relates to the job they apply for.
What you said is close to what we have, however certain serious crimes or crimes related to the job are still put on the background check. Sure, we need to give people a chance to become better in society, but we also understand that people re-offend frequently so people would rather not take the risk. Even though there is some flexibility with the system, its still hard to get jobs as a criinal because the police and government would rather not take risks with criminals released from jail.
If you are not going to allow someone to live, you might just as well kill them for such offenses.
-
If you are not going to allow someone to live, you might just as well kill them for such offenses.
yeah well, thats where our constitution is flawed. It says you have the right to life, but it does not say employment or housing is a right so you can live, just not happily XD
But I am a major supporter of the death penalty which sadly many Canadians are not so we probably wont be getting it any time soon.
-
yeah well, thats where our constitution is flawed. It says you have the right to life, but it does not say employment or housing is a right so you can live, just not happily XD
But I am a major supporter of the death penalty which sadly many Canadians are not so we probably wont be getting it any time soon.
Imprisonment is to be aimed at a return to society. However if society fails to accept people due to imprisonment, their punishment in reality does not end. That is not an error of the constitution, but an error of the society, and can only be fixed by very strict privacy laws that give exception only for very specific needs.
To this can be added that if someone has returning problems, a special institution directed at mental health can be used.
-
Very good thinking, I am going to go a bit "red neck" here, but why not just hang him? :devroll:
He destroyed such a country with that much of potential...
But yet, "democracy" in that or other countries is not allowing such a penalty to people like Mubarak, rapists, killers, terrorists etc...
-
Imprisonment is to be aimed at a return to society. However if society fails to accept people due to imprisonment, their punishment in reality does not end. That is not an error of the constitution, but an error of the society, and can only be fixed by very strict privacy laws that give exception only for very specific needs.
To this can be added that if someone has returning problems, a special institution directed at mental health can be used.
In my opinion strict privacy just breeds criminal activity. If the law is restricted because of increased "privacy" concerns, people are going to start getting away with lots of stuff. We had to change the law here recently because apparently laptops are not covered by home search warrants, so when they found child porn on this guys hard drive, they could not arrest him because the warrent did not cover it. Adding more restrictions like that just lets criminals get away.
if your innocent, then you having nothing to worry about, if your a criminal you get justice. If you commit a crime that is bad enough to get a serious criminal record you don't deserve the privilages of society, you lost those abilities the day you decided to break the law.
-
In my opinion strict privacy just breeds criminal activity. If the law is restricted because of increased "privacy" concerns, people are going to start getting away with lots of stuff. We had to change the law here recently because apparently laptops are not covered by home search warrants, so when they found child porn on this guys hard drive, they could not arrest him because the warrent did not cover it. Adding more restrictions like that just lets criminals get away.
if your innocent, then you having nothing to worry about, if your a criminal you get justice. If you commit a crime that is bad enough to get a serious criminal record you don't deserve the privilages of society, you lost those abilities the day you decided to break the law.
That is a point of view which is completely contrary to the modern purpose of imprisonment.
If you do not allow to people to redeem themselves, chances are extremely high that they will continue in to more and worse criminal activity.
Imprisonment in modern view is not to satisfy the victims, but to punish the criminal in a way that he can repent and return to society, with the possibility to build his life again without having to resort to criminal activity.
For mental disorders like pedophilia there should be institutions where they are treated until they are ready to function in society without repetition. Which may be never.
As for your example, that has zero to do with employers being able to refuse someone because they can see his criminal record without it being related to the job.
-
Very good thinking, I am going to go a bit "red neck" here, but why not just hang him? :devroll:
He destroyed such a country with that much of potential...
But yet, "democracy" in that or other countries is not allowing such a penalty to people like Mubarak, rapists, killers, terrorists etc...
The country was destroyed by the riots, not by Mubarak....
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556)
R.I.Pieces
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556)
R.I.Pieces
He was a puppet like the rest of your political whores. But not Hitler right, we're just going to believe he wasn't just a face for an ingenious plot and the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews took place.
/angst
-
Alright !! He is dead now, so lock this topic =)
-
Alright !! He is dead now, so lock this topic =)
Probably a ruse to sneak him out of the country XD
-
He was a puppet like the rest of your political whores. But not Hitler right, we're just going to believe he wasn't just a face for an ingenious plot and the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews took place.
/angst
Hitler was key, so was mubarak. The one who initiates and oversees the operation is the main target of descent.
-
He was a puppet like the rest of your political whores. But not Hitler right, we're just going to believe he wasn't just a face for an ingenious plot and the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews took place.
/angst
>6 Million jews killed in ww2
>Statistics show there were only a total of 3.4 Million jews in Europe at the time
your stats are grossly over exaggerated
Where did these magic 2.6 Million jews come from?
-
>6 Million jews killed in ww2
>Statistics show there were only a total of 3.4 Million jews in Europe at the time
your stats are grossly over exaggerated
Where did these magic 2.6 Million jews come from?
That's what I said.
-
>6 Million jews killed in ww2
>Statistics show there were only a total of 3.4 Million jews in Europe at the time
your stats are grossly over exaggerated
Where did these magic 2.6 Million jews come from?
Before or after WW2?
-
Before or after WW2?
That statistic is from when the Germans initially started rounding them up, so before the war.
David Irving - The Holocaust Lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Aq485-WwF4#)
Be advised that I do not say the Holocaust never happened, however I have been presented by many sources information that attampts to prove that certain information about it was either fabricated or over exaggerated. I do not deny the event and do know it is one of the most horrendous acts of the last 100 years. I only present a different side of the argument. As a person with a passion for history, I do not discriminate another persons theory on a historic event if they have a general argument to back it up. But its a touchy subject so I prefer to avoid making very demanding statements on the issue.
-
Mossad monitoring this thread, so I couldn't post what I wanted.
-
Mossad monitoring this thread, so I couldn't post what I wanted.
pfffft
-
That statistic is from when the Germans initially started rounding them up, so before the war.
Be advised that I do not say the Holocaust never happened, however I have been presented by many sources information that attampts to prove that certain information about it was either fabricated or over exaggerated. I do not deny the event and do know it is one of the most horrendous acts of the last 100 years. I only present a different side of the argument. As a person with a passion for history, I do not discriminate another persons theory on a historic event if they have a general argument to back it up. But its a touchy subject so I prefer to avoid making very demanding statements on the issue.
You are mixing up statistics. There were 9 million Jews in Europe before the war, and about 3 million after.
Be very careful with reading revisionist material, as they very often distort the truth.