Cash-strapped Zimbabwe have come up with an innovative plan to provide meat to thousands of hungry inmates – feed them elephants. President Robert Mugabe’s justice ministry claims there are “too many” elephants in Zimbabwe, and culling and cooking them could be a way of supplementing prisoners’ meagre diets. Reports say most of Zimbabwe’s 13,000 or so prisoners haven’t tasted meat for four years.
Inmates have been surviving on near-starvation rations of cabbage and beans with maize-meal porridge known as sadza, leaving them weak and prone to diseases such as cholera. “The meals do not meet the approved dietary standards as stipulated by the law,” said deputy justice minister Obert Gutu, confirming his ministry would start talks with the state parks and wildlife management authority for the supply of elephants to prisons. He claimed Zimbabwe was over-populated with elephants. “Why not get some of them and give them to the prisoners as meat, since we don’t have meat and neither do we have the money to buy it?” he said.
However, the plan has sparked outrage among conservationists who claim Zimbabwe’s elephant population has been vastly overestimated. Johnny Rodrigues, of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, disputed claims that there were 100,000 elephants in Zimbabwe. He put the figure at nearer 35,000, with just 8,000 in the country’s largest game park in western Hwange. Plans to feed elephants to prisoners could result, he warned, in the “extinction” of Zimbabwe’s elephants. He said he was “disgusted” with the proposals. “They keep saying we have an overabundance of elephants and we don’t,” he said.
“We’re trying to put a stop to poaching and then the government goes and does it. They set the example. It’s unbelievable.” During a decade of food shortages, Mugabe and his generals have often ordered conservancies and game parks to be raided for buffalo and elephant meat, either to feed the army or for festivities like the president’s birthday party, hunters say. In eastern Manicaland province this week, a bull elephant was slaughtered to feed thousands of Mugabe supporters at a rally to celebrate Zimbabwe’s 31 years of independence. State media said it was “a treat.”
Italian justice system has lots of problems, first of all the most time consuming legal processes in Europe and the uncertainty of punishment.
A famous Italian journalist ,Marco Travaglio, explained a worth example about this problems. More in detail he demonstrated how you can kill your wife (or vice-versa) without
spending a single minute in prison.
Here’s a step by step explanation :
- Kill your wife (the method it’s up to you)
- Go to the police station ,surrender and confess.
- Tell to the police that she voluntarily offended you causing your overreaction.
- After this few steps you have already avoided preventive detention because: A) There’s is not an escape danger (you surrendered). B) There’s not a risk of tampering with evidence (you confessed). C) There’s not a risk of reiteration of the crime (you got just one wife…)
- Waiting for the trial to start you are in house detention (1 year) but you can go to work (if you still have one).
- When the trial begins you risk the maximum punishment,30 years of detention.
- If your personal lawyer is smart enough, extenuating circumstances can be more than aggravating circumstances.In this case the punishment decrease to 21 years.
- Since you were offended and provoked by your wife, the punishment can be lowered subtracting 1/3. Now the punishment is 21 minus 7 = 14 years.
- Common extenuating circumstances are almost always given to the respondent ,so 14 – 5 = 9 years.
- If you pay reparations to relatives of you wife your punishment is decreased and reach 6 years.
- If you ask for shortened rite the punishment is knocked down to 4 years.
- Since you stayed in house detention for 1 year you can subtract that time and get 4 – 1 = 3 years.
- Punishments during 3 years or less can be converted tosocial services work.
You killed your wife and you still don’t know how looks a jail. Perhaps it can be a better option than divorce..
If the all the prisons looked like this one, I cannot find a reason to leave in the “free world”.
Click images for bigger.
View more photos of the prison >>>
Christopher William Smith or Rizler as he is know to some, is one of the “SPAM kings”. He’s run a successful “online pharmacy” (v|@grA seller) for quite some time and is as almost as notorious as spammers can get. Really successful. He accumulated more than 17 cars and millions in assets before his 28th birthday.
Well, this week, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis has sentenced Chris to 30 years in the slammer. Unfortunately, it’s not really for sending SPAM.
The real reason is, Chris doesn’t have a license to sell prescription drugs in the US but he’s been doing it anyway. $24 million (USD) worth (which does raise the question, who the hell was buying it all?). Chris was ordered to cease selling the drugs online in a previous court case but rather than obey, he simply skipped the country and set up shop south of the border.
To do all this, he used false passports, obtained money from frozen accounts and threatened people’s lives. This includes looking into hiring a hitman to take out his previous database admin, Bernadette Hollis. A truly charming fellow – everything we like to imagine a spammer to be.So that’s one less spammer to worry about but probably no less spam in your inbox tomorrow.
The Stanford prison experiment was ostensibly a psychological study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison. It was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Undergraduate volunteers played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited “genuine” sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early.
This video showing the Stanford Prison Experiment in detail.