Personally i have no major problems with the concept of the death penelty.
It's more a question of when and as punishment for what crimes it is appropriate and by what means.
Personally i have no major problems with the concept of the death penelty.
It's more a question of when and as punishment for what crimes it is appropriate and by what means.
I still have a reeeeally hard time grasping how there are still death sentences in a 1st world country in the 21st century. I thought it was somewhere in Africa or Asia before opening the link…
I can't see how that's surprising in a country with a love story with guns. And considering appropriate punishment is one function of the justice system, sometimes death seems like the appropriate level of punishment for extremely grave and heinous crimes. Justice systems are still made by humans and their various values.
Personally i have no major problems with the concept of the death penelty.
It's more a question of when and as punishment for what crimes it is appropriate and by what means.
Yeah it's all over the place with regards to where and when it should be applied.
Though in this case (despite my opposition to the process itself) Roof was kind of asking for it in this instance with his shitty defense.
The article is a few days old, but Tilikum, one of SeaWorld's best-known orca whales, and featured in the documentary "Blackfish," has died.
My honest thoughts on the Death Penalty are that I'm not against it in theory. the concept that there are crimes so horrible that the person who commits them deserves to have their own life taken makes sense to me.
In practice, I know there are cases where a person is sentenced to death, the sentence is carried out, and then it's revealed through some new revelation or new technology that they were actually innocent.
In a world where that can happen, I'm not so sure about the death penalty's viability to be honest.
That being said, in this case the guy admitted it and was unrepentant about it, so I have absolutely no moral problems with him being sentenced to death…..
That being said, I AM a bit worried the Deplorables over at the Alt-Reich will treat this guy like a Martyr....
I have no issues with the death penalty as long as there as absolutely no question as to the person's guilt. For certain crimes, especially here where there didn't appear to be any remorse whatsoever I think it's appropriate. Plus somewhere out there is some rich alt-right with enough clout to make this guys' prison life as comfortable as possible.
The article also mentions some factors that mean it's not certain that an execution will even happen.
I have no issues with the death penalty as long as there as absolutely no question as to the person's guilt. For certain crimes, especially here where there didn't appear to be any remorse whatsoever I think it's appropriate. Plus somewhere out there is some rich alt-right with enough clout to make this guys' prison life as comfortable as possible.
Given that he apparently got his ass beat in prison prior to the original trial it don't look like it.
So I guess that means that guy will still be alive in 50 years since it always takes so long to actually carry out the sentence. It might as well be life in prison. I'm against the death penalty as it works right now, though the idea of killing someone who committed a heinous crime doesn't bother me too much. It could be argued it's an easy out for them though.
Seriously? Death penalty is still debatable today? Nobody has the right to take away someone's life. Not the majority, not a single judge, not a panel of experts. Killing someone who doesn't wish to die is just not right. I thought this concept was somewhat agreed upon since a century ago or so. Sentences are supposed to teach lessons to people who commit crimes, so that they may repent and reform and, if all goes well, contribute to society in exchange for the damage they've caused it. At most remove the individual from contact with society at large so that they stop damaging it. It should not be an arbitrary punishment with the intent to make the criminal suffer as he made other suffer, or some outdated concept like that. That's what absolutist divine monarchs did throughout history, because they thought themselves superior to other humans, which made them fit to hand out punishment as divine will. The advent of the primacy of Law and Human Rights should have ended such mentalities.
I never really cared for the death penalty. It's probably helped by my crazy belief that each society gets to live by the standards they set for themselves.
Seriously? Death penalty is still debatable today?
Except for racism and slavery, everything is still debated. At best there's one side winning the argument. I mean more than 2/3 of the world don't do it so there's always that. And executions happens way less often than 50 years before.
Nobody has the right to take away someone's life.Not the majority, not a single judge, not a panel of experts. Killing someone who doesn't wish to die is just not right.
Would you say the same the same about the military(like fighting in WWII) or self defense?
We also imprison people who don't want to be imprison sometime culminating to such long times that they will certainly die in there. Do you think that is right?
Punishment is also one of the role of the justice system. Not vengeance but the appropriate punishment for the reprehensible acts committed. Or you could just let go of a criminal that did a one-time crime(or felony).
I thought this concept was somewhat agreed upon since a century ago or so.
A century ago was the 20s. Execution was pretty ok back then. Try something decades for modern thinking. I mean a century segragation was still the everyday thing and women weren't even voting yet(1919). You really underestimating how far away is and how recent our modern belief are.
Sentences are supposed to teach lessons to people who commit crimes, so that they may repent and reform and, if all goes well, contribute to society in exchange for the damage they've caused it. At most remove the individual from contact with society at large so that they stop damaging it.
You believe punishment have no part at all in the system? I mean there is different sentence depending on the gravity so I kinda assumed it was agreed you were also being punished for what you did.
Evasion is also a thing.
It should not be an arbitrary punishment with the intent to make the criminal suffer as he made other suffer
The modern version is pretty painless.
or some outdated concept like that.
The rational usually use is society getting rid of the individual for good. Suffering doesn't really do much of an argument because pain isn't really that common in them and the killing process go fast. It's not like they are tortured to death.
That's what absolutist divine monarchs did throughout history
I think they had like much more painful method of killings where the suffering was part of the goal.
because they thought themselves superior to other humans
I think it was more about the people being killed posing a problem. The superiority probably had more influence in the making people to do what they want and making sure they lived with a maximum of luxary.
which made them fit to hand out punishment as divine will. The advent of the primacy of Law and Human Rights should have ended such mentalities.
Well the death penalty isn't about playing god(not the us anyway), it's about delivering the punishment considered appropriate for the abuse by the system made by the given society where the transgression was done.
So I guess that means that guy will still be alive in 50 years since it always takes so long to actually carry out the sentence.
It can take anywhere from around 7 to 30 years depending on the circumstances.
Seriously? Death penalty is still debatable today? Nobody has the right to take away someone's life. Not the majority, not a single judge, not a panel of experts. Killing someone who doesn't wish to die is just not right. I thought this concept was somewhat agreed upon since a century ago or so. Sentences are supposed to teach lessons to people who commit crimes, so that they may repent and reform and, if all goes well, contribute to society in exchange for the damage they've caused it. At most remove the individual from contact with society at large so that they stop damaging it. It should not be an arbitrary punishment with the intent to make the criminal suffer as he made other suffer, or some outdated concept like that. That's what absolutist divine monarchs did throughout history, because they thought themselves superior to other humans, which made them fit to hand out punishment as divine will. The advent of the primacy of Law and Human Rights should have ended such mentalities.
Only if the penitentiary system has an infrastructure capable of re-structuring prisoners into society, who would have to "forgive" former prisoners after their prison sentences.
I've always been against the death penalty, and a big part is the fact that the executioners are essentially paid to legally murder people.
You like to kill? Sign up for that position. It will be seen as a service, not a crime.
I also think along the lines of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' thing.
Person A kills someone, then gets sentenced to death.
Person B executes person A.
Person B has killed someone.
Back where we started.
I don't think the way they do it now would give anyone any satisfaction though. It's too distanced for anyone who wants to kill someone I imagine.
@MDL:
I've always been against the death penalty, and a big part is the fact that the executioners are essentially paid to legally murder people.
You like to kill? Sign up for that position. It will be seen as a service, not a crime.
I think military would be much more fufilling than that. And at least they are canalizing their urges to places that don't hurt society. I mean do you prefer someone who likes killing on the loose in the country or performing in places where killing is necessary like on a battlefield? In one case the guy is a potential problem to society, in the other he being productive and loves an aspect of his job that most people don't.
I also think along the lines of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' thing.
Person A kills someone, then gets sentenced to death.
Person B executes person A.
Person B has killed someone.Back where we started.
Sequestration is also a crime but we do prisons anyway.
The killing isn't the only factor. The why also matters. I mean military and self defense are a thing.
I feel like those people who support killing Dylan Roof would oppose it if he was black and the victims were white. There are no valid moral justifications for killing a person who would otherwise remain incapacitated by the state indefinitely.
I suppose it hinges on if you believe that certain protections of the human rights are ever conditional.
If they aren't investing in returning them to society, glorify violence, and believe that punishment is more important than rehabilitation, then whatever.
I suppose it hinges on if you believe that certain protections of the human rights are ever conditional.
I can see the value in taking away rights that we know would be used by the individual to hurt and kill others, but there's no reason to take the life of a prisoner when taking his/her freedom will be just as successful.
When someone is a free and active threat to the public, killing (as rarely as possible) may be necessary to protect the innocent, but homicide by law enforcement and state-ordered executions are very different things.
There's also the issue of political assassinations, but those are almost never done to protect the lives of the innocent, so I'm almost never sympathetic to them.
…Unless it's Hitler of course.
If they aren't investing in returning them to society, glorify violence, and believe that punishment is more important than rehabilitation, then whatever.
Yeah… that's basically the crux of our prison problem. We put people in the corner and make them stay there, often for profit.
I can see the value in taking away rights that we know would be used by the individual to hurt and kill others, but there's no reason to take the life of a prisoner when taking his/her freedom is just as successful.
This raises the question of proportionality.
Is the snuffing of dozens of lives the equal of a couple of decades in jail?
Ones thoughts on that of course hinges on what your thoughts on retribution are.
This raises the question of proportionality.
Is the snuffing of dozens of lives the equal of a couple of decades in jail?
Ones thoughts on that of course hinges on what your thoughts on retribution are.
Retribution isn't what should motivate our criminal justice system. We need to look at the situation very carefully and decide what course of action will result in the best possible overlapping outcome for society as a whole and the people involved.
I feel like those people who support killing Dylan Roof would oppose it if he was black and the victims were white.
Sure Roboblue, that's what human beings would do. The world is exactly like your facebook feed.
@Monkey:
Sure Roboblue, that's what human beings would do. The world is exactly like your facebook feed.
How am I supposed to feel when someone advocates death? It's kind of an inhuman thing to do.
Retribution isn't what should motivate our criminal justice system. We need to look at the situation very carefully and decide what course of action will result in the best possible overlapping outcome for society as a whole and the people involved.
This just reads like a reason for why Dylan Roof should be executed.
Even though i know you mean for it to be the exact opposite.
How am I supposed to feel when someone advocates death? It's kind of an inhuman thing to do.
Feel that those people are fine with black spree killers apparently.
The real problem in our society.
This just reads like a reason for why Dylan Roof should be executed.
Even though i know you mean for it to be the exact opposite.
Why is his death a better outcome than life in prison? If he's killed, weird racists and similarly sick people may view him as a martyr.
If he lives, no one gets hurt and we can study him to better identify potential murderers before they kill; that means possibly saving lives.
@Monkey:
Feel that those people are fine with black spree killers apparently.
The real problem in our society.
But… some people are. I personally know someone who is, and it's horrifying. :(
Retribution isn't what should motivate our criminal justice system.
If punishment isn't part of the system there's no good reason for the sentence to vary depending on the gravity of the crime. Of course you can believe that taking someone's life is always to big of a punishment but the existence of punishment as part of the system seems pretty evident.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
How am I supposed to feel when someone advocates death? It's kind of an inhuman thing to do.
Someone who kills a cat isn't the same as someone who killed a whole bus of people.
Advocating for killing a person because you believe he has done to much harm and is a danger to society isn't the same as killing someone for your own pleasure.
I always found the word inhuman funny considering what are considered inhuman are most often find in human.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
But… some people are. I personally know someone who is, and it's horrifying. :(
Some usually mean faaar from the majority
Ex: Mexican are rapist but some are good people.
If punishment isn't part of the system there's no good reason for the sentence to vary depending on the gravity of the crime. Of course you can believe that taking someone's life is always to big of a punishment but the existence of punishment as part of the system seems pretty evident.
The desire for punishment shouldn't be the primary motivating factor of our justice system, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate punishment as a tool of law enforcement entirely. It's the difference between allowing a cop to shoot you for speeding and requiring that he pull you over and write you a ticket.
Someone who kills a cat isn't the same as someone who killed a whole bus of people.
I know that, but I don't understand why you're saying it.
@desa:Advocating for killing a person because you believe he has done to much harm and is a danger to society isn't the same as killing someone for your own pleasure.
A person in jail forever is no longer a harm to society, and killing that person is analogous to shooting fish in a barrel. What is the difference between killing someone in captivity because it makes you feel safer and killing someone for your own pleasure?
I always found the word inhuman funny considering what are considered inhuman are most often find in human.
I think maybe it's because "inhuman" gradually replaced "ungodly" in common use.
Some usually mean faaar from the majority
Ex: Mexican are rapist but some are good people.
Thankfully yes, but it's still shocking and upsetting to encounter.
In general I'm against the Death Penalty, but I'd still reserve it for massmurderers, serial killers and cannibals. So Roof should definetly get the needle.
The desire for punishment shouldn't be the primary motivating factor of our justice system, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate punishment as a tool of law enforcement entirely. It's the difference between allowing a cop to shoot you for speeding and requiring that he pull you over and write you a ticket.
Yes because the minor offense require a minor punishment(a ticket). A bigger offense gets an harsher punishement(25 years for murder for example). You can think death is always to much of a punishment and life in prison is enough but the punishement is still a component.
I know that, but I don't understand why you're saying it.
Because just because it involve death doesn't mean they are all the same. Would you find it inhuman if someone advocating that you can use lethal force when you risked getting killed yourself and it seems like your only option(self defense). Or if if it is to help protect civilians and stop a force that is causing a great number of death (engaging in the military to fight the nazis).
A person in perpetual legal custody is no longer a harm to society, and killing that person is analogous to shooting fish in a barrel.
Past the fact that escaping is an option. There's always the question of appropriate punishment. There's a reason even if you killed someone on impulse you still can go to prison. It's because even if it was not planned and is unlikely to happen again you still commit an act that should carry some form of punishment.
You believe life in prison is enough in the case of a racistly fueled massmurder. Others think such grievious act requires the removal of the individual from society altogether.
What is the difference between killing someone in captivity because it makes you feel safer and killing someone for your own pleasure?
One is only motivated by your personal gain and harm society. The other is the punishment decided by the society that was greatly harmed by the person's action after he had a chance to explain why he caused such harm and why his actions and motives does not warrant such great punishment.
I think maybe it's because "inhuman" gradually replaced "ungodly" in common use.
Both are ridiculous. We should just go with unchristian(at least christian value praise love and stuff) or something similar.
Thankfully yes, but it's still shocking and upsetting to encounter.
Yes but the small percentage is no ground to make a general statement that people would be fine to let the massmurderer live if he was black.
I feel like those people who support killing Dylan Roof would oppose it if he was black and the victims were white. There are no valid moral justifications for killing a person who would otherwise remain incapacitated by the state indefinitely.
Yeah that's provided the suspect isn't shot and killed in a hail of gunfire and therefore can stand trial.
My main issue with Roof getting the death penalty is it's an easy way out. His statements during the trial definitely make it clear he doesn't care at all about the victims or himself or the people left behind.
Death or sitting in prison makes no real difference to him. But I think they'd never put him with general population cause he'd be dead in a week. So he sits in solitary for years. To deteriorate I guess? It's a weird case because of his general apathy. There's no real sense of justice in this either way. Other than the knowledge he's not free to do what he wants.
Yeah that's provided the suspect isn't shot and killed in a hail of gunfire and therefore can stand trial.
We could discuss how it's wrong for police to summarily execute people who aren't yet convicted, if you'd like. One of the few stains on Obama's record is related to that. It sounds like you agree that we'd be better off killing as few people as possible?
Yes because the minor offense require a minor punishment(a ticket). A bigger offense gets an harsher punishement(25 years for murder for example). You can think death is always to much of a punishment and life in prison is enough but the punishement is still a component.
Yeah, punishment is a tool whose use is intended to achieve the goal of compliance with the law.
Because just because it involve death doesn't mean they are all the same. Would you find it inhuman if someone advocating that you can use lethal force when you risked getting killed yourself and it seems like your only option(self defense).
I would not, but a non-premeditated killing is extremely different from a premeditated execution. The burden of proof for killing in self defense is very high, and someone who killed in self defense would not get off without some form of punishment; dealing with law enforcement over an extended period and being forced to re-live the incident is a cruel but necessary process.
@desa:
Or if if it is to help protect civilians and stop a force that is causing a great number of death (engaging in the military to fight the nazis).
I specifically mentioned Hitler earlier, but wars are very rarely fought to save lives. World War 2 was not fought to save the Jews, and when news of the Holocaust reached the American military, rescue was believed to be impossible. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were historically claimed to have "saved lives", but public opinion is turning against that idea.
Past the fact that escaping is an option. There's always the question of appropriate punishment. There's a reason even if you killed someone on impulse you still can go to prison. It's because even if it was not planned and is unlikely to happen again you still commit an act that should carry some form of punishment.
That punishment serves a purpose, yes. When people kill, they almost always feel intense anxiety and remorse; punishment reinforces that feeling and helps prevent people from becoming desensitized to the act of killing by disincentivizing it, at least in theory. Killing a muzzled killer doesn't really serve any purpose.
You believe life in prison is enough in the case of a racistly fueled massmurder. Others think such grievious act requires the removal of the individual from society altogether.
I agree, which is why we give people multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole.
One is only motivated by your personal gain and harm society. The other is the punishment decided by the society that was greatly harmed by the person's action after he had a chance to explain why he caused such harm and why his actions and motives does not warrant such great punishment.
That makes execution sound worse, in my opinion. A group who calmly and rationally decide to kill people are much scarier than a single person who kills on impulse.
Yes but the small percentage is no ground to make a general statement that people would be fine to let the massmurderer live if he was black.
To be honest, it's hard for me to accept the idea that anyone would calmly and rationally arrive at the conclusion that law enforcement should intentionally kill people who aren't a threat. I can easily accept the corresponding view that someone who would demand the death of those four Chicago kids would readily support their right to live if certain unimportant details were changed, race being the most obvious.
There must be people in your life that you would never want killed, even if society insisted that they deserved it. If a killer shared that person's race/gender/hair color/hobbies, wouldn't you be a little less likely to support their execution?
I admit that it was harsh of me to assume that everyone who supports killing Dylan Roof would be swayed by race alone, but his race and the race of his victims are deeply important to how we all perceive his crime, and play a dominant role in what punishment people demand for him. Would it really make no difference if he were a white man who killed only white victims, or a black man who killed only black victims? What about a woman who killed only female victims or a man who killed only male victims?
My main issue with Roof getting the death penalty is it's an easy way out. His statements during the trial definitely make it clear he doesn't care at all about the victims or himself or the people left behind.
Death or sitting in prison makes no real difference to him. But I think they'd never put him with general population cause he'd be dead in a week. So he sits in solitary for years. To deteriorate I guess? It's a weird case because of his general apathy. There's no real sense of justice in this either way. Other than the knowledge he's not free to do what he wants.
But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have him in jail for a long time and during said time have a psychiatrist work on him? Study his case. Search for his deep motivations, analyse his train of thought, try to make him come to his senses, instill humanistic values in him… Try to reshape him as a person? Wouldn't that be better than just outright killing him? I'm totally on RoboBlue's side here, it just seems like an easy and fast way of dealing with it. Killing other people (or sentient animals, for that matter) is only justified in self defense. When there are other lives at stake. If the guy is already locked up and can do no wrong to others, why in the world should he be killed?
Yes, some form of punishment should be a part of the justice system, but it should provide an incentive to reforming the criminal, not merely to exact a kind of "eye-for-an-eye" biblical vendetta.
@desa, I just looked it up and I seriously thought that death penalty was something from a more distant past, like slavery, maybe because my country abolished it 150(!) years ago and we learn that in school (except for war crimes until 1976, and, even then, under very strict circumstances).
But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have him in jail for a long time and during said time have a psychiatrist work on him? Study his case. Search for his deep motivations, analyse his train of thought, try to make him come to his senses, instill humanistic values in him… Try to reshape him as a person? Wouldn't that be better than just outright killing him? I'm totally on RoboBlue's side here, it just seems like an easy and fast way of dealing with it. Killing other people (or sentient animals, for that matter) is only justified in self defense. When there are other lives at stake. If the guy is already locked up and can do no wrong to others, why in the world should he be killed? Yes, some form of punishment should be a part of the justice system, but it should provide an incentive to reforming the criminal, not merely to exact a kind of "eye-for-an-eye" biblical vendetta.
I think mental help only works if the person wants help. They can try and help him. That's fine, they should I guess. But has someone that's done something so monstrous really wanted to change before? Some people are a lost cause.
@desa, I just looked it up and I seriously thought that death penalty was something from a more distant past, like slavery, maybe because my country abolished it 150(!) years ago and we learn that in school (except for war crimes until 1976, and, even then, under very strict circumstances).
You had a psuedo-fascist dictatorship from 1933 to 1974. The Portuguese state was absolutely killing people less than 150 years ago, and not for war crimes.
I think maybe it's because "inhuman" gradually replaced "ungodly" in common use.
Does ungodly even fit the bill for what we are talking about here?
I'm not sure that Christian scripture ever categorically denounces the death penelty.
Certainly not Islam, and i would have to say the Jewish faith too.
It sounds like you agree that we'd be better off killing as few people as possible?
Is this a thing that anyone, at any point, has disagreed with?
That makes execution sound worse, in my opinion. A group who calmly and rationally decide to kill people are much scarier than a single person who kills on impulse.
In some sort of lofty mental exercise about humanities potential for violence or something? Or are you suggesting that you'd find yourself less disturbed to be in the vicinity of a spree killer who gleefully shots down elderly churchgoers, than an organized court of law. Cause damn, i am not following your line of reasoning here.
I admit that it was harsh of me to assume that everyone who supports killing Dylan Roof would be swayed by race alone, but his race and the race of his victims are deeply important to how we all perceive his crime, and play a dominant role in what punishment people demand for him. Would it really make no difference if he were a white man who killed only white victims, or a black man who killed only black victims? What about a woman who killed only female victims or a man who killed only male victims?
Is the question here "wouldn't you feel less bad if Dylan Roof had gunned down white grandmothers instead?"
Cause that is how it came across to me. But i can't imagine that was what you meant for it to be read as
As far as I'm concerned Dylan Roof can spend the rest of his life in jail or be executed. Makes no difference to me and he deserves either one. The families of the victims aren't even in agreement on what he deserves or what is justified. They don't need to be either. Dylan Roof admitted to the crimes that he is guilty of and the justice system has determined the suitable punishment. That's how it's supposed to work.
@Monkey:
You had a psuedo-fascist dictatorship from 1933 to 1974. The Portuguese state was absolutely killing people less than 150 years ago, and not for war crimes.
Clearly government ordered executions only count as the death penalty if it happened in country.
Clearly government ordered executions only count as the death penalty if it happened in country.
haha, I wasn't even considering the colonial empire. But good point.
We could discuss how it's wrong for police to summarily execute people who aren't yet convicted, if you'd like. One of the few stains on Obama's record is related to that. It sounds like you agree that we'd be better off killing as few people as possible?
I don't see how those are related given the circumstances. As for the second point more or less yeah.
@Monkey:
haha, I wasn't even considering the colonial empire. But good point.
I was actually referring to their habit of torturing people to death in Cape Verde, but, yeah.
I wonder how my life would be if I lived in a country that was once a Dutch Colony instead of Portuguese.
I wonder how my life would be if I lived in a country that was once a Dutch Colony instead of Portuguese.
It could always be worse; it could have been Belgium.
It could always be worse; it could have been Belgium.
Do you wanna hands over your Tintin's Comics?
I wonder how my life would be if I lived in a country that was once a Dutch Colony instead of Portuguese.
Head up to Suriname and find out.
I wonder how my life would be if I lived in a country that was once a Dutch Colony instead of Portuguese.
Shittier probably.
Only the former New Netherlands seem to be doing fine these days.
@Monkey:
You had a psuedo-fascist dictatorship from 1933 to 1974. The Portuguese state was absolutely killing people less than 150 years ago, and not for war crimes.
Well, I was talking about the LAW in my country. The fact that in the meantime a fascist dictatorship usurped the rule of law and did as they pleased doesn't speak for the mentality of the country as a whole. There was a British-style monarchy and then a parlamentary republic before the military took over.
But yeah, theoretically, the laws were applied only in the mainland, I guess. Colonies were free for all. And thanks for reminding me of the dictatorship on the day after the funeral of Mário Soares (I trust you know who he was ;) ).
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I wonder how my life would be if I lived in a country that was once a Dutch Colony instead of Portuguese.
Wasn't Brazil a dutch colony for a few years during the wars between the dutch republic and Portugal? And hey, it was the best colony of the bunch, the capital of the empire was even Rio de Janeiro while Napoleon was thrashing Portugal