Except they don't? At least, I haven't personally come across any in real life. And I've known plenty of vegans and bicycle enthusiasts.
I am, by the way, neither vegan nor hard-core bicyclist.
So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let's make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.
It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.
Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.
Also, that it's worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.
I'm struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It's not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it's about killing people just to kill bad people.
Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn't help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there'd be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.
And you'll be paying student loans for the rest of your life, so...
You also have to vocally state that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Just remaining silent is apparently not enough.
Additionally, the request for a lawyer must be unequivocal. Not "I think I need a lawyer," as much as any reasonable person would consider that as a request for a lawyer. McDaniel, the guy in the linked case got railroaded after saying that he thinks he would rather have a lawyer there to speak for him, and the claim that the questioning should have stopped was dismissed because he hadn't requested a lawyer, only that he thought he needed a lawyer.
Judges bend over backwards to let police mess with our rights, so clarity and assertiveness are a must.
It entirely depends on the particular workplace and what is involved, but either way a decent manager should work with you.
"John, Sarah, and James have already asked for that time off, and we have to have someone in the shop. Would you be able to change to this time to this time?" And you never, ever, ever call someone in when they are on PTO. If you, as a manager, okayed it, it's on you if there's not enough coverage for whatever reason.
In fairness, I work in Search and Rescue, so operations like mine and other emergency-related workplaces can't just be like "Oh well, I guess we won't have coverage that day, Joe wanted to go hunting." If you work in an office and your work literal lives aren't depending on you and others being there, then managers should work around it as best they can.
"United States... Space Corps?"
Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!
If it's something you want and your partner doesn't care one way or the other about, it shouldn't factor in.
If you want to make the candles you use around the house, maybe they smell nice, maybe they get used, maybe they're cheaper than store-bought, but that's a hobby.
If you do a bunch of baking, especially for people outside the home but even inside it, and your partner isn't all about you cooking, that's a hobby, and you clean up your own mess. That's not chores (unless you're getting paid).
Chores are necessities to keep the communal house going, not anything that takes effort.
No American (except German History majors, I suppose) hearing the word "Reich" thinks of anything except the third one.
This is like the white dude rolling into a party with swastikas on their coat and then claiming it has other cultural meaning. So what? You and we all know that the reason the reference was brought out is to make you think of Nazis.
Ah, that makes sense. I'm in the military, and we have a similar thing for people who are either due to transfer or retire in the next couple months: FIIGMO. It means "Fuck it, I've got my orders." (For clarification, orders in this context are travel/Primary Change of Station/Retirement Orders, a written and signed document saying they'll be leaving)
It seems like a weirdly deliberate term for something that has been around forever and typically just attributed to low morale. It makes it seem like a person unhappy at work but just doing their job is somehow sticking it to their boss/company. I've dealt with a lot of people like that, both as a peer and a supervisor, and it was never them doing anything intentionally, just being unhappy (and most of the time it had nothing to do with the pay or conditions, just not being suited to the job or general attitude toward life). They could often be a blight on morale, though, so I see how it could be frustrating for supervisors (and peers, they made work miserable for everyone).
I've never understood "quiet quitting" as a term. When did just doing your job become something that needs a term? "Working adequately" seems more apt, but I can't imagine the context that would be worthy of discussion outside an employee review.
That hit surprisingly hard and unexpectedly. I don't remember any of the rest of that episode, but I remember that tiny bit very clearly.
Please don't misunderstand. I was not saying that that was the be-all-end-all of religion. I wasn't speaking against religion in general, just in regards to the irony of suggesting that religion makes people more good. At all.
Religion doesn't stop a bad person from being evil. It can convince a bad person they're still good (better!) when they do evil.
And good people don't need religion to do good. But it can make them overlook the evil of other religious people and protect them, making them bad.
The best-case scenario is that religion can have no effect on how good or bad someone is. Good people stay good despite religion, not because of it.
Oh, great, so he bought evidence of a crime from the hotel (how are both of sides of that transaction not being prosecuted for obstruction of justice?!), and held onto it long enough to go past the surprisingly short statute of limitations. I guess if you have the money, that's all you need to do.
That SoL is ridiculous.