|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On April 17 2012 23:25 Carapas wrote:Show nested quote +World of Warcraft – a virtual world where 10.3 million players attempt to achieve the position of "Justicar" – has been criticised for its addictiveness. Prosecutor Svein Holden described the game as "violent".
The goal of WoW is certainly not to get the title of Justicar -.- And I would certainly not describe WoW as violent, since it's cartoonish, there is not blood, and the world reprensented by WoW is so fantastic you can't relate that in the real world, wtf. Show nested quote +
Breivik broke into a broad smile when Mr Holden projected an image of "Justicar Andersnordic", Breivik's avatar in the game, onto a screen in the courtroom.
I would fucking smile too if I was accused of near a 100 murders and all the lawyers would bring is my fucking WoW toon. I mean what did they expect? Another case of strong disinformation towards gaming in the traditionnal media yay!
I just felt i have to mention that the prosecutor did not say that the game was violent. One of the judges asked him if this game was violent and he answered that they would come back to this game later during the trial and that "well, if this game is violent.. kinda depends on what you see as violent". And he said it in a tone that sounded like he doesnt think so.
Does not feel like they are gonna focus on the game for its violence, more to the fact that he played it during a time just to map out his life until these attacks.
|
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...?
(Emphasis mine)
I find it very interesting that you mentioned what I bolded, because in Breivik's mind, this is exactly the case. In his eyes, the people he killed were a new generation of traitors, just as bad as satanic cultists. Even if he were to agree with you about who should get a fair trial and who shouldn't, he would insist that he would deserve a fair one, because the people he killed were bad people. And so the question remains: Who defines what crimes should give a fair trial and what crimes shouldn't? I submit that however you try to answer that, the only answer that is truly fair for everyone, is that everyone be given a fair trial, no matter the crime itself.
|
On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen.
How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all?
I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with NO parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes.
|
On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes.
Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right.
|
On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right.
I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing.
|
On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing.
You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs?
You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions.
|
On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if it is 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil.
Wait. Are you saying that when he is 75 years old and let free, he will be a major security risk for committing another mass-murder? Even if he managed to fool the psychiatric experts into letting him out, it's not like the police/security forces won't keep an eye on him.
I don't think he will be able to kill again.
|
On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if it is 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions.
Murdering so many people makes you crazy in my book. And being in prison certainly doesn't make you uncrazy. He fucked up the lives of so many people, including himself. The people he killed will never get their lives back, neither will he.
|
On April 18 2012 00:02 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. After the 21 years have been server, he will be re-evaluated, and if necessary, will have to serve another 21 years. This can happen more than once, too, if i'm not mistaken. The re-evaluation process is also, presumably, very strict, so if it's clear that he isn't a threat to society anymore, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't see any glaring faults with this system, I think it's just somewhat odd for a lot of people (Norwegians and otherwise) to grasp that being in prison shouldn't be about being put in horrendous living conditions, but rather about rehabilitation and treating the prisoners like human beings, no matter their crime.Also, obviously 21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway, and with the system stated above being in place, it really shouldn't be a problem. I doubt that criminals who are obviously still dangerous would be set free and be able to live as other humans. As this is already off-topic enough, I won't go into the death penalty thing. As many others, I assume, I was somewhat disappointed (albeit understandably) that we could not see the actual questioning of ABB, and had to stick to reading online transcripts. It nevertheless gave me an interesting look into the twisted mind of ABB. He really does live in a whole different world... Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:25 Carapas wrote:World of Warcraft – a virtual world where 10.3 million players attempt to achieve the position of "Justicar" – has been criticised for its addictiveness. Prosecutor Svein Holden described the game as "violent".
The goal of WoW is certainly not to get the title of Justicar -.- And I would certainly not describe WoW as violent, since it's cartoonish, there is not blood, and the world reprensented by WoW is so fantastic you can't relate that in the real world, wtf.
Breivik broke into a broad smile when Mr Holden projected an image of "Justicar Andersnordic", Breivik's avatar in the game, onto a screen in the courtroom.
I would fucking smile too if I was accused of near a 100 murders and all the lawyers would bring is my fucking WoW toon. I mean what did they expect? Another case of strong disinformation towards gaming in the traditionnal media yay! Oh god yes. I think it's embarrassing that they would even bring up WoW in such a serious case. Do these people not yet understand that people do in fact have a distinction between killing things "IRL" and in a video game? Let's see, allow me to log on to my most recent WoW character... Aha! Since starting this character yesterday, I have already viciously murdered/assisted in the murder of 1777 creatures! Surely this game influences me and desensitizes murder, allowing me to commit such acts without a feather of guilt on my conscience. Fucking media, urgh.
I think i love you !
Or atleast i'm sharing your opinions and it feels good to see that after all the other posts : D
|
On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions.
You can make the '1% chance' argument for any criminal, no matter if he's stolen cookies, murdered 1 person or over a 100. If you base your justice system on rehabilitation as the main goal, there needs to be the option, even if its only theoretical, for every prisoner to be rehabilitated. Otherwise you draw an arbitrary line, and every time public opinion feels like a crime is bad enough, sentencing gets stricter and stricter.
|
On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions.
This is a very interesting line of reasoning. If I may expand on it a little:
When Breivik is an old man, he has paid for his crimes and does not need to pay for them again. In a sense, he has become "innocent" as far as the legal system is concerned (although he's still gulity of his past crimes, of course, he does not need to be punished for them by the system anymore). However, as you so eloquently put it, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released.". It doesn't matter how old, fragile or "legally innocent" he is, you just doesn't take that chance. I submit that there is, legally, no difference between a man who has paid for his crimes and a man who hasn't done any crimes, so I guess the same would apply to Breivik before 22/7 as well, right? If the cops had known what kind of sick fuck he was before he commited those atrocities, they should have locked him up as soon as possible and possibly spared those lives. Although you can't be 100% sure that he would have done it, it's certainly more than 1% sure that he would have, and as you said, even 1% is enough to keep a man who has paid for his crimes still locked up afterwards, so close to 100% should be more than enough to lock up someone who hasn't done anything yet, but probably would. Right?
So, we know that Breivik shared the views of several other individuals, for instance Fjordman, the blogger. Knowing now, with a 100% certainty, that Breivik killed all those kids, what would you estimate to be the probabilities of Fjordman killing lots of people? He shares many of the views that Breivik has, so... 70%? 60%? Let's factor in the enormous cruelty needed to kill innocent kids and put the number at 5% or possibly just 2%. So, based on his writings, Fjordman has a 2-5% chance of going on a killing spree. Comparing with the 1% chance of an old Breivik, that's at least the double, and, as you said, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened", so perhaps it is best to lock up Fjordman as well, pre-emptively, as we would keep an old, rehabilitated Breivik in prison, pre-emptively. After all, Fjordman has, and Breivik in the future had, dangerous views, so they were a potential threat - one which one does not gamble with.
Continuing in these tracks, there is a small number of neo-nazis in Norway. It is conceivable that one of those nazis turns out to be like Breivik or possibly even the next Hitler. With the prospect of a new Hitler, I'd say that even a 1% chance is far too much to gamble with millions of innocent lives and Europe at war. In fact, it is such a big gamble that we shouldn't take it at all, and consequently, we'll put all the neo-nazis in jail, just to be sure. After all, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened".
Norway does also have a small number of radical leftists. As we have witnessed many times, with Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung etc., such leftists can potentially cause tremendous human suffering, so, well, I guess you've already guessed where this is going. Instead of me rambling on, I suggest you see Minority Report or Equilibrium or read 1984, which is the end point for this line of reasoning.
--
Somewhat related, a short time after 22/7, I saw the Simpsons episode where Lisa is going to hold a patriotic speech in Washington, but finds out that her congressman is corrupt. At the end of the episode, one of the other kids said something along the lines of "Lisa has taught us that the price for true democracy is eternal vigilance", which I found really meaningful just then, and which I think is the answer to all this, rather than putting people in jail (or killing them off).
|
On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with NO parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes.
We have a new law against genocide and terrorism that i dont know if will be used, because it hasnt been passed yet. But that law allows for up to 30 years of prison.
Actually, planned murder is one of the two only things (cant remember the other) that can give you a 21 year sentence in Norway (You may laugh of this, but prison years are somehow different, so it is actually 15 years).
But the emphasis is on planned murder here, not suddenly going nuts with a gun. So those are the special cases
On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing.
I completly agree. If we are to not be hypocritic of our own prison system, then we must at least trust it.
Although i have my doubts that he will actually ever be evaluated to get out based on his actions, his views, and the way he behaves in court.
But punishing for the sake of punishing is no way for a modern, humane society to threat any criminal.
Actually i am writing an essay on the excact bolded part, wich are due in... 11 hours from 1 AM. Its called retributivism, and i find it quite inhumane of a pracsis.
|
Breivik stated he "doesnt care where he is, he was born in a prison, a country where you are not allowed to participate if you have different opinions". Which is kind of true. And like he also said, exactly same thing happened/happen right now in Switzerland, Hungary and Sweden, and several other countries im sure.
Political media is immediately there to call people with different opinions racists, facists, inhumane and cruel. They do their best to ridicule these people in attempt to make them hide in shame of the way they think. But when there are hundreds of thousands of people, for instance in a small country like Sweden who vote for a party, who is the media to laugh at them for their opinions? This has to stop, or we will probably see many more Breiviks..
History have showed so many times that you can't ignore the masses, the bubble will slowly build up, and then explode. He is right that we are not a real democracy, mainly because of how the media and school works today.
Everyone who can look at history for a little moment knew something like this would happen eventually. I hope our goverment will stop being naive now.
Wahtever, im sure everything I said has been said already, completely obvious to some etc., but this is more or less the part where I understand Breivik. Even some of the guys he shot agree with him on this point, that we need to stop this censor immediately (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10065243)
You can see day 1 of his explanation, with only a little censor here which probably already been linked : http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli-terror-oslo-og-utoya/her-er-breiviks-ordrette-forklaring-3757760.html
sorry for no english alternative, and it's way to much to translate, espescially with my bad english
PS. Make sure to call me racist, ban me, call me inhumane and a facist for saying I agree with Breivik on some points. Im sure some will
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 23 2011 14:08 Plexa wrote:Here's a picture from the old thread, supposedly of Anders about to shoot some kid praying for his life  http://bildr.no/view/933067The blog is heart wrenching EDIT: this is an amazing post from deep within this thread: Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
This comment is directed at the guy you quoted Plexa, not you.
I believe the part about killing him and relating that to "biblical vengeance" is the worst description of what a death penalty and justice is. If you were to go and brutally torture/murder him lynch mob style than yes that is wrong. But ending his life is the price he pays for his actions. Everyone must be responsible for their actions. Taking away any type of repercussions for atrocious acts committed is both ethically and morally wrong.
This man should be put to death (in a humane way of course) as the consequences for his actions. All you are doing is giving him another chance to go out and savagely murder more innocent people. Grats to you.
edit: and by "you" I mean your countries laws and your defense of them.
|
On April 18 2012 00:10 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:25 Carapas wrote:World of Warcraft – a virtual world where 10.3 million players attempt to achieve the position of "Justicar" – has been criticised for its addictiveness. Prosecutor Svein Holden described the game as "violent".
The goal of WoW is certainly not to get the title of Justicar -.- And I would certainly not describe WoW as violent, since it's cartoonish, there is not blood, and the world reprensented by WoW is so fantastic you can't relate that in the real world, wtf.
Breivik broke into a broad smile when Mr Holden projected an image of "Justicar Andersnordic", Breivik's avatar in the game, onto a screen in the courtroom.
I would fucking smile too if I was accused of near a 100 murders and all the lawyers would bring is my fucking WoW toon. I mean what did they expect? Another case of strong disinformation towards gaming in the traditionnal media yay! I just felt i have to mention that the prosecutor did not say that the game was violent. One of the judges asked him if this game was violent and he answered that they would come back to this game later during the trial and that "well, if this game is violent.. kinda depends on what you see as violent". And he said it in a tone that sounded like he doesnt think so. Does not feel like they are gonna focus on the game for its violence, more to the fact that he played it during a time just to map out his life until these attacks.
This, they are trying to find out as much as possible about ABB, and he did play WoW a lot.
edit: vg.no are reporting that Breivik looks stressed and uncomfortable about the question he is getting, Engh (attorney) is much sharper today.
|
On April 18 2012 09:24 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 14:08 Plexa wrote:Here's a picture from the old thread, supposedly of Anders about to shoot some kid praying for his life http://bildr.no/view/933067The blog is heart wrenching EDIT: this is an amazing post from deep within this thread: On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else. This comment is directed at the guy you quoted Plexa, not you. I believe the part about killing him and relating that to "biblical vengeance" is the worst description of what a death penalty and justice is. If you were to go and brutally torture/murder him lynch mob style than yes that is wrong. But ending his life is the price he pays for his actions. Everyone must be responsible for their actions. Taking away any type of repercussions for atrocious acts committed is both ethically and morally wrong. This man should be put to death (in a humane way of course) as the consequences for his actions. All you are doing is giving him another chance to go out and savagely murder more innocent people. Grats to you. edit: and by "you" I mean your countries laws and your defense of them.
I still can't seem to justify killing someone entirely pointlessly as "punishment". Really, it's primordial and stupid.
"Oh, you massacred 69 people and killed another 8 in a bombing? Well.. Uh, well, we're gonna kill you! Son of a bitch!"
No. It's a waste, it's pointless, it won't bring back the victims, the only good that could possibly come of such a thing would be for some of the families of the victims would feel vindicated, but that's just a primordial need for revenge that ultimately serves no purpose. Even then, would you really want the government to say "Aww, it's all right" and kill the murderer of your kid to somehow make it feel better?
As I stated before, the re-evaluation process is comprehensive enough that he wouldn't be let out were there even the slightest chance that he was still mentally deranged as he is now. This is extremely likely not to happen, and he will probably die in prison after being re-evaluated and rejected several times.
"Pointless" really is the best word I can use to describe killing ABB. The Norwegian government doesn't think highly about this form of "justice" either.
I understand that a lot of people don't quite get the way the Norwegian prison system works (including a lot of Norwegian citizens, I might add, including the ones that, on 23. July started spamming anything vaguely ABB-related on Facebook with "KILL HIM!" "BURN IN HELL YOU FUCKING MONSTER", etc.) But in my opinion, it's better than putting prisoners in dangerously bad conditions where they are liable to get injured by inmates, and also killing the ones that we think "deserve it".
The death penalty also, as far as I know, hasn't helped any nation in terms of quality of life, crime rates, political standing or anything vaguely positive.
|
On April 18 2012 06:55 iMAniaC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions. This is a very interesting line of reasoning. If I may expand on it a little: When Breivik is an old man, he has paid for his crimes and does not need to pay for them again. In a sense, he has become "innocent" as far as the legal system is concerned (although he's still gulity of his past crimes, of course, he does not need to be punished for them by the system anymore). However, as you so eloquently put it, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released.". It doesn't matter how old, fragile or "legally innocent" he is, you just doesn't take that chance. I submit that there is, legally, no difference between a man who has paid for his crimes and a man who hasn't done any crimes, so I guess the same would apply to Breivik before 22/7 as well, right? If the cops had known what kind of sick fuck he was before he commited those atrocities, they should have locked him up as soon as possible and possibly spared those lives. Although you can't be 100% sure that he would have done it, it's certainly more than 1% sure that he would have, and as you said, even 1% is enough to keep a man who has paid for his crimes still locked up afterwards, so close to 100% should be more than enough to lock up someone who hasn't done anything yet, but probably would. Right? So, we know that Breivik shared the views of several other individuals, for instance Fjordman, the blogger. Knowing now, with a 100% certainty, that Breivik killed all those kids, what would you estimate to be the probabilities of Fjordman killing lots of people? He shares many of the views that Breivik has, so... 70%? 60%? Let's factor in the enormous cruelty needed to kill innocent kids and put the number at 5% or possibly just 2%. So, based on his writings, Fjordman has a 2-5% chance of going on a killing spree. Comparing with the 1% chance of an old Breivik, that's at least the double, and, as you said, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened", so perhaps it is best to lock up Fjordman as well, pre-emptively, as we would keep an old, rehabilitated Breivik in prison, pre-emptively. After all, Fjordman has, and Breivik in the future had, dangerous views, so they were a potential threat - one which one does not gamble with. Continuing in these tracks, there is a small number of neo-nazis in Norway. It is conceivable that one of those nazis turns out to be like Breivik or possibly even the next Hitler. With the prospect of a new Hitler, I'd say that even a 1% chance is far too much to gamble with millions of innocent lives and Europe at war. In fact, it is such a big gamble that we shouldn't take it at all, and consequently, we'll put all the neo-nazis in jail, just to be sure. After all, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened". Norway does also have a small number of radical leftists. As we have witnessed many times, with Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung etc., such leftists can potentially cause tremendous human suffering, so, well, I guess you've already guessed where this is going. Instead of me rambling on, I suggest you see Minority Report or Equilibrium or read 1984, which is the end point for this line of reasoning. -- Somewhat related, a short time after 22/7, I saw the Simpsons episode where Lisa is going to hold a patriotic speech in Washington, but finds out that her congressman is corrupt. At the end of the episode, one of the other kids said something along the lines of "Lisa has taught us that the price for true democracy is eternal vigilance", which I found really meaningful just then, and which I think is the answer to all this, rather than putting people in jail (or killing them off).
I get your point, but criminal law does not punish criminal thoughts. Unless you go on and act in such a way that violates the criminal rules, there's no reason for you to be condemned for your actions. So it can very much be true that those people you list share the same views with the Breivik, and it could be very true that they might actually attempt the same kind of mass murder thing. However, they haven't done anything yet. There's no mass murder in their record. Yes they might be thinking about it, but a human male might also be dreaming of forced copulation with a human female because she is hot or something. But until he goes and makes that a reality, he can't be condemned by the justice system, as I've explained above. Those other guys you've listed are not guilty of criminal actions yet (I don't know if they've committed other crimes like hate speech or something etc., but we are talking about premeditated murder here because of Breivik) and although their ideologies would make them a prime target of strict observation under authorities, there's just no reason to put them in custody yet unless they exhibit some suspicious behaviours.
My point is that Breivik doesn't have to set up another mass murder when he is out 75 years old. He is a violent, morally corrupt and evil person. He might hurt, manipulate, or even attempt to kill another human being when he is released, his past actions give rise to these potential conditions. While it might sound very romantic to think that the justice system works perfectly and those who serve their time are somehow cured of their issues, there's undeniable evidence of those who get out of prisons continue to commit other crimes, because ironically, when they're actually in prison; because they're spending time with other criminals, being a criminal and committing a crime becomes a second nature to them. At least a large number of them which one can't ignore without good reasoning. I am sure there are actual people who really tried hard to change what they are, succeeded and got out as a better person.
But I just, simply, cannot see this sick fuck doing the same. Killing 77 innocent lives in cold-blood, planning the whole thing way before it all happened, gathering all items he needed etc. , these are just not a normal human being would do. If say, you caught your girlfriend having sex with another man and you go into rage and murder the guy. Believe it or not, this is still a human behaviour that probably most of us could maybe not symphatise, but at least understand in a basic manner. Okay, you've still done a terrible thing and committed murder, but you didn't plan the whole thing beforehand, acquired a murder weapon and waited for him to be at the exact spot, thought about a way to dispose the body etc. and then murdered him in cold blood. You saw your love cheating after all happened in your relationship etc. and then the rage overcame you and then it all happened in a short amount of time. There is a difference between a murder that happens this way and a mass murdering killing spree.
I don't see how someone who's capable of doing what Breivik did to actually have a chance to be rehabilitated at all. Like as I've said before, even if it is 99.9% that he is actually fine, could you gamble on innocent lives knowing what he has done? The purpose of keeping in him prison at this point is not about punishment, it's about preventing him to potentially harm the society. This is why someone who commits a premeditated murder gets (or at least should in the case of Norway) a death penalty or life sentence without parole. That person cannot be trusted anymore by the society and the authorities after what he's done, it is just too risky to let him go free.
|
Once he realizes his delusions are in fact delusions, there's nothing more to rehabilitate. And according to his stepfather he will then probably commit suicide because it will be unbearable for him. Apparently he understands the cruelty involved.
It is very easy for delusional ideology to lead to improperly applying proper morals.
If you believe people who don't believe in god go to hell and suffer eternally for eternity after they die, it would be moral to kill people who teach evolution to children. Because by teaching evolution they will degrade their faith in god and once they lose their faith they are thus condemned to the worst suffering possible.
You can save many souls by killing certain people. If you believe monotheistic theology is right, the only thing that matters is saving souls and the lives we have are just tests.
Given this delusion, brave people with strong morals will commit terrible crimes because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing.
Go to N Korea. That's an extremely cruel regime. Many millions of people are estimated to have died because of famine. There are hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps. When someone is considered to have betrayed the regime, their whole extended family locked up in such a camp as punishment. Whole new generations grow up in these camps.
Also, the level of dignity of ordinary people is very low and people are brainwashed or completely cowered into slavish and unnatural behavior.
What if a person sets up some plan and wipes out the whole new generation of the communist party people. Many people just over 20, but some younger. These people were going to be the next generation elite of the regime. If they are killed, the regime may be weakened. Especially if more people rise up. Is this so extremely immoral? Lashing out at the Korean regime like that isn't the same as just some school shooting.
Brevik believed he was living in a country worse than N Korea. If he truly belives this it is delusion. And he probably does believe it because using it as an excuse just so you can have fun killing people is something else.
Once he snaps out of this delusion, he will probably never harm anyone. This wasn't a person who lacks constraints, has some natural violant behavior or is a sadist or cruel person.
Maybe he can be cured, maybe he cannot. But it doesn't really matter if he shot just one person or if he let off a high yield nuke right in the middle of a metropolis.
If you as a society decide some extreme case of murders are so severe, you shouldn't release such a criminal for the sake of the families of the victims, fine. If you decide it is 'justice' to lock up someone for life after he killed a certain number of people, fine. But if your position is to cure mentally ill murderers and release them back into society then possible, then that's what you do.
I myself don't understand why one murder is bad but not that bad but murdering 80 or so is really terrible and does deserve life in prison. I don't know how to explain to the parents of one teenager that was killed why just 1 dead didn't cause sufficient suffering to lock someone up for life. If you go off suffering, one murder is enough. A 100 people killed is 100 times worse, but 2 murders is already off thee scale. Call it giving someone 100 counts of life in prison if you want. If you killed a 100 you can't possibly pay for your crimes. The question is how much money you want society to waste on a person after he already murdered 100 people and the risk he does it again is basically 0.
I have never seen a good argument for penal punishment in general anyway. To me these are professional criminal academies. Some people, especially males, given their genetics and the enviroment they grew up in, will do silly things in the 15 to 26 age range. This is partly because their brain isn't used to the testosterone levels they receive. Once they become older, their brains learn to inhibit the effect of testosterone. The thing with these problem teenagers is for them to not get a life in crime. Normally these people will grow up and become adults. If you put them in prison you are really increasing the odds they become the mild-mannered family guy they have the genetic potential to be.
Putting them together with older males that already are professional career criminals is just the worst thing you can do with these teenagers.
|
On April 18 2012 17:44 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 06:55 iMAniaC wrote:On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions. This is a very interesting line of reasoning. If I may expand on it a little: When Breivik is an old man, he has paid for his crimes and does not need to pay for them again. In a sense, he has become "innocent" as far as the legal system is concerned (although he's still gulity of his past crimes, of course, he does not need to be punished for them by the system anymore). However, as you so eloquently put it, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released.". It doesn't matter how old, fragile or "legally innocent" he is, you just doesn't take that chance. I submit that there is, legally, no difference between a man who has paid for his crimes and a man who hasn't done any crimes, so I guess the same would apply to Breivik before 22/7 as well, right? If the cops had known what kind of sick fuck he was before he commited those atrocities, they should have locked him up as soon as possible and possibly spared those lives. Although you can't be 100% sure that he would have done it, it's certainly more than 1% sure that he would have, and as you said, even 1% is enough to keep a man who has paid for his crimes still locked up afterwards, so close to 100% should be more than enough to lock up someone who hasn't done anything yet, but probably would. Right? So, we know that Breivik shared the views of several other individuals, for instance Fjordman, the blogger. Knowing now, with a 100% certainty, that Breivik killed all those kids, what would you estimate to be the probabilities of Fjordman killing lots of people? He shares many of the views that Breivik has, so... 70%? 60%? Let's factor in the enormous cruelty needed to kill innocent kids and put the number at 5% or possibly just 2%. So, based on his writings, Fjordman has a 2-5% chance of going on a killing spree. Comparing with the 1% chance of an old Breivik, that's at least the double, and, as you said, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened", so perhaps it is best to lock up Fjordman as well, pre-emptively, as we would keep an old, rehabilitated Breivik in prison, pre-emptively. After all, Fjordman has, and Breivik in the future had, dangerous views, so they were a potential threat - one which one does not gamble with. Continuing in these tracks, there is a small number of neo-nazis in Norway. It is conceivable that one of those nazis turns out to be like Breivik or possibly even the next Hitler. With the prospect of a new Hitler, I'd say that even a 1% chance is far too much to gamble with millions of innocent lives and Europe at war. In fact, it is such a big gamble that we shouldn't take it at all, and consequently, we'll put all the neo-nazis in jail, just to be sure. After all, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened". Norway does also have a small number of radical leftists. As we have witnessed many times, with Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung etc., such leftists can potentially cause tremendous human suffering, so, well, I guess you've already guessed where this is going. Instead of me rambling on, I suggest you see Minority Report or Equilibrium or read 1984, which is the end point for this line of reasoning. -- Somewhat related, a short time after 22/7, I saw the Simpsons episode where Lisa is going to hold a patriotic speech in Washington, but finds out that her congressman is corrupt. At the end of the episode, one of the other kids said something along the lines of "Lisa has taught us that the price for true democracy is eternal vigilance", which I found really meaningful just then, and which I think is the answer to all this, rather than putting people in jail (or killing them off). I get your point, but criminal law does not punish criminal thoughts. Unless you go on and act in such a way that violates the criminal rules, there's no reason for you to be condemned for your actions. So it can very much be true that those people you list share the same views with the Breivik, and it could be very true that they might actually attempt the same kind of mass murder thing. However, they haven't done anything yet. There's no mass murder in their record. Yes they might be thinking about it, but a human male might also be dreaming of forced copulation with a human female because she is hot or something. But until he goes and makes that a reality, he can't be condemned by the justice system, as I've explained above. Those other guys you've listed are not guilty of criminal actions yet (I don't know if they've committed other crimes like hate speech or something etc., but we are talking about premeditated murder here because of Breivik) and although their ideologies would make them a prime target of strict observation under authorities, there's just no reason to put them in custody yet unless they exhibit some suspicious behaviours. My point is that Breivik doesn't have to set up another mass murder when he is out 75 years old. He is a violent, morally corrupt and evil person. He might hurt, manipulate, or even attempt to kill another human being when he is released, his past actions give rise to these potential conditions. While it might sound very romantic to think that the justice system works perfectly and those who serve their time are somehow cured of their issues, there's undeniable evidence of those who get out of prisons continue to commit other crimes, because ironically, when they're actually in prison; because they're spending time with other criminals, being a criminal and committing a crime becomes a second nature to them. At least a large number of them which one can't ignore without good reasoning. I am sure there are actual people who really tried hard to change what they are, succeeded and got out as a better person. But I just, simply, cannot see this sick fuck doing the same. Killing 77 innocent lives in cold-blood, planning the whole thing way before it all happened, gathering all items he needed etc. , these are just not a normal human being would do. If say, you caught your girlfriend having sex with another man and you go into rage and murder the guy. Believe it or not, this is still a human behaviour that probably most of us could maybe not symphatise, but at least understand in a basic manner. Okay, you've still done a terrible thing and committed murder, but you didn't plan the whole thing beforehand, acquired a murder weapon and waited for him to be at the exact spot, thought about a way to dispose the body etc. and then murdered him in cold blood. You saw your love cheating after all happened in your relationship etc. and then the rage overcame you and then it all happened in a short amount of time. There is a difference between a murder that happens this way and a mass murdering killing spree. I don't see how someone who's capable of doing what Breivik did to actually have a chance to be rehabilitated at all. Like as I've said before, even if it is 99.9% that he is actually fine, could you gamble on innocent lives knowing what he has done? The purpose of keeping in him prison at this point is not about punishment, it's about preventing him to potentially harm the society. This is why someone who commits a premeditated murder gets (or at least should in the case of Norway) a death penalty or life sentence without parole. That person cannot be trusted anymore by the society and the authorities after what he's done, it is just too risky to let him go free.
It seems that we basically agree that it should not be illegal to think about illegal actions and that the point where we part ways is that you don't believe that a person can truly change while I believe that it is possible. Is that correct? And thus your reason for keeping Breivik locked up indefinitely (or killed off) is based on your belief that he will never truly change, right? If so, then the question is rather philosophical than pertaining to society or the prison system.
I have to admit, though, that I don't have any really good arguments promoting the view that people can truly change. But summing up, I agree that if he never changes and is always a threat, then he should not be let out, and that if he changes and is no longer a threat, then he should be let out when he has served his sentence.
|
On April 18 2012 18:58 iMAniaC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 17:44 Bleak wrote:On April 18 2012 06:55 iMAniaC wrote:On April 18 2012 05:39 Bleak wrote:On April 18 2012 05:35 Undrass wrote:On April 18 2012 05:28 antelope591 wrote:On April 18 2012 05:12 Bleak wrote:On April 17 2012 23:22 Undrass wrote:On April 17 2012 23:17 Bleak wrote:
Death penalty or not, 21 years for murdering 80 people is outrageous. He deserves a life-term imprisonment with heaviest conditions. Jeez. This again. He wont get 21 years of prison. he will get 21 years in prison, with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous. So, while there is a small theoretical chance of there being only 21 years, its not going to happen. How can someone who willingly massacred 80 human beings can be rehabilitated at all? Even if theoretically that was possible, how can one give a merit to that argument or even trust him that he is actually rehabilitated at all? I'm not saying that people who kill only one person end up 20 years after, being a damn angel with a halo over their heads and perfectly good. However it is very clear to see that the severity of his actions are on such a deep level that I don't think it is even possible for someone like him to have a chance to be (at least legally) considered well enough to be released no matter how much time he is incarcerated. There is a difference between committing a murder willingly, but for example due to being provoked unjustly by the victim; and deliberately planning in advance the act of murder and carrying it out in a gruesome manner. The nature of both actions are entirely different, even if the number of victims can somehow be taken relevant and in this case entirely equal (one for each scenario above) it is the execution and reasoning, the thought processes that go behind the both murders could make the former serve 20 years and THEN perhaps be eligible to be considered "rehabilitated" , and latter to serve lifetime with no parole. In this case even if as you put it, that it's a theoretical argument whether or not he will serve 21 years at max or not, I think it is very, very counter productive and baffling for a justice system to not have definite, clear cut life term imprisonment punishment in its criminal code as a response against some very heinous and absolutely worst crimes. Pretty much this....its the principle. After a crime like this it should be either death or life in prison no in between and no chance of ever getting out even if that chance is 1%. This at least is one thing the US system gets right. I guess we disagree. when he turns 75 years old, shows remorse and cries himself to sleep every night, I see no reason to keep him in prison. that would be a waste of taxpayer money indeed. There is no reason to punish, just for the sake of punishing. You don't get it. You can't take chances with someone who has committed such a grave crime. It doesn't matter how old he becomes or how much he cries or whether he can still get his dick up or not. You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released. Better to spend more money than add another to the list of this devil. How much does the life of a innocent victim cost? One or two more years of keeping one in prison, or maybe ten? How can one coldly calculate this and land on a conclusion based on costs? You're saying there's no reason to punish at THAT point for the sake of punishing, but that is where you're mistaken: The reason for incarcerating a criminal is not solely punishing him for his actions, it is also and more importantly to protect the rest of the society from his actions. This is a very interesting line of reasoning. If I may expand on it a little: When Breivik is an old man, he has paid for his crimes and does not need to pay for them again. In a sense, he has become "innocent" as far as the legal system is concerned (although he's still gulity of his past crimes, of course, he does not need to be punished for them by the system anymore). However, as you so eloquently put it, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened by a sick fuck like this one, even if there is a 1% percent chance that he is still very much capable of what he's done in past, he cannot be released.". It doesn't matter how old, fragile or "legally innocent" he is, you just doesn't take that chance. I submit that there is, legally, no difference between a man who has paid for his crimes and a man who hasn't done any crimes, so I guess the same would apply to Breivik before 22/7 as well, right? If the cops had known what kind of sick fuck he was before he commited those atrocities, they should have locked him up as soon as possible and possibly spared those lives. Although you can't be 100% sure that he would have done it, it's certainly more than 1% sure that he would have, and as you said, even 1% is enough to keep a man who has paid for his crimes still locked up afterwards, so close to 100% should be more than enough to lock up someone who hasn't done anything yet, but probably would. Right? So, we know that Breivik shared the views of several other individuals, for instance Fjordman, the blogger. Knowing now, with a 100% certainty, that Breivik killed all those kids, what would you estimate to be the probabilities of Fjordman killing lots of people? He shares many of the views that Breivik has, so... 70%? 60%? Let's factor in the enormous cruelty needed to kill innocent kids and put the number at 5% or possibly just 2%. So, based on his writings, Fjordman has a 2-5% chance of going on a killing spree. Comparing with the 1% chance of an old Breivik, that's at least the double, and, as you said, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened", so perhaps it is best to lock up Fjordman as well, pre-emptively, as we would keep an old, rehabilitated Breivik in prison, pre-emptively. After all, Fjordman has, and Breivik in the future had, dangerous views, so they were a potential threat - one which one does not gamble with. Continuing in these tracks, there is a small number of neo-nazis in Norway. It is conceivable that one of those nazis turns out to be like Breivik or possibly even the next Hitler. With the prospect of a new Hitler, I'd say that even a 1% chance is far too much to gamble with millions of innocent lives and Europe at war. In fact, it is such a big gamble that we shouldn't take it at all, and consequently, we'll put all the neo-nazis in jail, just to be sure. After all, "You just simply, CANNOT gamble on innocent lives that are potentially going to be threatened". Norway does also have a small number of radical leftists. As we have witnessed many times, with Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung etc., such leftists can potentially cause tremendous human suffering, so, well, I guess you've already guessed where this is going. Instead of me rambling on, I suggest you see Minority Report or Equilibrium or read 1984, which is the end point for this line of reasoning. -- Somewhat related, a short time after 22/7, I saw the Simpsons episode where Lisa is going to hold a patriotic speech in Washington, but finds out that her congressman is corrupt. At the end of the episode, one of the other kids said something along the lines of "Lisa has taught us that the price for true democracy is eternal vigilance", which I found really meaningful just then, and which I think is the answer to all this, rather than putting people in jail (or killing them off). I get your point, but criminal law does not punish criminal thoughts. Unless you go on and act in such a way that violates the criminal rules, there's no reason for you to be condemned for your actions. So it can very much be true that those people you list share the same views with the Breivik, and it could be very true that they might actually attempt the same kind of mass murder thing. However, they haven't done anything yet. There's no mass murder in their record. Yes they might be thinking about it, but a human male might also be dreaming of forced copulation with a human female because she is hot or something. But until he goes and makes that a reality, he can't be condemned by the justice system, as I've explained above. Those other guys you've listed are not guilty of criminal actions yet (I don't know if they've committed other crimes like hate speech or something etc., but we are talking about premeditated murder here because of Breivik) and although their ideologies would make them a prime target of strict observation under authorities, there's just no reason to put them in custody yet unless they exhibit some suspicious behaviours. My point is that Breivik doesn't have to set up another mass murder when he is out 75 years old. He is a violent, morally corrupt and evil person. He might hurt, manipulate, or even attempt to kill another human being when he is released, his past actions give rise to these potential conditions. While it might sound very romantic to think that the justice system works perfectly and those who serve their time are somehow cured of their issues, there's undeniable evidence of those who get out of prisons continue to commit other crimes, because ironically, when they're actually in prison; because they're spending time with other criminals, being a criminal and committing a crime becomes a second nature to them. At least a large number of them which one can't ignore without good reasoning. I am sure there are actual people who really tried hard to change what they are, succeeded and got out as a better person. But I just, simply, cannot see this sick fuck doing the same. Killing 77 innocent lives in cold-blood, planning the whole thing way before it all happened, gathering all items he needed etc. , these are just not a normal human being would do. If say, you caught your girlfriend having sex with another man and you go into rage and murder the guy. Believe it or not, this is still a human behaviour that probably most of us could maybe not symphatise, but at least understand in a basic manner. Okay, you've still done a terrible thing and committed murder, but you didn't plan the whole thing beforehand, acquired a murder weapon and waited for him to be at the exact spot, thought about a way to dispose the body etc. and then murdered him in cold blood. You saw your love cheating after all happened in your relationship etc. and then the rage overcame you and then it all happened in a short amount of time. There is a difference between a murder that happens this way and a mass murdering killing spree. I don't see how someone who's capable of doing what Breivik did to actually have a chance to be rehabilitated at all. Like as I've said before, even if it is 99.9% that he is actually fine, could you gamble on innocent lives knowing what he has done? The purpose of keeping in him prison at this point is not about punishment, it's about preventing him to potentially harm the society. This is why someone who commits a premeditated murder gets (or at least should in the case of Norway) a death penalty or life sentence without parole. That person cannot be trusted anymore by the society and the authorities after what he's done, it is just too risky to let him go free. It seems that we basically agree that it should not be illegal to think about illegal actions and that the point where we part ways is that you don't believe that a person can truly change while I believe that it is possible. Is that correct? And thus your reason for keeping Breivik locked up indefinitely (or killed off) is based on your belief that he will never truly change, right? If so, then the question is rather philosophical than pertaining to society or the prison system. I have to admit, though, that I don't have any really good arguments promoting the view that people can truly change. But summing up, I agree that if he never changes and is always a threat, then he should not be let out, and that if he changes and is no longer a threat, then he should be let out when he has served his sentence.
To some extent yes, but I am not saying I don't believe a person can change. They can obviously, but my opinion (and pretty much the laws which punish a premeditated murder with either death penalty or life sentence) is that some criminals who committed some specific crimes, are regarded as either:
a) Incapable of doing so
OR
b) Capable of changing, even if that is a low probability; but their past actions represent such a genuine danger and threat to the society that it is safer to not give the option at all.
It is not as if a monster like Breivik did not know what he was going to. He knew that he was going to murder many people, and he was determined to do so. He is not feeling guilty or having done anything wrong at all. Someone like that cannot be considered to be safe to be released after serving their term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
