|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
Dear people who want to see this guy rot in hell, get executed or raped for the next 50 years straight,
please show some damn respect to a legal and social system that in all likelyhood produces less and resocializes more criminals than the ones in your own country. Contrary to most other countries on this planet, these guys must be doing something right. Stop smacking them for something you don't understand, but what clearly works.
</3
...
Dear Norwegians,
a part of me always enjoyed being at the front when events like this happen. I usually want to soak up as much information about tragic events like these in the shortest amount of possible time. In fact, I still remember sleeping like 3 hours within 3 days when this started, just to keep people posted and up to date here, add more information and pictures and keep false rumors from spreading.
I can't think of any event (neither with more nor less impact) where I have been more impressed by the people handling it. What you guys have pulled off from literally the first minutes all the way up to this trial is one of the most humane and inspiring things I've seen a country and it's people do in my life. This entire event, as tragic as it is, will be something I will tell my kids about in the future if I'm going to have any.
Thank you for setting an example for the rest of the world. It's not more, not less. Just that.
<3³
|
I'm all for human rights, fair trial and all that good stuff, but why the hell do the lawyers representing breivik's victims' families shake his hand? The guy really doesn't seem to have been treated like a mass murderer of youngsters. I get that Norway wants to show how they bend over backwards to adhere to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but it's not like this case will, from the viewpoint of any sane individual, produce a result that doesn't in some way show he is guilty.
On April 18 2012 17:31 marttorn wrote:
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.
I would argue that killing this man would provide an ounce of closure to the families. Call it vengeance if you want, but I'm certain that there are those out there whose entire lives are virtually unliveable just knowing that he is walking, talking, breathing, eating and drinking. Whose rights matter more? The rights of a vicious mass murdering monster, or entirely innocent members of the public? There are lots of times when peoples' rights have to be compared so you can't weasel out by saying 'everyone's rights are equally important'. For example the right to privacy vs the right for the public to know about a news story. For me, it is obviously the rights of the victims, it's so open and shut. If they want him put to death, as a public service to them they should be given their desire. Even if it is a 'biblical desire', it is more accurately described as an instinctive desire. Instinctive desires aren't automatically swept under the table, sexual intercourse is not considered a dirty and 'biblical' practice and therefore should not ever be indulged.
Of course there are people who say that you cannot ever take away your human rights, even by killing multiple innocent people, for those of you who think that, I respect your opinion. I still think you should accept that Breivik has diminished the prominence of his rights over the rights of the victims' families, and therefore it should be their decision whether he gets a death penalty. Perhaps they could arrange to export him to a country which gives the death penalty, maybe the US would be happy to oblige. I hate the death penalty for 99% of cases, but not for the cases of a mass murderer where judicial error has been 100% ruled out.
|
The reporter on Al Jazeera English is saying Breivik is already breaking down as his delusion obviously cant stand up in court. And this after 2 days. So much for him not being able to change.
His story is so absurd he has to change position at some time. And what's he gonna say then?
Also, so much for those saying the Norwegian system isn't effective. They are gonna break down this guy and sow him off at his ankles.
|
On April 18 2012 22:05 Miyoshino wrote:
The reporter on Al Jazeera English is saying Breivik is already breaking down as his delusion obviously cant stand up in court. And this after 2 days. So much for him not being able to change.
His story is so absurd he has to change position at some time. And what's he gonna say then?
Also, so much for those saying the Norwegian system isn't effective. They are gonna break down this guy and sow him off at his ankles.
Inaccurate. That is a theory based on the simple observation from a psychologist that he showed more facial expressions and body language at this stage; as would any man voicing in court for the first (and last time) what is essentially his raison d'tere.
Breivik has not changed his story, he has merely clarified the points in his manifest that are fabricated and explained once again the nationalistic view of why he did what he did.
The only bickering the court managed to drag out were semantics and ripping on his apparently "knights templar" association. It is confirmed by the police etc. That he did some journeys to (UK)London and Liberia and Breivik claims to have met with other "knights templar" there that hold his views. He claims it was during those meetings his approach and plan was decided. Where he was supposed to act as a sort of 9/11 for nationalists who have no voice in conventional media and bring attention to the increasing immigration problems and well the muslim view of imposing sharia in the west.
They intend to press him on the issue to basically claim he fabricated the people he met and Breivik does not wish to give out his templar brethren or appear "delusional" as he accurately predicted that the court would want to do if he was caught alive.
edit: I had a sister about 3-4 blocks away from the bombing in Oslo and I feel that if you bent the rules to accommodate death penalty then the funerals and memories of those killed would forever be stained by the fact that Norwegian faith in humanity was broken by one man.
That cannot be allowed to happen. He should be tried as any other murderer, and then be put to prison.
The above definition is for the word justice. By not having some type of punishment for the atrocities he has committed you simply enable him to do it again. Except we do have punishment for killing another or many human beings. its just not a death penalty.
|
On April 18 2012 17:31 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:24 DyEnasTy wrote: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.
Ok you seem to be stuck on this "vengeance" crap. It is NOT vengeance if your justice system ends his life. It is "vengeance" if a victims family member went and took a gun and shot him to death.
"Well...Uh were gonna kill you! Son of a Bitch!" That is not in any sense of the word what Im talking about. Ending his life will ensure that he will not hurt another human being and is a proper sentence for the crime he has committed. Giving him plush living conditions and the option of getting out is not making someone accountable for their actions. Its like if you see a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store, knocking items off the shelves and hitting a random passerby. What should the parent do? Buy the child a toy and say maybe next time we come here you will be good? No. Perhaps savagely beat the child into submission? No. How about proper discipline involving the child knowing ahead of time that if he misbehaves than he will be punished, and then the parent following thru? Thats more like it.
There is a clear difference between holding him accountable for his actions, and the repercussions that go along with those actions and what you call "vengeance".
Heres the definition of "vengeance":
1infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble: to take one's vengeance.
3. the desire for revenge: a man full of vengeance.
Would humanely ending his life fall in the definition above? How about this next difinition:
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason
The above definition is for the word justice. By not having some type of punishment for the atrocities he has committed you simply enable him to do it again.
|
Justice is applying the law equally, properly and fairly. When the law says you should get 20 years for murdering 100 people, then that is just. When the law says you should get life in prison for 100 counts of murder, then that is just. If there are mitigating circumstances then considering those is just. Ignoring your social status or you race is part of a just ruling as well.
The law punishes partly out of vengeance. So yes, it is vengeance. Severe crimes have severe punishments because more vengeance is generally needed.
Punishment by itself has nothing to do with justice if you ask me. It is either deterrence or vengeance.
If you lock people up to prevent crimes you don't look at all at the severity of the crime committed. You only try to judge the probability he will commit another crime and what type of crimes he may commit. The fact that someone already committed a murder may make it more likely that person will do so again (not true in all cases).
If you lock up people to protect society against them you wouldn't punish a woman who murders her husband because he beat and terrorised her.
You would lock up a professional criminal that was caught doing a minor crime.
I don't believe in the prevention of punishment except for white collar crimes. I don't believe people who murder calculate in the time they will be spending in jail before they carry out their crimes. So increasing the jail time sufficiently won't result in them making the decision the time they will spend in jail isn't worth it to them.
If anything, the probability of getting caught is much more important.
|
On April 18 2012 21:28 r.Evo wrote:
Dear people who want to see this guy rot in hell, get executed or raped for the next 50 years straight,
please show some damn respect to a legal and social system that in all likelyhood produces less and resocializes more criminals than the ones in your own country. Contrary to most other countries on this planet, these guys must be doing something right. Stop smacking them for something you don't understand, but what clearly works.
</3
...
Dear Norwegians,
a part of me always enjoyed being at the front when events like this happen. I usually want to soak up as much information about tragic events like these in the shortest amount of possible time. In fact, I still remember sleeping like 3 hours within 3 days when this started, just to keep people posted and up to date here, add more information and pictures and keep false rumors from spreading.
I can't think of any event (neither with more nor less impact) where I have been more impressed by the people handling it. What you guys have pulled off from literally the first minutes all the way up to this trial is one of the most humane and inspiring things I've seen a country and it's people do in my life. This entire event, as tragic as it is, will be something I will tell my kids about in the future if I'm going to have any.
Thank you for setting an example for the rest of the world. It's not more, not less. Just that.
<3³
Thank you!
I wish even more people/countries/cultures would see and understand what we are doing.
|
On April 18 2012 21:28 r.Evo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Dear people who want to see this guy rot in hell, get executed or raped for the next 50 years straight,
please show some damn respect to a legal and social system that in all likelyhood produces less and resocializes more criminals than the ones in your own country. Contrary to most other countries on this planet, these guys must be doing something right. Stop smacking them for something you don't understand, but what clearly works.
</3
...
Dear Norwegians,
a part of me always enjoyed being at the front when events like this happen. I usually want to soak up as much information about tragic events like these in the shortest amount of possible time. In fact, I still remember sleeping like 3 hours within 3 days when this started, just to keep people posted and up to date here, add more information and pictures and keep false rumors from spreading.
I can't think of any event (neither with more nor less impact) where I have been more impressed by the people handling it. What you guys have pulled off from literally the first minutes all the way up to this trial is one of the most humane and inspiring things I've seen a country and it's people do in my life. This entire event, as tragic as it is, will be something I will tell my kids about in the future if I'm going to have any.
Thank you for setting an example for the rest of the world. It's not more, not less. Just that.
<3
Agreed. I've been impressed by the way Norway's citizenry has dealt with the manner.
|
On April 18 2012 22:53 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 17:31 marttorn wrote:On April 18 2012 09:24 DyEnasTy wrote: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. Ok you seem to be stuck on this "vengeance" crap. It is NOT vengeance if your justice system ends his life. It is "vengeance" if a victims family member went and took a gun and shot him to death. "Well...Uh were gonna kill you! Son of a Bitch!" That is not in any sense of the word what Im talking about. Ending his life will ensure that he will not hurt another human being and is a proper sentence for the crime he has committed. Giving him plush living conditions and the option of getting out is not making someone accountable for their actions. Its like if you see a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store, knocking items off the shelves and hitting a random passerby. What should the parent do? Buy the child a toy and say maybe next time we come here you will be good? No. Perhaps savagely beat the child into submission? No. How about proper discipline involving the child knowing ahead of time that if he misbehaves than he will be punished, and then the parent following thru? Thats more like it. There is a clear difference between holding him accountable for his actions, and the repercussions that go along with those actions and what you call "vengeance". Heres the definition of "vengeance": 1infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge: 2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble: to take one's vengeance. 3. the desire for revenge: a man full of vengeance. Would humanely ending his life fall in the definition above? How about this next difinition: 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason The above definition is for the word justice. By not having some type of punishment for the atrocities he has committed you simply enable him to do it again.
What truth is there? That he WILL kill again? That is not a truth. That is not a fact. Killing someone with a chance of redemption is not honorable.
There is "some type of punishment", it is 21-life in prison, where did you get that idea?
|
I hate to compare this to the movie Unthinkable (samuel jackson), but the guy reminds me of the main character that commits the terrorist attacks. Spoiler spoiler + Show Spoiler +We torture him, he gives us some bombs, we torture him some more, he blows up a building, we kill his wife, and threaten his children...He gives us the final 3 nukes, but then they explode
I also believe that the death penalty should only be used in 100% guilty cases. This is definitely one of those situations.
My hearts go out to the families. I know that at least one family member has to want vengeance.
|
Why don't we just let the Norwegians handle this how they want to? We don't have to agree with it.
|
It's kinda simple; Norway believes in No death penalty.
We aren't gonna just throw it all away for this one case when stuff gets tough.
No death penalty is not some flavor of the month stuff we do for fun...
|
On April 19 2012 09:15 Tomba wrote:
It's kinda simple; Norway believes in No death penalty.
We aren't gonna just throw it all away for this one case when stuff gets tough.
No death penalty is not some flavor of the month stuff we do for fun...
I really hope for you that it stays that way.
Events like these put a legal system (and the people's appreciation for it) to the test. I hope you, as a people, don't feel so shaken by this that you feel pressed to change your laws for the worse.
Germany only recently had a similar discussion on penal law by the way. The question was if our constitution hypothetically allowed the shooting down of an airliner taken hostage by terrorists, aiming to crash in a nuclear site, a stadium or a big city. While many supported the interception of the aircraft, arguing that the innocent passengers' life had to be sacrificed to prevent much greater harm, our constitutional court ruled that our law does indeed abide by the principle of not killing (innocent) citizens for any purpose whatsoever, no matter how big the imminent danger would be.
The question of braking one's fundamental principles once the case at hand reaches an extreme scale is the same in both hypotheses. I just hope for the Norwegians that they will continue to support the idea of rehabilitation of criminals and that they value this more than the retaliation (death or a life-long prison sentence) that seems so emotionally appropriate.
|
On April 19 2012 08:41 ranshaked wrote:I hate to compare this to the movie Unthinkable (samuel jackson), but the guy reminds me of the main character that commits the terrorist attacks. Spoiler spoiler + Show Spoiler +We torture him, he gives us some bombs, we torture him some more, he blows up a building, we kill his wife, and threaten his children...He gives us the final 3 nukes, but then they explode This guy is just like the man in the movie. The only way to handle this is to give him the death sentence. It would make sure that he will never be able to murder or harm again. He's a worthless pig, no better than the dirt beneath us. Vengeance can be good. I believe in an eye for an eye. Call it heartless, but one does not deserve the right to live after committing those atrocities. I also believe that the death penalty should only be used in 100% guilty cases. This is definitely one of those situations. My hearts go out to the families. I know that at least one family member has to want vengeance.
This is no movie, and he will never kill again. If a person is considered a danger for society he can be held indefinately, and there is no doubt this is whats going to happend. He wants a death sentence, he has said it himself, only death sentence or being acquitted are sentences he will "respect".
|
So you're going to let him live in a private cell with 3 meals a day? Doesn't sound all that bad to me. After a few years he will have tv and privlidges. He deserves none imoAt first blush, Bastøy is more summer camp than correctional facility. Swimmers enjoy the island's beaches while others stroll the island's farms, tending to horses and taking care of daily chores. Prisoners bunk in shared cabins that dot the island, and large soccer fields sit between the clusters of housing. None of the trappings of a typical American prison are evident: no walls, no crowded cells and no armed guards. Instead, a quiet calm pervades the island. It's easy to forget that you're amongst some of Norway's most hardened criminals.
Sounds like a rather normal time...
|
On April 19 2012 09:28 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 09:15 Tomba wrote:
It's kinda simple; Norway believes in No death penalty.
We aren't gonna just throw it all away for this one case when stuff gets tough.
No death penalty is not some flavor of the month stuff we do for fun...
I really hope for you that it stays that way. Events like these put a legal system (and the people's appreciation for it) to the test. I hope you, as a people, don't feel so shaken by this that you feel pressed to change your laws for the worse. Germany only recently had a similar discussion on penal law by the way. The question was if our constitution hypothetically allowed the shooting down of an airliner taken hostage by terrorists, aiming to crash in a nuclear site, a stadium or a big city. While many supported the interception of the aircraft, arguing that the innocent passengers' life had to be sacrificed to prevent much greater harm, our constitutional court ruled that our law does indeed abide by the principle of not killing (innocent) citizens for any purpose whatsoever, no matter how big the imminent danger would be. The question of braking one's fundamental principles once the case at hand reaches an extreme scale is the same in both hypotheses. I just hope for the Norwegians that they will continue to support the idea of rehabilitation of criminals and that they value this more than the retaliation (death or a life-long prison sentence) that seems so emotionally appropriate.
As i remember this discussion was held after 9/11 so not really recently. And this issue does not really have a lot in common with the death penalty.
|
On April 19 2012 09:57 ranshaked wrote:So you're going to let him live in a private cell with 3 meals a day? Doesn't sound all that bad to me. After a few years he will have tv and privlidges. He deserves none imo Show nested quote +At first blush, Bastøy is more summer camp than correctional facility. Swimmers enjoy the island's beaches while others stroll the island's farms, tending to horses and taking care of daily chores. Prisoners bunk in shared cabins that dot the island, and large soccer fields sit between the clusters of housing. None of the trappings of a typical American prison are evident: no walls, no crowded cells and no armed guards. Instead, a quiet calm pervades the island. It's easy to forget that you're amongst some of Norway's most hardened criminals. Sounds like a rather normal time...
He will lose his freedom for the rest of his life. If the system is changed he gets what he wanted. On a personal not I might add that I don't think death penalty is the best option in any case, but especially not in this one, this man is not going to achieve anything with his horrible actions.
|
On April 19 2012 09:57 ranshaked wrote:
So you're going to let him live in a private cell with 3 meals a day? Doesn't sound all that bad to me. After a few years he will have tv and privlidges. He deserves none imo
He already has acces to a computer with text software and also uses it to watch tv-series as far as i know.....
So I don't know what youre talking about. Source (in norwegian tho) + Show Spoiler +
|
On April 18 2012 22:53 DyEnasTy wrote:
Ok you seem to be stuck on this "vengeance" crap. It is NOT vengeance if your justice system ends his life. It is "vengeance" if a victims family member went and took a gun and shot him to death.
It's still vengeance, just everyone was given the gun--and they all collectively pulled the trigger.
|
does Norway not have the right to a trial by jury? i read a couple articles about this and the jury was mentioned in none of them. is it like a panel of judges type of thing?
i gotta say, combining a panel of judges thing with the "we can keep you indefinitely" thing, i really don't know if i like the Norwegian judicial system. its one thing to sentence someone to life in prison or to sentence them to death, its a whole other thing to tell them that the maximum is 20 years but that they can hold you for an additional five years over and over again. it seems like sugarcoating the inevitable. either this guy is really getting life in prison (in which case, why the pretending?) or he will get out before he dies (which is like, WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
