Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: The law in Ireland in 1619 held that it was was no more a sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute.

Q1: Was it equally sinful to kill a dog as an Irishman in 1619
A1: A law enacted in 1723 provided that for someone standing accused of manslaughter to be acquitted he
had only to show that the slain victim was Irish. Anglo- Norman priests granted absolution on the grounds
that it was ‘no more sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute’.

Q2: Was it equally sinful to kill a dog as an Irishman in 1619?
A2: A law enacted in 1723 provided that for someone standing accused of manslaughter to be acquitted he
had only to show that the slain victim was Irish. Anglo- Norman priests granted absolution on the grounds
that it was ‘no more sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute’.
user
justification: This was over 100 years after the year stated in the claim.. The claim that the law in Ireland in 1619 “held that ‘it was was no more [a] sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute.’” is false.

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant