| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2011 08:47:19 AM · #1 |
Not sure if you are aware of this story or not. Google his name and you'll know.
He was convicted of killing a cop and sentenced to death row. Was executed by lethal injection September 21, 2011.
I won't go into the details of the case (Google is your friend) but IMO there was enough there to have reasonable doubt. They sent a man that 'might' have killed the police officer. 'Might' and death row are scary. I disagree with the death penalty entirely and it's this kind of case that makes it worse. I can never say with certainty that he did/didn't do the crime but if he didn't and they find the man who did, what justice will there be for Troy Davis? I would hope proof that the death penalty is a flawed way of dealing with criminals. Life without parole is what these dangerous men (And women) need.
Any opinions from around the DPC world? |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 08:56:37 AM · #2 |
im not at all against the death penalty, in fact i think we should use it more often, and i also think we should do it sooner, no more sitting on death row for year sand years while us taxpayer foot the bill. i also say include crime against children.
my reasoning isn't revenge, its that getting the death penalty should be a deterrent to commit a terrible crime. start executing these creeps withing a week of being convicted and i guarantee you'll see these crimes drop overnight. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:00:02 AM · #3 |
| The scariest quote I read from a lawmaker was "He didn't prove his innocence".... |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:01:37 AM · #4 |
I thought it was horrific that they were willing to execute him and did not grant him a stay during that last board (parole board or whatever it was) meeting. There clearly was reasonable doubt. If they turn up evidence that irrefutably shows the other guy did it, or someone else, I think criminal charges (manslaughter) should be applied to those decision makers. Then they won't do it again!
I don't recall where, but I seem to recall seeing some statistic showing the death penalty is not a deterrent.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:19:42 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
im not at all against the death penalty, in fact i think we should use it more often, and i also think we should do it sooner, no more sitting on death row for year sand years while us taxpayer foot the bill. i also say include crime against children.
my reasoning isn't revenge, its that getting the death penalty should be a deterrent to commit a terrible crime. start executing these creeps withing a week of being convicted and i guarantee you'll see these crimes drop overnight. |
+1 |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:28:34 AM · #6 |
I am usually very against the death penalty, for many reasons, and Troy Davis only reinforces my feelings.
On a totally separate note- as liberal and anti-death penalty as I am-
sometimes "Earl has to die"
and by "Earl" I mean Lawrence Russell Brewer. Google that guy. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:29:45 AM · #7 |
Lawrence Russell Brewer (the other guy who got executed on Wednesday) prompted Texas to abolish the 'last meal' requests from now on.
He ordered this;
Two chicken fried steaks
Triple-meat bacon cheeseburger
Fried okra
Pound of barbecue
Three fajitas
Meat lover's pizza
Pint of ice cream
Peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts
And when it arrived he said he wasn't hungry.
//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15034970 |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:01:25 AM · #8 |
Not really. Why? Because he had a trial where the state proved to a jury beyond a reasonalbe doubt that Davis did the crime. Since that time he has had all his appeals, the Supreme Court also heard the case. In order to get a new trial, his lawyers would have to bring up some kind of strong evidence of his INNOCENCE. In order for a court to turn over the death penalty, the same must be done. During the trial the burden is on the state, after a guilty verdict - the burden is on the accused. And remember, if he was found Not-guilty, the state can't file appeal after appeal or go the the top court to get a new trial....it is over. However, the guilty has that option and that is why it takes 20+ years for the sentence to be carried out.
Since the crime, many have taken up the cause of his "innocence". The news reports always report what the "new" news is...mainly reporting what Davis supporters are claiming. They rarely give more than a sentence or two about the trial and the facts as heard by the jury. This tends to sway people to lean towards saying he's innocent.
As for what I know (and feel) about the case:
Another man was shot in the face about an hour before the police officer was shot. The first victim lived. He was shot while yelling at Davis from a car. Davis was also convicted of that shooting. Shell casings and bullet fragments were recoverd from that shooting...matching the casings and bullits from the officer's murder.
In the murder case, Officer sees two men beating a homeless man with a gun. He comes to his aid and is shot in the face and heart. At the time of the shooting witnesses identified Davis by face and clothes. Gun was never found. However, upon tips about Davis, police went to his mothers house. They gathered clothes belonging to Davis - supposedly matching what he was wearing the night of the shooting. However, it was not entered as evidence b/c it was determined that no search warrent was issued and there was no crime being commited in the house so they did not have the right to take the clothes. So no physical evidence only witness testimony.
So according to witnesses there were four people involved. The victim (officer), the homeless victim, Davis, and the other guy with Davis. So either the officer shot himself twice, or the homeless man shot the officer twice or Davis shot the officer twice or the other guy shot the officer twice. Witness said Davis.
The defense keeps putting up the talking point...6 witness say they were mistaken but fail to give the hard details that other witnesses are holding to their original testimony.
Originally posted by JH:
The scariest quote I read from a lawmaker was "He didn't prove his innocence".... |
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:01:29 AM · #9 |
Death penalty is non existent here.
Unfortunately sometimes.
We have a few "cases" among which Marc Dutroux and his wife Michèle Martin. Both did horrible things about 15 years ago and got convicted.
She applied recently twice to be released but since no institution wants to take the responsibility on her, she saw her application refused.
He will never get free as he got the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but he has the right to apply for an early release as well, just like his wife did.
If ever he would apply for a early release and he would indeed be released, it is a fact that he'll be killed shortly after, so if he has even 2 neurones underneath his skull, he will not apply.
Until the last day he stays in prison, the taxpayers are "supporting" him and his luxury he has. Yes, he lives a rather luxury life in prison: he has tv, video/dvd (whatever), several cells stuffed with books, game consoles, doesn't eat the same menu as other prisoners but a more "sophisticated" one and so on. In fact, prison is a hotel for him.
For people like him and his wife I wouldn't mind at all if they would install death penalty again.
Their guilt has been proven without any doubt.
The least doubt there is if someone is guilty, like in the case of Troy Davis, death penalty should never be performed. I don't know the case in detail but I hope that those who ordered to pull the switch will be able to look at themselves in the mirror and sleep at night if ever it would appear that indeed he was totally inocent.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 11:05:27. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:19:32 AM · #10 |
You would admit that there is some doubt- in your mind not reasonable- but still some doubt. It does not help that this guy is African American in the south and it was cop that was killed.
Oh by the way, I happen to live in CT, work in Cheshire, home of the Petit case- which all but proves that "seeking justice" (bloodlust revenge to some) is an expensive proposition- with two trials costing the state multi-millions- I am not the one in the spotlight, thank God, but a quiet assent to life in prison no parole would end the madness.
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Not really. Why? Because he had a trial where the state proved to a jury beyond a reasonalbe doubt that Davis did the crime. Since that time he has had all his appeals, the Supreme Court also heard the case. In order to get a new trial, his lawyers would have to bring up some kind of strong evidence of his INNOCENCE. In order for a court to turn over the death penalty, the same must be done. During the trial the burden is on the state, after a guilty verdict - the burden is on the accused. And remember, if he was found Not-guilty, the state can't file appeal after appeal or go the the top court to get a new trial....it is over. However, the guilty has that option and that is why it takes 20+ years for the sentence to be carried out.
Since the crime, many have taken up the cause of his "innocence". The news reports always report what the "new" news is...mainly reporting what Davis supporters are claiming. They rarely give more than a sentence or two about the trial and the facts as heard by the jury. This tends to sway people to lean towards saying he's innocent.
As for what I know (and feel) about the case:
Another man was shot in the face about an hour before the police officer was shot. The first victim lived. He was shot while yelling at Davis from a car. Davis was also convicted of that shooting. Shell casings and bullet fragments were recoverd from that shooting...matching the casings and bullits from the officer's murder.
In the murder case, Officer sees two men beating a homeless man with a gun. He comes to his aid and is shot in the face and heart. At the time of the shooting witnesses identified Davis by face and clothes. Gun was never found. However, upon tips about Davis, police went to his mothers house. They gathered clothes belonging to Davis - supposedly matching what he was wearing the night of the shooting. However, it was not entered as evidence b/c it was determined that no search warrent was issued and there was no crime being commited in the house so they did not have the right to take the clothes. So no physical evidence only witness testimony.
So according to witnesses there were four people involved. The victim (officer), the homeless victim, Davis, and the other guy with Davis. So either the officer shot himself twice, or the homeless man shot the officer twice or Davis shot the officer twice or the other guy shot the officer twice. Witness said Davis.
The defense keeps putting up the talking point...6 witness say they were mistaken but fail to give the hard details that other witnesses are holding to their original testimony.
Originally posted by JH:
The scariest quote I read from a lawmaker was "He didn't prove his innocence".... |
|
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:34:02 AM · #11 |
People kill to avoid capture after robbing a candy store with a baseball bat.
If death isn't a deterrent then life in prison isn't either.
The Death penalty is a punishment.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You would admit that there is some doubt- in your mind not reasonable- but still some doubt. It does not help that this guy is African American in the south and it was cop that was killed.
Oh by the way, I happen to live in CT, work in Cheshire, home of the Petit case- which all but proves that "seeking justice" (bloodlust revenge to some) is an expensive proposition- with two trials costing the state multi-millions- I am not the one in the spotlight, thank God, but a quiet assent to life in prison no parole would end the madness.
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Not really. Why? Because he had a trial where the state proved to a jury beyond a reasonalbe doubt that Davis did the crime. Since that time he has had all his appeals, the Supreme Court also heard the case. In order to get a new trial, his lawyers would have to bring up some kind of strong evidence of his INNOCENCE. In order for a court to turn over the death penalty, the same must be done. During the trial the burden is on the state, after a guilty verdict - the burden is on the accused. And remember, if he was found Not-guilty, the state can't file appeal after appeal or go the the top court to get a new trial....it is over. However, the guilty has that option and that is why it takes 20+ years for the sentence to be carried out.
Since the crime, many have taken up the cause of his "innocence". The news reports always report what the "new" news is...mainly reporting what Davis supporters are claiming. They rarely give more than a sentence or two about the trial and the facts as heard by the jury. This tends to sway people to lean towards saying he's innocent.
As for what I know (and feel) about the case:
Another man was shot in the face about an hour before the police officer was shot. The first victim lived. He was shot while yelling at Davis from a car. Davis was also convicted of that shooting. Shell casings and bullet fragments were recoverd from that shooting...matching the casings and bullits from the officer's murder.
In the murder case, Officer sees two men beating a homeless man with a gun. He comes to his aid and is shot in the face and heart. At the time of the shooting witnesses identified Davis by face and clothes. Gun was never found. However, upon tips about Davis, police went to his mothers house. They gathered clothes belonging to Davis - supposedly matching what he was wearing the night of the shooting. However, it was not entered as evidence b/c it was determined that no search warrent was issued and there was no crime being commited in the house so they did not have the right to take the clothes. So no physical evidence only witness testimony.
So according to witnesses there were four people involved. The victim (officer), the homeless victim, Davis, and the other guy with Davis. So either the officer shot himself twice, or the homeless man shot the officer twice or Davis shot the officer twice or the other guy shot the officer twice. Witness said Davis.
The defense keeps putting up the talking point...6 witness say they were mistaken but fail to give the hard details that other witnesses are holding to their original testimony.
Originally posted by JH:
The scariest quote I read from a lawmaker was "He didn't prove his innocence".... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:57:11 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture. |
in reality the death penalty is life in prison except for all but extremely serious offenders. there should be no life in prison. If you are deemed insufficient to live in society you are deemed insufficient to live. Sorry but i have no sympathy for these lowlifes.
and yes we should expand the death penalty to lesser crimes such as violent or sexual crimes against children. if you can do that a child, you can not be rehabilitated nor should my hard earned tax money be spent supporting the rest of your life, take him out back and shoot them. quit letting them out of jail. I'm sick of reading about repeat offenders.
Too many people aren't afraid to go to jail.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:02:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture. |
in reality the death penalty is life in prison except for all but extremely serious offenders. there should be no life in prison. If you are deemed insufficient to live in society you are deemed insufficient to live. Sorry but i have no sympathy for these lowlifes.
and yes we should expand the death penalty to lesser crimes such as violent or sexual crimes against children. if you can do that a child, you can not be rehabilitated nor should my hard earned tax money be spent supporting the rest of your life, take him out back and shoot them. quit letting them out of jail. I'm sick of reading about repeat offenders.
Too many people aren't afraid to go to jail. |
Your original argument was that the Death Penalty would be a massive deterrent. It was pointed out that it just isn't. So you changed tactics and started arguing about paying to keep people in prisons or the danger(s) of repeat offenders.
Make up your mind will you? lol
Face it, you want the death penalty purely out of revenge and because you despise people for commiting certain crimes. There's nothing wrong with that, just be honest with yourself ;)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:18:16 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Oh by the way, I happen to live in CT, work in Cheshire, home of the Petit case- which all but proves that "seeking justice" (bloodlust revenge to some) is an expensive proposition- with two trials costing the state multi-millions- I am not the one in the spotlight, thank God, but a quiet assent to life in prison no parole would end the madness.
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture. |
They will kill anyway, death penalty or not. Look at what happened in the Petit case. The victims complied and the criminals were guilty of serious felonies, but not capital murder until they killed three people, two of them children, in cold blood. After raping and terrorizing them, of course.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 12:19:18. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:18:30 PM · #15 |
Yes for me - Revenge...punishment...whatever...but "for certian crimes" is too vague for me. First degree murder as found guilty by a jury...then I'll agree with whatever punishment the jury decides - Life in prison or death. They had ALL the facts.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Studies have repeatedly shown that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. We run a terrible risk of expanding the death penalty to "lesser crimes" than 1st degree murder- because then it is clear that with nothing to lose, people will kill to avoid capture. |
in reality the death penalty is life in prison except for all but extremely serious offenders. there should be no life in prison. If you are deemed insufficient to live in society you are deemed insufficient to live. Sorry but i have no sympathy for these lowlifes.
and yes we should expand the death penalty to lesser crimes such as violent or sexual crimes against children. if you can do that a child, you can not be rehabilitated nor should my hard earned tax money be spent supporting the rest of your life, take him out back and shoot them. quit letting them out of jail. I'm sick of reading about repeat offenders.
Too many people aren't afraid to go to jail. |
Your original argument was that the Death Penalty would be a massive deterrent. It was pointed out that it just isn't. So you changed tactics and started arguing about paying to keep people in prisons or the danger(s) of repeat offenders.
Make up your mind will you? lol
Face it, you want the death penalty purely out of revenge and because you despise people for commiting certain crimes. There's nothing wrong with that, just be honest with yourself ;) |
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:23:43 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Your original argument was that the Death Penalty would be a massive deterrent. It was pointed out that it just isn't. So you changed tactics and started arguing about paying to keep people in prisons or the danger(s) of repeat offenders.
Make up your mind will you? lol
Face it, you want the death penalty purely out of revenge and because you despise people for commiting certain crimes. There's nothing wrong with that, just be honest with yourself ;) |
my argument is that it inst a massive deterrent the way it is currently structured, just because you are on death row doesn't mean you are going to get put to death any time soon, so basically its life in prison. If we actually started putting people on death row to death right away I'm pretty confidant that people will at least consider their actions. if not at least it isnt costing tons of money to support them
i dont want the death penalty out of revenge, i want people to stop acting like animals and if having stricter punishments accomplishes that then i am all for it.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 12:26:28. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:49:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Your original argument was that the Death Penalty would be a massive deterrent. It was pointed out that it just isn't. So you changed tactics and started arguing about paying to keep people in prisons or the danger(s) of repeat offenders.
Make up your mind will you? lol
Face it, you want the death penalty purely out of revenge and because you despise people for commiting certain crimes. There's nothing wrong with that, just be honest with yourself ;) |
my argument is that it inst a massive deterrent the way it is currently structured, just because you are on death row doesn't mean you are going to get put to death any time soon, so basically its life in prison. If we actually started putting people on death row to death right away I'm pretty confidant that people will at least consider their actions. if not at least it isnt costing tons of money to support them
i dont want the death penalty out of revenge, i want people to stop acting like animals and if having stricter punishments accomplishes that then i am all for it. |
but Mike, what happens when there is a mistake and an innocent person is murdered by the state? |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:59:40 PM · #18 |
| lols, the death penalty is antiquated thinking, it does not bring back the person killed. Its just eye for an eye - tooth for a tooth. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 02:10:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, the death penalty is antiquated thinking, it does not bring back the person killed. Its just eye for an eye - tooth for a tooth. |
Nothing can bring the viictim back, so then doing nothing is the best approach?
The message of the death penalty should be..."What you have done is so heinous that we have decided to remove you from society completely...you are not even worth housing and feeding as an inmate for the rest of your days so you will be euthanized."
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 02:35:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, the death penalty is antiquated thinking, it does not bring back the person killed. Its just eye for an eye - tooth for a tooth. |
Nothing can bring the viictim back, so then doing nothing is the best approach?
The message of the death penalty should be..."What you have done is so heinous that we have decided to remove you from society completely...you are not even worth housing and feeding as an inmate for the rest of your days so you will be euthanized." |
*shrug*
If you're going to commit a crime, the thought of punishment rarely enters the equation. I don't think long and harsh prison sentences really make a difference, nor does the death penalty.
I see the reason to send someone to prison is to remove them from circulation until they are either more mature, wiser, or just too damned old to be a problem. I see the death penalty as a tool which should be used when there is no reasonable doubt, and when the person is clearly beyond redemption - essentially it should only be used when the person in question is truly so far out of step and reason that there is simply no reason for them to continue to live. Maybe we should abolish the death sentence, and just re-instate the gladiator program, it could even be a revenue source instead of a huge financial drain.
Yeah, I know that's harsh, but isn't life in general kinda harsh and unforgiving? I mean, it only takes a single misstep in real life to end everything, if I step out in front of a train or a bus, there isn't an appeals process, there isn't a redemption... There's only my guts spread across a portion of the ground. I don't particularly see any reason that criminal punishment should be any different, at least in the cases of very clear and clean cut evidence.. (Here's a great example)
I also, however, think we need to end the very long prison sentences, there is no reason to incarcerate someone for the rest of their life, if they can be rehabilitated, reeducated, reintegrated. Otherwise, they should be put to work... I have to earn my living, and so should they - it's only natural and normal. Besides, 5 years of hard labor (with adequate food, water, humane treatment, decent housing, etc) is quite a bit worse than a 20 year sentence to what we call prison (more like a damned criminal club/university)... Oh, and we need to stop incarcerating people for drugs... The argument is that drugs cause crimes - fine... Incarcerate them for the crimes they commit, but we don't need to be housing and feeding every pot smoker in the damned country. (or the coke heads, meth addicts, heroin users, etc... They're no different than an alcoholic, in some cases far more preferable IMO...).....
There, now you know what I think... I hope you find it interesting and intriguing. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 02:38:47 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, the death penalty is antiquated thinking, it does not bring back the person killed. Its just eye for an eye - tooth for a tooth. |
Nothing can bring the viictim back, so then doing nothing is the best approach?
The message of the death penalty should be..."What you have done is so heinous that we have decided to remove you from society completely...you are not even worth housing and feeding as an inmate for the rest of your days so you will be euthanized." |
Well, there is nothing correctional about euthanization. Death, in many ways, is not a penalty to the criminal anyway. It is a release from their crime against society. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 02:54:41 PM · #22 |
Oh dear. I find myself agreeing with Cory.... Oh dear...
But really, how often do you think someone with a gun and a grudge ever stops to say "Self, you could get the death penalty for this!" More likely he's thinking "better you than me".... bang! |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 03:11:16 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, the death penalty is antiquated thinking, it does not bring back the person killed. Its just eye for an eye - tooth for a tooth. |
Nothing can bring the viictim back, so then doing nothing is the best approach?
The message of the death penalty should be..."What you have done is so heinous that we have decided to remove you from society completely...you are not even worth housing and feeding as an inmate for the rest of your days so you will be euthanized." |
Well, there is nothing correctional about euthanization. Death, in many ways, is not a penalty to the criminal anyway. It is a release from their crime against society. |
It's also a release for society from paying to shelter, care and feed them. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 03:12:24 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oh dear. I find myself agreeing with Cory.... Oh dear...
But really, how often do you think someone with a gun and a grudge ever stops to say "Self, you could get the death penalty for this!" More likely he's thinking "better you than me".... bang! |
Or dead witnesses can't testify against me. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 03:13:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
.then I'll agree with whatever punishment the jury decides - Life in prison or death. They had ALL the facts. |
Innocence project has proven the innocence of over 100 prisoners who have been sentenced to death by a jury. It is accepted that wrongful conviction on capital crimes is rare, but constant. Given the percentage of people proven innocent through DNA evidence of crimes they have been sentenced to death for, what percentage are wrongfully convicted in cases that lack any physical evidence? I would bet many more. What percentage of wrongfully convicted men who are killed by the state are you willing to accept? 5% is Probably a bit low, some claim it is 30% which seems a bit too high. If you are going to sanction the death penalty, you have to admit that our justice system is imperfect, and innocent people will be put to death.
Mr. Davis execution is a fine example.7 of the 9 witnesses who testified recanted their testimony. The chief witness for the prosecution Mr. Redd Coles, who first fingered Mr. Davis for the crime, was the other chief suspect. Once Mr. Davis became a suspect, no other avenues were explored, and the police pushed hard to close the case, probably too hard. Witnesses said they were forced to testify to things they did not see, there was no physical evidence except for a .38 casing, they never found the gun. From the sound the back story, Mr Davis was no innocent, but there is more than a bit of reasonable doubt.
The frasing of the ruling on the final appeal (where most of the original witnesses recanted their testimony, where 3 witnesses came forward to say that Mr. Coles has admitted to them that he was to killer. Sadly the judge required "overwhelming evidence of innocence" to overturn a conviction that was granted on much slimmer evidence than was needed to reverse. |
|
