The sentences when someone gets a sentence for 100’s, or 1000’s of years, do they have the same function?

Basically the judge saying that no matter how much time credit your get for good behaviour while in prison you’re still intended to spend the rest of your life there.

The UN: India is already within the target of Paris agreement for per capita CO2 emission.

The Indians: Hold my lassi !

The Israeli left has been advocating for peace for the last 57 years and losing ground because of it so don’t hold your breath.

Oh so a right wing president tried to push a right wing PM against a majority left leaning parliament disregarding the vote result and failed ?

You have weird notions of what makes good governance.

The United Right alliance placed first for the third straight election and won a plurality of seats but fell short of a Sejm majority. The opposition, consisting of the Civic Coalition, Third Way, and The Left, achieved a combined total vote of 54%, managing to form a majority coalition government.

So exactly the opposite of what you said.

The party with the largest number or seat didn’t get to make a government and the largest coalition who managed to get a majority of seats did.

Cite some example

There are other voting system than first past the post like Condorcet, coda, etc… nothing is a absolutely perfect but some system will be closer.

Technically the left didn’t win the majority of seat in the parliament. They have a relative majority as in they are the biggest group in parliament by a small margin but they don’t have the majority needed to make a stable government.

A majority vote from the parliament can oust the PM and his government.

If you take all the right wing parties, they hold the majority of seats (2/3rd). A left leaning government would last 48 hours, so in spite of french leftists telling everyone they “won”, they didn’t.

Our electoral system is very flawed though and the current make up of the parliament is not representative of what people want, there are much better voting system for plurality based political system that could be implemented.

In English hero is mixed and heroine is exclusively feminine.

I tried to find “usage” stats on the word, but all I got was listings for substance abuse helpline. :D

Based on what criteria ? By legal definition, all the clients of a defense lawyer are initially innocent until it’s proven to be otherwise during trial.

Even the worst piece of shit is entitled to a defender, that’s one of the few things that keeps a small amount of fairness in the judicial system.

What you’re saying amount to saying that anyone accused of rape should not be entitled to a lawyer or that you think there’s some kind of good rapist that deserve a defense and bad rapist that don’t… Which is weird.

IANAL. <-- disclaimer.

Consent is not part of the definition of rape in France.

Currently it is defined as any sexual penetration act perpetrated by « violence, coercion, threat or surprise ». Court have also ruled that trickery falls under “surprise”. So I can’t tell you I’m a astronaut to get laid either (HIMYM was basically a TV show about a guy in a suit raping women). This was ruled during a case where a serial rapist used a model’s picture on dating apps to invite woman to have sex in the dark with a blindfold at his place. Turned out he was a 60y old average dude and not Chris Hemsworth and the charge were initially dropped before reaching our higher level of court. (Yes that case was fucked up on too many level…)

There’s currently a long standing debate in France, which predate that trial, to include consent as part of the legal definition and a commission has been mandated earlier in the year to study the issue. It’s probably not going to happen for a while since we have other political issue at the moment and the right wingers currently clinging to power aren’t exactly feminists.

The pro argument are relatively simple to imagine. Rape is when someone does sex stuff you don’t want. So it seems to make perfect sense. That’s what the Belgian law has and what the EU is pushing.

From what I understand from the people against it, it is more technical. In our legal system, you need to prove that a crime has been committed (innocent until proven guilty) but somehow they think it would shift to burden of proof to the defense because the only way to include it in our legal system would be to assume “non consent” by default and the accused would then have to prove consent.

The other anti argument is that absence of consent is impossible to prove and that the current definition is build to cover the case of non consent with provable definition.

There are probably as many lawyers on both side of the argument and as I said, I am not one of them, law is complicated I’m not qualified to have an opinion on what would be better.

Either way I’m just not really sure adding consent would change most of the outcomes as the main issue to convict is usually the lack of proof and witnesses and most cases ending up deadlocked by a “he said - she said” scenario.

From a purely legal standpoint “consent” isn’t required in that case. It falls under “surprise”.

I remember when, I think, Sony was hacked because of the movie « the interview ». It created enough of a news cycle shitstorm that our corporate overlords became excessively generous with our infosec budget and made it a tier 1 priority.

It went for measly .5% to a whooping 25% of IT expenditure.

On the other hand to really show they didn’t understand anything about it they recruited an experienced CISO and fired him a month later because an accountant’s workstation was hit by a ransomware. The guy barely had the time to start building a plan and launch a bunch of audit but still got the full blame for decades of neglects. (He eventually sued them and settled).