|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On April 12 2012 17:17 VL-Orion wrote:
From a moral prespective he has comitted unspeakable atrocities and some would argue that he deserve to be killed or totured to death (I for one agreed) , others thinks for some reason or another that capital punishment is wrong (I have no idea why but I am sure the argument from a moral prespective would be quite compelling)
But from a pragmatic point of view I think its save to say that his life would not contribute in anyway to society (other then his organs of course) , why bother to keep him alive and imprisoned him? and in the offchance that he escape and start killing people again, what then? (people do escape from prison)
His existence is demerital to society and present a very real physical danger should he escape.
The most logical solution is to end his life and in doing so not only provide some closure to the family members but preventing him from hurting people again.
Ideal is good its what make us who we are, but most who has this hollier then thou attitude has not have their children shot in cold blood.
I think we should do what is logical rather then our moral code / ideals in this instance.
Regarding capital punishment. I've allways been against capital punishment, for a number of different reasons. The most compelling and important one is in my opinion the fact that people sometimes get convicted while innocent. Everyone makes misstakes. But if you avoid killing the person, atleast the misstake is somewhat correctable (you can let someone out of prison/mental hospital, but you cant ressurect them).
Also, escaping a modern top security prison is not all that feasible.
|
Ah, that's good. I thought the whole declaring him insane thing was somewhat of an excuse/cop-out/way to assure the public. When I saw the thread I was afraid there had been another massacre. I guess I should follow the news more closely.
|
On April 12 2012 17:17 VL-Orion wrote:
From a moral prespective he has comitted unspeakable atrocities and some would argue that he deserve to be killed or totured to death (I for one agreed) , others thinks for some reason or another that capital punishment is wrong (I have no idea why but I am sure the argument from a moral prespective would be quite compelling)
But from a pragmatic point of view I think its save to say that his life would not contribute in anyway to society (other then his organs of course) , why bother to keep him alive and imprisoned him? and in the offchance that he escape and start killing people again, what then? (people do escape from prison)
His existence is demerital to society and present a very real physical danger should he escape.
The most logical solution is to end his life and in doing so not only provide some closure to the family members but preventing him from hurting people again.
Ideal is good its what make us who we are, but most who has this hollier then thou attitude has not have their children shot in cold blood.
I think we should do what is logical rather then our moral code / ideals in this instance.
It is not about holyer than tho attitude.
Norway has no capital punishment, for good reasons and their system seems to work better as about any other int he world. It is really important that this did and does not change "just" because of one horrible case.
If we would allways do whats logical our society would look WAAAAAAAAAAY diffrent...
|
On April 12 2012 17:17 VL-Orion wrote:
From a moral prespective he has comitted unspeakable atrocities and some would argue that he deserve to be killed or totured to death (I for one agreed) , others thinks for some reason or another that capital punishment is wrong (I have no idea why but I am sure the argument from a moral prespective would be quite compelling)
But from a pragmatic point of view I think its save to say that his life would not contribute in anyway to society (other then his organs of course) , why bother to keep him alive and imprisoned him? and in the offchance that he escape and start killing people again, what then? (people do escape from prison)
His existence is demerital to society and present a very real physical danger should he escape.
The most logical solution is to end his life and in doing so not only provide some closure to the family members but preventing him from hurting people again.
Ideal is good its what make us who we are, but most who has this hollier then thou attitude has not have their children shot in cold blood.
I think we should do what is logical rather then our moral code / ideals in this instance.
Logic dictates that their justice system is incredibly effective. It has one of the lowest numbers when it comes to recidivism.
You confuse logic for emotion, even invoking a purely emotional argument by stating that we can't understand, because we didn't have children that were shot to death.
We won't understand that grief, but I have yet to see a single person claim that they do. What we do understand though, is that the justice system should not operate on an emotional level.
If a person steals my watch, he would be sentenced for theft. But what if we operated on emotion and it turned out he stole my watch, which was a family heirloom that was passed through for generations, and now that it is gone, a valuable piece of my family's history has been destroyed? Should he then be punished several times more?
Emotions do not factor into the justice system, and they shouldn't.
Again, you aren't operating on any logical level. You use words like 'unspeakable', which in and of themselves are already purely emotional words, only used for emotional arguments.
When it comes to dealing with crime in society, our initial reaction is one of emotion, the one you display. Here they have a system of reason and logic which doesn't aim to dish our revenge, but rehabilitate the criminal. The result is that they have the most effective justice system in the world.
So if you are a person of reason, as you like to claim, then how would you ever come to the conclusion that vengeance through murder is more important than maintaining an effective justice system which produces the lowest recidivism numbers in the entire world.
|
|
|
|
|
This really scared me. >_>
I was like "Oh no not again..." Once is more than bad enough.
|
On April 16 2012 16:28 Bibbit wrote:
This really scared me. >_>
I was like "Oh no not again..." Once is more than bad enough.
o.o sorry!!
on a side note it's weird to see so many people calmly sitting in a courtroom with a guy who killed almost 100 children in cold blood.. some of the people are even talking to him lol
|
On April 16 2012 16:25 Endymion wrote:http://www.vgtv.no//#!id=51778Breivik is in the court room with a whole bunch of judges in Norway atm, can anyone translate?
right now judge Inga Bejer-Engh is reading up names and how they were killed. VGTV are muting much of the details.
edit; not the judge, but the stateattorney
|
On April 16 2012 16:32 rod- wrote:right now judge Inga Bejer-Engh is reading up names and how they were killed. VGTV are muting much of the details. edit; not the judge, but the stateattorney
yea, they said the details about how the ones that died from the bomb were killed but started muting after they moved on to the teenagers that were shot.
|
are they just saying 'their name, when pronounced dead, shot,' then muting?
|
name, date of birth, mute, died of shot to the head/body etc
|
|
|
They have instant translation on Al Jazeera. The the person translating must also be a doctor because he has to use all these anatomical terms referring to muscles, organs and bones. I can't even just type it out. I tried like 5 times. Too fast and too many medical terms. Left part of the vertex, one shot entered the thorax, penetrating the aorta, damaging the trachea esophagus leaving the left flank, died as result of blood loss and hemorrhaging, etc.
Pretty distusting considering the list goes on and on. Of course they show Breivik most of the time. Can't wonder but think he is trying to figure out which person they are talking about, trying to match the injuries described to what he remembers.
This also makes on thing about all this autopsies they had to do.
|
|
|
On April 16 2012 16:31 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 16:28 Bibbit wrote:
This really scared me. >_>
I was like "Oh no not again..." Once is more than bad enough. o.o sorry!! on a side note it's weird to see so many people calmly sitting in a courtroom with a guy who killed almost 100 children in cold blood.. some of the people are even talking to him lol
Yeah, you can really feel the tension. As he did his nazi-ish (as the commentator put it) greeting I was honestly expecting someone to shout out in disgust. But I suppose it's important to keep your calm in these situations.
|
shot with a pistol and or rifle, can't they tell the difference by the shell casings/shells themselves?
|
On April 16 2012 16:46 Miyoshino wrote:
They have instant translation on Al Jazeera. The the person translating must also be a doctor because he has to use all these anatomical terms referring to muscles, organs and bones. I can't even just type it out. I tried like 5 times. Too fast and too many medical terms. Left part of the vertex, one shot entered the thorax, penetrating the aorta, damaging the trachea esophagus leaving the left flank, died as result of blood loss and hemorrhaging, etc.
Pretty distusting considering the list goes on and on. Of course they show Breivik most of the time. Can't wonder but think he is trying to figure out which person they are talking about, trying to match the injuries described to what he remembers.
This also makes on thing about all this autopsies they had to do.
can you post a link to the al jazeera translation?
nm found it http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
|
|
|
Ugh, hearing him speak. It's disgusting.
20 minute break now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
