Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A NEW INTERNATIONAL report has shown that Ireland has the most educated immigrants in the EU.
The new figures have also shown that foreign-born individuals in Ireland are educated to a higher level than those native-born in the country.
It was found that 48% of immigrants in Ireland had been ‘highly’ educated (meaning they had acquired a third-level qualification) – a higher level than anywhere else in the EU.
In comparison, only 35% of the native-Irish population were shown to be ‘highly’ education – with 27% considered to have a ‘low’ level of education.
Only 20% of immigrants were counted as having a ‘low’ level of education.
Relevant statistics begin on p146 of the report.
These results come from a joint report between the OECD and the European Commission entitled ‘Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015‘.
The new paper shows a marked increase in level of education among immigrants into Ireland over the past eight years.
In a comparison of the periods 2006 – 2007 and 2012 – 2013, a 6% increase was seen in the number of immigrants in Ireland with a third-level of education.
In the same period there was also a rise in the number of native-born Irish people with degrees -with the percentage rising from 27% to 35%.
What is the broader situation?
In 2012, around one in 10 people in the EU and OECD area was living abroad – making up around 115 million immigrants in the OECD area and 52 million in the EU.
One finding in the report was that the magnitude of integration challenges do not increase with the proportionate share of immigrants in society.
It was also seen that around two-thirds of immigrants across the EU and OECD areas were in employment.
In its introduction, the report states:
Immigration and the integration of immigrants are repeatedly mentioned as one of the main issues of concern in public opinion surveys in many countries. At the same time, there are many preconceptions about the actual integration outcomes of immigrants and their children. Against this backdrop, having reliable facts is a prerequisite for a better-informed public debate and for better targeted policy making.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This case showed exactly what is right with due process.. Mr dwyer got his chance to tell his story, was assumed innocent and the prosecution then proved his guilt. Now he’ll rot in jail and everyone knows he did it
Reality is more gruesome than a movie could ever be.
The jury system relies heavily on the assumed ability of the jurors to be able to comprehend complex legal matters that are sometimes crucial to a case.A juror is not obliged to offer any proof of his or hers understanding of such a matter.That could lead and has done in many cases to an ‘incorrect’ verdict.While the appeal system cleans up most of these errors, I wonder if it is time to test jurors for simple comprehension skills rather than let them lose on long costly trials that lead to long costly appeals….etc.It is the best system to have… A jury system ,But it needs to be reviewed.
Claiming to understand reasonable doubt and actually understanding it are two different things.
What parameters would you use to decide that Alan? Sounds to me like the process of jury selection would be so complex as to be unworkable and appeals more likely to succeed due to technicalities concerning juror selection.
Agree completely with you. The selection should at the very least be based on educational standards.I know that sounds elitist and even snobbish. It is not intended to be so.A very good friend of mine took literacy classes about 8/9 years ago.He had served on a jury and there were requirements to ‘read’ some of the evidence in the jury room afterwards.He admitted that he struggled to do so and could not understand half of what he read.Even the ensuing debate among the jurors was double dutch to him in parts.He said he was to embarrassed to admit this. I do not believe his experience to be unique.
I cannot offer a solution,Though I still believe there to be a problem.
This IS a difficult question. However, having an education is not the same as having intelligence or even comprehension. I know several people with degrees, but little real understanding of their subject. A degree gan be obtained with a good memory, or even using memory tricks. In the Elaine O’Hara case, I do think there IS reasonable doubt. The Master/slave relationship is not nearly as uncommon as many people believe. Dolcett or killing, can easilly be a fantasy, but there is a huge difference between having a fantasy as extreme as that, and actually doing it. I think it is a definite possibility that Elaine took her own life, telling Dwyer where, and that he burried her. That doesn’t absolve him from responsibility though, as I do believe it likely that he pushed her in that direction, and failed to report her death.
It doesn’t sound like the concept of reasonable doubt is very complicated at all to be honest.
On the face of it, no. But in practice it becomes exponentially more complex as more and more issues come into play.
I disagree Alan. Reasonable doubt is exactly that, reasonable. It is a subjective concept that a jury of one’s peers is assumed to understand. That is the whole basis of a jury trial. It only becomes complex when one attempts to explain a meaning or definition around it.
Hope he rots in hell
There is no hell. I hope he rots in his head!
It is not the same as a philosophical doubt…but it is often compared to a doubt about making a major decision e.g. marriage..buying a house…..at the very least you must be pretty sure or happy to go ahead.
He looks strange and was into weird sex = guilty
He doesn’t look strange at all to be honest and plenty of people are into weird sex but aren’t murderers.
In cases like these, most people would prefer to wrongfully convict a weirdo than to have weirdo murderer running free. Smoke and fire. Lots of smoke with this weirdo, hence he is almost certainly guilty!
Wish the media didn’t focus on this case as much as it did.
If you understand what a Theory is in the scientific sense, then there should be no problem understanding the premises of reasonable doubt.
It really is actually simple.
That was a good and helpful explanation. Thanks.
have your say