|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On April 17 2012 19:48 Rannasha wrote:
I wish that this trial would be more closed off from the media. Breivik is using all the media attention to promote his story, which is bad. Keep the trial behind closed doors, have a press conference when it's done and the sentence has been determined. Don't give this guy any more attention, because that would be playing into his hand.
While i understand your disagreement with his spreading i think that according to what he is saying, not allowing him to speak his mind to the press would basicly support his views, no matter how wierd it sounds. As he is very clear that the presses censoring of "nationalists" and others is one of the reasons for why he felt he needed to be violent
So by allowing the press partial acces to what he says, he is basicly contradicting himself.
Also the sensationalist news buisniess in norway have provided huge pressure to show this as they know that it will get them enormous amounts of readers and viewers.
And the fact that this is the biggest trial since world war 2 in Norway makes it almost impossible to keep it completly behind closed doors without a public outrage.
|
|
|
On April 17 2012 19:58 Teoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:48 Rannasha wrote:
I wish that this trial would be more closed off from the media. Breivik is using all the media attention to promote his story, which is bad. Keep the trial behind closed doors, have a press conference when it's done and the sentence has been determined. Don't give this guy any more attention, because that would be playing into his hand. While i understand your disagreement with his spreading i think that according to what he is saying, not allowing him to speak his mind to the press would basicly support his views, no matter how wierd it sounds. As he is very clear that the presses censoring of "nationalists" and others is one of the reasons for why he felt he needed to be violent So by allowing the press partial acces to what he says, he is basicly contradicting himself. Also the sensationalist news buisniess in norway have provided huge pressure to show this as they know that it will get them enormous amounts of readers and viewers. And the fact that this is the biggest trial since world war 2 in Norway makes it almost impossible to keep it completly behind closed doors without a public outrage.
Actually in the eyes of the nationalists that think they are being persecuted, allowing Breyvik so much press time might reinforce the idea that they need to do something extreme to be able to spread their views. I have no firm opinion on press being present in the courtroom, but allowing press is in no way contradicting Breyvik in his own eyes, more like reinforcing his opinion it would seem to me.
|
|
|
On April 17 2012 19:59 InFdude wrote:
Even if he is guilty there is no death penalty in Norway right? Worst case scenario for him is going to jail. And if norweigian prisons are like what if seen on the internet it doesn't seem like he's gonna have it too bad. Those jails are probably better than half the hotels here lol.
Sure that is a valid argument, but would you really think that staying in the same hotel for the rest of your life sounds like that great. It must be bad to be there. Watching people take distance and disgust in what he have done, and just be even more hostile of his views than before. And knowing that you will never see the world.
And what is your point anyway? Do you think he deserve to be excecuted. Should a crime be punished purely to satisfy the emotions of some of the victims. And who is to decide that he should be excecuted when half the country is against it as a whole? You may find the punishments in Norway to be mild, and i won't say that you are in a minority in meaning so. But do you think that a majority has any right to excecute someone because their sense of justice and demand for revenge demands so?
Harsher punishment can not be used as a spell to bring back the dead. And torturing the person until he says he is wrong will not change his mindset in any way. And excecuting him would basicly make him a martyr for people who agree with him.
So do harsher punishment really serve any other purpose than the desire for revenge that some people have?
EDIT:
On April 17 2012 20:05 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:58 Teoman wrote:On April 17 2012 19:48 Rannasha wrote:
I wish that this trial would be more closed off from the media. Breivik is using all the media attention to promote his story, which is bad. Keep the trial behind closed doors, have a press conference when it's done and the sentence has been determined. Don't give this guy any more attention, because that would be playing into his hand. While i understand your disagreement with his spreading i think that according to what he is saying, not allowing him to speak his mind to the press would basicly support his views, no matter how wierd it sounds. As he is very clear that the presses censoring of "nationalists" and others is one of the reasons for why he felt he needed to be violent So by allowing the press partial acces to what he says, he is basicly contradicting himself. Also the sensationalist news buisniess in norway have provided huge pressure to show this as they know that it will get them enormous amounts of readers and viewers. And the fact that this is the biggest trial since world war 2 in Norway makes it almost impossible to keep it completly behind closed doors without a public outrage. Actually in the eyes of the nationalists that think they are being persecuted, allowing Breyvik so much press time might reinforce the idea that they need to do something extreme to be able to spread their views. I have no firm opinion on press being present in the courtroom, but allowing press is in no way contradicting Breyvik in his own eyes, more like reinforcing his opinion it would seem to me.
Wow, that is a very valid point! I didn't think of it like that.
If i understand it correctly you mean that he gets all the attention and press time only after what he is done and so may convy a message to other people that they must do something extreme to be heard. A good point
I agree partially only though, because as i said, ABB was claiming that the press systematicly censored opinions from people like him (not the violence part, rather his world views). Therefore it would be a balance between spreading the message to high, and not actually confirm what he is saying by not allowing anything of what he says to get out.
As strange as it sounds. And probably a blatant lie. He himself said that he wouldn't need to do what he did if the press didn't censure voices like his.
|
On April 17 2012 20:05 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:58 Teoman wrote:On April 17 2012 19:48 Rannasha wrote:
I wish that this trial would be more closed off from the media. Breivik is using all the media attention to promote his story, which is bad. Keep the trial behind closed doors, have a press conference when it's done and the sentence has been determined. Don't give this guy any more attention, because that would be playing into his hand. While i understand your disagreement with his spreading i think that according to what he is saying, not allowing him to speak his mind to the press would basicly support his views, no matter how wierd it sounds. As he is very clear that the presses censoring of "nationalists" and others is one of the reasons for why he felt he needed to be violent So by allowing the press partial acces to what he says, he is basicly contradicting himself. Also the sensationalist news buisniess in norway have provided huge pressure to show this as they know that it will get them enormous amounts of readers and viewers. And the fact that this is the biggest trial since world war 2 in Norway makes it almost impossible to keep it completly behind closed doors without a public outrage. Actually in the eyes of the nationalists that think they are being persecuted, allowing Breyvik so much press time might reinforce the idea that they need to do something extreme to be able to spread their views. I have no firm opinion on press being present in the courtroom, but allowing press is in no way contradicting Breyvik in his own eyes, more like reinforcing his opinion it would seem to me.
I agree with what youre saying but its not about what Breivik thinks anymore. Its about what the people think and its about showing that the justice system does work and is fair - even for someone like Breivik. The main problem I see however is that others may think they can perform terrorist acts to get the same attention and publicity as this has given Breivik.
|
|
|
Just watched him get questioned by the prosecutor. And He's responses is phrased intelligent. He cried in court when watching he's poorly made video because he felt the message had been sent out. Now it seems his "job" was done. I'm so full of hate for this guy, he destroyed my name with the filth he did. It's times like these I wish there was a death sentence for extreme cases.. hope the remaining victims get some rest watching him get some of what he deserves.
|
On April 17 2012 20:47 InFdude wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2012 20:12 Teoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:59 InFdude wrote:
Even if he is guilty there is no death penalty in Norway right? Worst case scenario for him is going to jail. And if norweigian prisons are like what if seen on the internet it doesn't seem like he's gonna have it too bad. Those jails are probably better than half the hotels here lol. Sure that is a valid argument, but would you really think that staying in the same hotel for the rest of your life sounds like that great. It must be bad to be there. Watching people take distance and disgust in what he have done, and just be even more hostile of his views than before. And knowing that you will never see the world. And what is your point anyway? Do you think he deserve to be excecuted. Should a crime be punished purely to satisfy the emotions of some of the victims. And who is to decide that he should be excecuted when half the country is against it as a whole? You may find the punishments in Norway to be mild, and i won't say that you are in a minority in meaning so. But do you think that a majority has any right to excecute someone because their sense of justice and demand for revenge demands so? Harsher punishment can not be used as a spell to bring back the dead. And torturing the person until he says he is wrong will not change his mindset in any way. And excecuting him would basicly make him a martyr for people who agree with him. So do harsher punishment really serve any other purpose than the desire for revenge that some people have? EDIT: Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:05 mcc wrote:On April 17 2012 19:58 Teoman wrote:On April 17 2012 19:48 Rannasha wrote:
I wish that this trial would be more closed off from the media. Breivik is using all the media attention to promote his story, which is bad. Keep the trial behind closed doors, have a press conference when it's done and the sentence has been determined. Don't give this guy any more attention, because that would be playing into his hand. While i understand your disagreement with his spreading i think that according to what he is saying, not allowing him to speak his mind to the press would basicly support his views, no matter how wierd it sounds. As he is very clear that the presses censoring of "nationalists" and others is one of the reasons for why he felt he needed to be violent So by allowing the press partial acces to what he says, he is basicly contradicting himself. Also the sensationalist news buisniess in norway have provided huge pressure to show this as they know that it will get them enormous amounts of readers and viewers. And the fact that this is the biggest trial since world war 2 in Norway makes it almost impossible to keep it completly behind closed doors without a public outrage. Actually in the eyes of the nationalists that think they are being persecuted, allowing Breyvik so much press time might reinforce the idea that they need to do something extreme to be able to spread their views. I have no firm opinion on press being present in the courtroom, but allowing press is in no way contradicting Breyvik in his own eyes, more like reinforcing his opinion it would seem to me. Wow, that is a very valid point! I didn't think of it like that. If i understand it correctly you mean that he gets all the attention and press time only after what he is done and so may convy a message to other people that they must do something extreme to be heard. A good point I agree partially only though, because as i said, ABB was claiming that the press systematicly censored opinions from people like him (not the violence part, rather his world views). Therefore it would be a balance between spreading the message to high, and not actually confirm what he is saying by not allowing anything of what he says to get out. As strange as it sounds. And probably a blatant lie. He himself said that he wouldn't need to do what he did if the press didn't censure voices like his. My point was that if I knew that's the worst that can happen to me, I'd be less hesitant to do anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there people (immigrants) who commit small crimes just so they can spend some time in your awesome jails?
Yea there are, and i personally don't agree with the current state of the norwegian punishment system (it may appear that i did though). But in theory, the prison system in Norway is based on rehabilitation, not on punishment. And i think that we have at least one of the better systems regarding criminal repetition.
And that is a very helpful view on the idea of crime, since i find the idea of just punishing persons quite absurd and based purely on emotional responses.
So in theory the people who commit crimes just to have a place to sleep will be able to get the education and functioning power in society, so that when they get out, they can get a job and pay taxes, and function like other people.
That is at least the theory. Not that it works that well in pracsis though.
To not go off topic though. In this system, wouldn't the ultimate irony and some may even say "punishment" for ABB be to stay in prison, get rehabilitated, and then work and pay taxes for the society that he himself regarded as "unfair".
Although i hardly imagine it to be possible. I think that is a beautiful thought and is the best way to make criminals pay back what they do to society
I admit though, that this case is extreme, and many people in Norway will probably find the idea of this person lifing a life like normal people impossible after what he have done, and that is understandable
|
There is a reason why Norway isn't like Romania or Bulgaria.
I have never seen any good evidence as for why putting people in prison is a good thing to do anyway. I can't imagine people coming out of prison better than they got on. Imo, you should only put people in prison when you put them in prison for life. And how you treat your prisoners shows how civilized a society is. What does it matter it is like a Hotel? It's not like people are going to kill 77 people so they can enjoy this 'hotel' without paying.
The best thing that can happen is him realizing what he has actually done and that his vies are a delusion. Then we can see what will happen then. If a guy in N Korea did what he did, killing off regime people, would that person be just as immoral?
This is why delusions are so dangerous.
|
On April 17 2012 19:11 terranu1 wrote:
I find it ridiculous there's even a trial for someone who killed 50+ relatively young people who did not commit crimes,rapes and other things. It's not that he killed them, he confessed and he's proud of it and it was not a state of war nor did they do any harm to him . He should be tortured for a week then given lethal injection with no trial whatsoever so other scumbags like him don't dare to think they could get away with it and get publicity and write books.
I mean, unless it's proven that those people he killed were part of a satanic cult and they sacrifice newborns every full moon or something, he should not get a trial , he doesn't deserve justice because there is no justice to be done to him. The whole "trial, lawyers, defense strategy, interviews" is just ridiculous and makes me think if the judges and authorities are not more psychotic than him.
Also the fact that wether he recognize the trial or not has a weight in all this. It's like i break into a store ,steal whatever i want then the alarm goes on and I complain to the police that the store should not have alarms because they scared me and i could have had a heartache because of my heart condition. What the...?
You disgust me. One of the most important developments in the modern era is the rule of law, not rule of the mob.
|
He even had the guts to celebrate his deeds and lecture the public.
Disgusting.
|
Like the court decision would matter in any way for those who support him other that it would give them satisfaction no matter what it is decided.
Like if common sense can not make you see what he has done and that is outrageously wrong and you have to rely on a tedious trial to decide wether he is guilty or no ...I mean if there was no certainty that he did it, that's the purpose of the trial to find out if he did it..but if everyone knows he did and there is no denial of that and he chooses to pledge "not guilty" not because he didn't kill them but because he thinks he should not be punished for it, and people like to see that trial happen...those people are no better than him, in my opinion. Ofc there must be a trial and all that but as long as the evidence is more than enough,it should be done very quick and i don't imagine any jury declaring him not guilty unless it's made of fellow criminals.
He could off lay low and not be found or suicide but he deliberately choosed to stay,knowing te anvergure his case will take and all the publicity he'd gain from it because the people are starving for things like these;alot of people are fascinated by mass criminals and want to read their books(wtf) ,admire them and so on. If they didn't , there would be no big trials and media interest for people like him, only a quick verdict and a lifetime prison sentence. He would have nothing to gain.
He just roamed free slaughtering 40-50 innocent people in a campus because his low-brained mind could not find another way to find attention and press coverage or even better, writting a book. But did he know that killing 1 or 2 or 3 would not be good...heck not even 10, let's kill as many as we can an then because the justice system is so badly done, before the eventual lifetime prison sentence he would get more media coverage and fans than oprah and that's what he wanted in the first place. He just laughs at everyone, giving nazi salute, naming himself judicator, pledging not guilty because of a moral cause( ?????) ...all that fun he has over a pile of bodies that had nothing to do with his cause.
This should disgust you.Sure give him a trial because everyone once caught get's one but thinking he deserve a trial and media coverage because whatever ? you're just jumping in the wagon along with his fans to give him what he wants.
|
|
|
Missing the point? You are just rationalizing for capital punishment. The only point I was trying to make that it is kind of silly for people from backwater areas like Romania and Hungary to try to lecture the Norwegians, who have one of the best models for society on the planet, on how to run their stuff. And it seems it was dead on.
Your rationalization, because this argument is not why you take the position you take, fails in almost all cases because criminals don't consider the punishment they will get.
Capital punishment only works for white collar crime. For violent criminals besides being immoral, it doesn't even do what it is supposed to do anyway.
To me capital punishment is a religious cleansing ritual.
|
So you are saying that if Norway had had death penalty, this would never happened?
You are aware that he has stated several times that he did not expect to survive. He called it a suicide mission.
|
He is also not trying to be trialed as mentally ill. He wrote a 200 page document criticizing the ruling that he was mentally ill.
|
On April 17 2012 21:47 terranu1 wrote:
Like the court decision would matter in any way for those who support him other that it would give them satisfaction no matter what it is decided.
Like if common sense can not make you see what he has done and that is outrageously wrong and you have to rely on a tedious trial to decide wether he is guilty or no ...I mean if there was no certainty that he did it, that's the purpose of the trial to find out if he did it..but if everyone knows he did and there is no denial of that and he chooses to pledge "not guilty" not because he didn't kill them but because he thinks he should not be punished for it, and people like to see that trial happen...those people are no better than him, in my opinion. Ofc there must be a trial and all that but as long as the evidence is more than enough,it should be done very quick and i don't imagine any jury declaring him not guilty unless it's made of fellow criminals.
He could off lay low and not be found or suicide but he deliberately choosed to stay,knowing te anvergure his case will take and all the publicity he'd gain from it because the people are starving for things like these;alot of people are fascinated by mass criminals and want to read their books(wtf) ,admire them and so on. If they didn't , there would be no big trials and media interest for people like him, only a quick verdict and a lifetime prison sentence. He would have nothing to gain.
He just roamed free slaughtering 40-50 innocent people in a campus because his low-brained mind could not find another way to find attention and press coverage or even better, writting a book. But did he know that killing 1 or 2 or 3 would not be good...heck not even 10, let's kill as many as we can an then because the justice system is so badly done, before the eventual lifetime prison sentence he would get more media coverage and fans than oprah and that's what he wanted in the first place. He just laughs at everyone, giving nazi salute, naming himself judicator, pledging not guilty because of a moral cause( ?????) ...all that fun he has over a pile of bodies that had nothing to do with his cause.
This should disgust you.Sure give him a trial because everyone once caught get's one but thinking he deserve a trial and media coverage because whatever ? you're just jumping in the wagon along with his fans to give him what he wants.
First of all i will say that you seem to misunderstand how the norwegian system for sentencing people works.
It is far more complex than He did it, so he is sent to jail instantly.
There are several more situations that must be cleared first. I won't take them all. But i will say the case that ABB said himself. He was acting in "nødrett" (emergency right, directly translated). Which is a ridicoulous statement in the situation, but still one that has to be considered. There are three more requirements for being able to punish someone. One of them was if he was insane or not (simply speaking). The other two are that he must have broken a law, and that there must be guilt placed on him. It is slightly more complex than this, but i think the relevant point is that it is not just to show the video evidence and lock him up.
Secondly, people do not read or want to heat about these kind of things because they admire the persons. They read it because they find it interesting and absurd. I recommend this thread, because it gives a good idea of someone who seems to have read about a lot of mass murderers, yet doesn't admire or agree with anything http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329735
And lastly. No matter what he explains his case with, it will not in any way get him found not guilty. He only says that because he have a right to actually explain why he did it and why he thinks he should not be punished for it. If those statements get him found not guilty or not is an entirely different thing.
The point is that the justice system in norway is based on more factors than "did he pull the trigger" (although that is important, of course), and that means that trials will take long time,where even people like him have the right to freely critizise the society that gives him the right to speak.
|
On April 17 2012 20:47 InFdude wrote:
My point was that if I knew that's the worst that can happen to me, I'd be less hesitant to do anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there people (immigrants) who commit small crimes just so they can spend some time in your awesome jails?
That's seriously fucked up.
|
On April 17 2012 22:03 Miyoshino wrote:
The only point I was trying to make that it is kind of silly for people from backwater areas like Romania and Hungary to try to lecture the Norwegians, who have one of the best models for society on the planet, on how to run their stuff. And it seems it was dead on. .
Wow, kind of aggresive to attack the country of a person rather than purely his arguments, don't you think?
On April 17 2012 21:53 InFdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:58 Miyoshino wrote:
There is a reason why Norway isn't like Romania or Bulgaria.
I have never seen any good evidence as for why putting people in prison is a good thing to do anyway. I can't imagine people coming out of prison better than they got on. Imo, you should only put people in prison when you put them in prison for life. And how you treat your prisoners shows how civilized a society is. What does it matter it is like a Hotel? It's not like people are going to kill 77 people so they can enjoy this 'hotel' without paying.
The best thing that can happen is him realizing what he has actually done and that his vies are a delusion. Then we can see what will happen then. If a guy in N Korea did what he did, killing off regime people, would that person be just as immoral?
This is why delusions are so dangerous. Missing the point once again. I'll try to make it really simple for you this time so you actually understand what I mean. Every human has interest in self preservation, some more than others. Went you want to do something you try to weigh in the consequences and determine if it's going to be worth it for you. For instance stealing an apple in China probably won't be worth it for you when you take into account what you gained and what you lost. So in the case or Norway my point is he didn't have much to fear in the first place. He gave up on his own right? He isn't trying to be trialled as mentally ill and he admitting he did the killings without showing any remorse. Obviously he isn't afraid of spending time in your jails (and the correctional aspect of your system is kinda pointless in the case of a life sentance isn't it) . So let's try to look at it from his point of view. Let's asume he is a closed up person who enjoys solitude (from what I've heard about him this is probably true). He really wants to kill these people for his cause. But his self preservation insticts are making him question the consequences of his action. So then when he ask himself is a life in prison (a place which in Norway is pretty nice) worth satisfying his desire to kill these people for his cause - it becomes an easier (not easy just easier) decision knowing that the worst that can happen is living out the rest of his days in this luxurious institution while being in his head this great hero of his cause.
I am sorry, but i can't seem to remember any statistics that prove this is true. When comparing countrys with death penalty vs those without. If you could i would be very pleased though.
It is also hard to say for certain, because places like China and certain places in the USA practice death centence, and i believe they have a much higher crime rate than Norway. This would be a bit problematic though, since other factors like Population density, general wealth will be huge factors in criminality.
But i would still claim that death penalty does not help with crime rates in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
