|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 24 2011 01:13 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:11 Kh0nsu wrote:On July 24 2011 01:09 CCow wrote:On July 24 2011 01:08 Kh0nsu wrote:
[...] Should we protect him biased on a principle he doesn't respect?
[...]. Yes, most definitely. If Humanitarianism was to truely work, I guess you would have to. How would you deter similar situations in the future if punishments are never going to be comparable to the crime? ( Again, just interested in discussion, I'm undecided on how justice should be served atm) Sentences arent "punishments" here (as in he should experience something just as bad as he did, revenge based). They are rehabilitation. And it does work.
Rehabilitation working is debatable and the success of rehabiltation certainly differs significantly from case to case. But Breivik surpasses all precedents in terms of rehabilitation - there is literally no point in spending millions of NOK over the rest of his life if the intent is to rehabilitate him. Keep him alive if you feel that captial punishment is something you can't abide, but don't act like this individual will ever be able to rejoin society. Everybody knows his name and what he looks like, his trial will be very public. He has already admitted to the actions he's accused of (at least what happened on Utøya). Whether he ends up a mentally healthy, rehabilitated person who will never be able to leave his high security prison is between him and his psychologist.
I don't think we should change our laws so that he should be executed, so this is all just for the sake of discussion. But to put it like this, he's the only person in modern Norwegian history since the end of WW2 that is actually deserving of capital punishment. Between WW2 and yesterday, there hadn't been a single instance of a crime deserving capital punshment in Norway.
Also, humanitarianism is a philosphy, it is not more absolute or "true" than any other philosophy is. Just saying "humanitarianism" in a thread doesn't put an end to an argument. My philosophical take on this situation is that the value of a specific person's life extends only so far. The impulse of society to demand an end to his life is completely valid and understandable, and in a lot of way preferable to letting him live his life out in a maximum security prison in Trondheim or whatever.
|
On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them?
Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread!
|
On July 24 2011 01:45 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:38 zodde wrote:On July 24 2011 01:30 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 24 2011 01:28 zodde wrote:
I get how that people are against death penalty in general. But in a case like this I really don't understand their reasoning. There is absolutely no chance that he's innocent, and he just killed 90ish innocent people. How has he earned the right to live?
Try to figure out the motives, whether or not he was alone, then have him executed.
As I understand it, Norway's justice system will allow this fucking idiot to be a free man again in 20 some years? So we should fall to his level and kill him? Why? It wont change anything. One less killer to put into psychiatric care (trust me, the high security patients cost a shit load of tax money). It's not like he's ever going to contribute to the society in a useful manner after this. It's pretty much this situation: - Costing tax money - Him being alive, allowing him to have a (however slight) chance to harm somebody else in his life. vs - Nothing He's a mass murderer, stop being so damn sensitive. Apparently the court costs (which is different when seeking death penalty) and the killing process cost substancially more than keeping them alive. Someone said 70% more earlier on.
The reason it costs that much is because you need to really make sure that there's no way the guy is innocent. In this case, that cost would be pretty damn close to zero, don't you think? They just decide how to do it, and they do it.
Please explain to me how that short process could be more expensive than keeping a guy in a cell for his whole life?
|
On July 24 2011 01:44 Sinedd wrote:
Fucking idiots everywhere...
The weird thing is that even with the current level of security checks and anti terrorist measures things like this still happen...
what can you do...
They didn't really have the kind of security as other countries. They didn't really need to as they are a very friendly country. That's probably going to change now.
|
I live right next to a state mental hospital and the only man to ever be released commited another horrific crime within a year. I have been here for 30 years. It doesnt work
|
On July 24 2011 01:52 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them? Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread!
thanks for sparing me an answer
|
My heart goes out to everyone in Norway. :'(
I is a sad day indeed, and I will light a candle tonight.
|
On July 24 2011 01:52 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them? Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread!
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's trolling. It's good to look at punishment from its fundamentals, not simply assume that some punishment is inherently correct just because you are used to it. That was the point of my question, to explore what sort of ends we are seeking when we punish someone.
Jailing a criminal doesn't grant any protection from his criminal acts either. Those acts have already occurred. It appears you are concerned with recidivism. One possible punishment is to lobotomize him.
User was warned for this post
|
Norwegian politician (can't remember name, sorry) just declared this to be "norway's 9/11"
Have to agree. I can't think of a single massacre or event in Norwegian history this brutal.
|
On July 24 2011 01:55 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:52 Maenander wrote:On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them? Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread! Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's trolling. It's good to look at punishment from its fundamental, not simply assume that some punishment is inherently correct just because you are used to it. Jailing a criminal doesn't grant any protection from his criminal acts either. Those acts have already occurred.
Once again jail is not about punishment, it is about rehabiltation and protection. It has been said over and over already. Protection is obviously from future crimes, as you know, but choose to ignore for the sake arguing..
|
On July 24 2011 01:55 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:52 Maenander wrote:On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them? Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread! Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's trolling. It's good to look at punishment from its fundamentals, not simply assume that some punishment is inherently correct just because you are used to it. That was the point of my question, to explore what sort of ends we are seeking when we punish someone. Jailing a criminal doesn't grant any protection from his criminal acts either. Those acts have already occurred. It appears you are concerned with recidivism. One possible punishment is to lobotomize him.
If you are not trolling you are just retarted. You choose.
Jailing a criminal DOES grant protection from criminal acts. We are not talking about traveling back in time and preventing his first crime but further crimes.
Jesus..
|
This thread is not about death sentence.
That may be true, but there should be discussion on the nature of the mans trial and whether Norwegian law and order is effective when it comes to dealing with crimes against humanity and Terrorism.
|
On July 24 2011 01:55 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 01:52 Maenander wrote:On July 24 2011 01:49 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 01:46 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
if u can tell me any other treatment for criminals than to put them in jail. tell me
it is a moderate way to keep them away from society. killing is not
So please dont compare it? T_T You are biased by the status quo of your own society. Ask yourself why it's even necessary to jail criminals. Why not just fine them? Because a fine doesn't grant any protection. Stop trolling in this thread! Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's trolling. It's good to look at punishment from its fundamentals, not simply assume that some punishment is inherently correct just because you are used to it. That was the point of my question, to explore what sort of ends we are seeking when we punish someone. Jailing a criminal doesn't grant any protection from his criminal acts either. Those acts have already occurred. It appears you are concerned with recidivism. One possible punishment is to lobotomize him.
Out of respect to the Norwegians here, I think it would be fitting if you were to stop questioning Norway law.
|
I feel sorry for all the people harmed yesterday.
If something like this can happen in Norway which is IMO a very smart/peaceful country, it can happen anywhere.
To the people saying this guy should be killed, I answer : You're probably right, BUT
Who should be given the power to draw the line between criminals who should be executed and those who shouldn't ?
Where should it be drawn ?
Those questions are almost impossible to answer and that's why a lot of countries chose to abolish death penalty, NOT because death penalty was considered too extreme.
In the countries where it doesn't exist anymore, every once in a while you'll hear about a horrible crime and wish it still existed  .
|
On July 23 2011 14:20 XenOmega wrote:
I am of those that believe we should never make exceptions... If we truly believe in the ideals of our society, one madman, no matter his crimes, should not move us away from our own ideals. If we do, then the killer not only destroyed lives, he also destroyed our way of life.
i was an idiot
|
On July 24 2011 02:00 Asymmetric wrote:That may be true, but there should be discussion on the nature of the mans trial and whether Norwegian law and order is effective when it comes to dealing with crimes against humanity and Terrorism.
That is clearly off-topic and if you want to discuss that you can make your own thread.
Criticizing norwegians rules & mind set at this time is also very dis-respectful as the topic says you shouldn't do
On July 24 2011 02:00 ELA wrote:Out of respect to the Norwegians here, I think it would be fitting if you were to stop questioning Norway law.
Thank you
Confirmed by police that he had "what can be considered" a automatic-weapon
(on tv2)
|
RIP Norway :'(.
Is that last picture of those the one of the child praying ? =/
|
SoCal8932 Posts
wow this sounds like something straight out of a movie. my thoughts are with everyone here and in Norway affected by this
|
|
|
On July 23 2011 23:58 Kayama wrote:
The thought of what this person did to all the kids on Utøya is killing me. The horror they must have felt, the panic and how they desperately tried to save theire lives. More and more stories are coming out, we also learn about the heroes in all of this...... ppl who took their small boates out to pick up kids from the water, while bullets were flying around their heads. I want to cry when i hear stories from parents who were talking to their kids when they got shot. One of the rescuers said that one of the most emotional things he saw was four kids holding around each other, all dead. They had tried to protect each other, even when he was shooting at them. I dunno how we can ever get over this.... not even sure its possible.
I'm not usually an emotional person but I can't help but cry everytime I read, watch or hear another story from the ones that were there.
It's all so sad and completely unnecessary. Just...why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
