26 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1maraudernothing's changed ... you still reserve your tenderness for the criminally inclined ... and it wasn't a joke ... it was a jab .... against which you still have no counter ... 32% is quite a lot, if you are one of the families affected ...
It wasn't a joke at all - those are funny or at least mildly amusing. It was just another pathetic attempt by a nitwit to be clever and it dismally failed.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by jakejjkWhat statistics can possibly know how many crimes were committed if not by counting convictions?
Not so. They most likely committed dozens of crimes before getting caught (see statistics on crimes committed vs. sentences served) and will commit dozens more after release. The 32% were just dumb enough to get caught again.
Do you mean statistics on crimes allegedly committed vs sentences served?
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotMake up your "mind", moron:
nothing's changed ... you still reserve your tenderness for the criminally inclined ... and it wasn't a joke ... it was a jab .... against which you still have no counter ... 32% is quite a lot, if you are one of the families affected ...
and it wasn't a lawyer joke ... it was a no1m joke
and it wasn't a joke
Outside of the fact that you don't know whether I or my family have been affected by violent crime (it's NOYFB, anyway) unless you want to execute everyone who commits any sort of violent crime (that includes simple assaults, robberies where no one is injured, etc. etc.), these people are eventually going to be freed. It's good news that more than 2/3 don't go back and shows that a policy of no parole would keep a lot of people in prison that pose no threat to public safety.
26 Feb 07
Oh my goodness, simply pathetic to see the bully of the kindergarten
calling names up and down... again.
Let's make some reading instead:
So long as the loss of the criminal’s freedom is traded off against
gains in the protection of everyone else’s freedom, consequentialist
accounts provide an appealing strategy of vicarious justification. But
once we require that for complete justification freedom must not only
be realized for everyone else but also in the person of the criminal, a
more sophisticated and inclusive strategy is required.
This paper from Hanno Kaiser makes a good start:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=788584
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderit wasn't a no1m joke, either, but you popping off turned it into one 🙂 ...
Make up your "mind", moron:
and it wasn't a lawyer joke ... it was a no1m joke
and it wasn't a joke
Outside of the fact that you don't know whether I or my family have been affected by violent crime (it's NOYFB, anyway) unless you want to execute everyone who commits any sort of violent crime (that includes simple assaults, robberies ...[text shortened]... of no parole would keep a lot of people in prison that pose no threat to public safety.
that's a good idea ... execute em all ...
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, it does not state that "some did and some did not" rape her.
What was mentioned in the article is that some of them raped and murdered and some didn't. Right?
The article states that three of the men raped her, and a fourth held her during one of the rapes. It does not describe the additional actions of the fourth, and completely fails to mention the fifth. It does not state whether the subject soldier was the first to rape, or not.
The article states that the two convicted soldiers have "pleaded guilty" to the planned rape, actual rape, and murders.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by SJ247Yes, he was convicted of murder as an accomplice even though he didn't actually kill anyone. This is fairly common. It is still considered worse to be the actual killer for sentencing purposes (generally).
No, it does not state that "some did and some did not" rape her.
The article states that three of the men raped her, and a fourth held her during one of the rapes. It does not describe the additional actions of the fourth, and completely fails to mention the fifth. It does not state whether the subject soldier was the first to rape, or not.
The arti ...[text shortened]... nvicted soldiers have "pleaded guilty" to the planned rape, actual rape, and murders.
Cortez was convicted of conspiracy to rape, rape, four counts of murder, and other charges including violating a general order by drinking.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by jakejjkYep. About a fortnight before it started Churchill sent a communication to one of his senior military staff saying words to the effect of: "It would be convenient if the German's were to drop some bombs on London." Shortly after this a German bomber did, as a result of a navigational error, drop it's load of bombs on the East End. What would have been an isolated and unfortunate incident was turned into policy for both sides when the British "retaliated" by carpet bombing Berlin the following night. Hitler was so incensed that he ordered the diversion of the Luftwaffe from attacks on RAF bases, which were crumbling under the pressure, to attacks on major British cities with the result that the RAF were able to rebuild. A strategic masterstroke, but nevertheless a great crime.
4. The blitz was started by the British??????
I need to do some research before attempting to answer your other points. Although the one about maximising blast rather than firestorm damage is a bit of a sixth form debating point.
27 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungChrist...The London Blitz, when the Luftwaffe tried to demoralise the British by bombing London instead of focusing on RAF installations. The switch to civilian targets gave the RAF the respite they needed and pretty soon Operation Sealion was definitively shelved.
What exactly do you mean by "the blitz"? Blitzkrieg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
The Blitz is an important London myth. Google "Henry Moore's shelter drawings" for some pictures. JG Ballard reckons that the British still haven't quite got over it...
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWow! Never even heard this term before. You learn something every day.
Christ...The London Blitz, when the Luftwaffe tried to demoralise the British by bombing London instead of focusing on RAF installations. The switch to civilian targets gave the RAF the respite they needed and pretty soon Operation Sealion was definitively shelved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz