|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2017 03:17 bardtown wrote:
I don't really disagree with that. I'm saying that justice and rehabilitation are separate concepts. For petty crimes a restriction of freedom is sufficient punishment and the focus should be on rehabilitation. That's how you reduce the number of repeat offenders, etc. But there's no need to rehabilitate Breivik, and he should see justice that is proportional to his crimes.
He was found to not have any mental illness, by the way.
It's correct that pure rehabilitation has nothing to do with justice but justice itself is actually a very flawed concept. In countries like Norway the 'justice system' is essentially a public health and security system that exists to manage people who pose a threat to society. Trying to restore 'justice' is problematic because everybody has a different definition of it anyway so you set yourself up for a culture war of sorts, and in reality justice often devolves into petty revenge.
|
Even if he doesn’t have a mental illness, there is no reason to mistreat them. There are people who work at the prison he is held in. There are people who care for other inmates and prisoners. Humane treatment of criminals is a reflection of the people charged with their care, not the crimes committed.
And killing them is not an option. Don’t be like the US. We had states with a 5% error rate on our death penalty(convicted of a crime they did not commit). Whatever the US does with prisons, do the opposite.
|
I know. I don't really believe there is a way to implement justice reliably across the board. Every system has its flaws, and for the most part it is better to be on the safe side because courts often make mistakes. I think it is a flaw that he gets to enjoy so many things that he has denied to so many people, but a necessity. However, if one of the victim's family members killed him, I would be in favour of a negligible sentence. I can imagine the criminal record would be more likely to get that person a job than lose them one.
As for the desire to kill people being a pathology - I really don't think that is true. On the contrary I think humans are innately genocidal, and it is culture/education that overrides that instinct. We've been massacring 'the other' since time immemorial.
|
On May 04 2017 03:35 bardtown wrote:
I know. I don't really believe there is a way to implement justice reliably across the board. Every system has its flaws, and for the most part it is better to be on the safe side because courts often make mistakes. I think it is a flaw that he gets to enjoy so many things that he has denied to so many people, but a necessity. However, if one of the victim's family members killed him, I would be in favour of a negligible sentence. I can imagine the criminal record would be more likely to get that person a job than lose them one.
As for the desire to kill people being a pathology - I really don't think that is true. On the contrary I think humans are innately genocidal, and it is culture/education that overrides that instinct. We've been massacring 'the other' since time immemorial.
Breivik wasn't even massacring "the other". He's an atochthonous Norwegian who went on a killing spree against autochthonous Norwegian children.
He may not be hearing voices that compelled him to do it, but at the very least he has to be sociopathic.
|
On May 04 2017 04:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:35 bardtown wrote:
I know. I don't really believe there is a way to implement justice reliably across the board. Every system has its flaws, and for the most part it is better to be on the safe side because courts often make mistakes. I think it is a flaw that he gets to enjoy so many things that he has denied to so many people, but a necessity. However, if one of the victim's family members killed him, I would be in favour of a negligible sentence. I can imagine the criminal record would be more likely to get that person a job than lose them one.
As for the desire to kill people being a pathology - I really don't think that is true. On the contrary I think humans are innately genocidal, and it is culture/education that overrides that instinct. We've been massacring 'the other' since time immemorial. Breivik wasn't even massacring "the other". He's an atochthonous Norwegian who went on a killing spree against autochthonous Norwegian children. He may not be hearing voices that compelled him to do it, but at the very least he has to be sociopathic.
Of course he went for "the others" from his point of view. It was a socialist camp that he was specifically targetting to get rid of differently-thinking people. There is no natural divide between people. There are only completely arbitrary beliefs taught to us by directed or undirected propaganda or by trained behavior. Naturally, there are no "others", there are individuals with individual beliefs who interact, nothing more. You have to artifically create an ideology to end up with groups of others.
|
On May 04 2017 04:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:35 bardtown wrote:
I know. I don't really believe there is a way to implement justice reliably across the board. Every system has its flaws, and for the most part it is better to be on the safe side because courts often make mistakes. I think it is a flaw that he gets to enjoy so many things that he has denied to so many people, but a necessity. However, if one of the victim's family members killed him, I would be in favour of a negligible sentence. I can imagine the criminal record would be more likely to get that person a job than lose them one.
As for the desire to kill people being a pathology - I really don't think that is true. On the contrary I think humans are innately genocidal, and it is culture/education that overrides that instinct. We've been massacring 'the other' since time immemorial. Breivik wasn't even massacring "the other". He's an atochthonous Norwegian who went on a killing spree against autochthonous Norwegian children. He may not be hearing voices that compelled him to do it, but at the very least he has to be sociopathic.
It doesn't have to be along racial lines. He was targeting a particular ideology. Catholicism vs Protestantism would be a parallel, I suppose.
|
macron, which was humiliated by asselineau(the very definition of a technocrat) during the 11 candidate debate for a moment, is actually doing better than lepen during the debate
the FN can't even hope to win with le pen at his head right now, thiis is ridiculous
|
France13006 Posts
On May 04 2017 04:58 Makro wrote:
macron, which was humiliated by asselineau(the very definition of a technocrat) during the 11 candidate debate for a moment, is actually doing better than lepen during the debate
the FN can't even hope to win with le pen at his head right now, thiis is ridiculous
It's sad to see a debate as bad as this but we should have expected it since it's Le Pen.
|
On May 04 2017 05:03 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:58 Makro wrote:
macron, which was humiliated by asselineau(the very definition of a technocrat) during the 11 candidate debate for a moment, is actually doing better than lepen during the debate
the FN can't even hope to win with le pen at his head right now, thiis is ridiculous It's sad to see a debate as bad as this but we should have expected it since it's Le Pen.
both of them are at the bottom when it comes to debate skills
|
France13006 Posts
On May 04 2017 05:07 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 05:03 Poopi wrote:On May 04 2017 04:58 Makro wrote:
macron, which was humiliated by asselineau(the very definition of a technocrat) during the 11 candidate debate for a moment, is actually doing better than lepen during the debate
the FN can't even hope to win with le pen at his head right now, thiis is ridiculous It's sad to see a debate as bad as this but we should have expected it since it's Le Pen. both of them are at the bottom when it comes to debate skills
Yes but one talks about his program at least xD, well both talk about Macron's program
|
What is the fuss about the German soldier about?
It's a fucking fascist that even had those tendencies documented in his thesis. Of course that was 3 years ago and the German military hadn't had it's right eye shut wasn't under such scrutiny regarding right wing and torturous tendencies yet.
He was planning a terror attack to discredit people who fled and are fleeing from war zones to swing public opinion and thus render it more difficult for the government to accept refugees for humanitarian reasons.
Well, at least that is my take on it.
|
On May 04 2017 02:53 bardtown wrote:
Retribution is the only form of justice. Helping people reform is not justice, it is a separate concern. And it's very important in certain cases, and Norway does it very well. In the case of Breivik however, I think the best way to proceed would have been to give him anaesthetic, cut him apart in front of his eyes, put him in a boat and push him out to sea. Then when the anaesthetic wore off he could make the decision between staying in the boat or drowning himself. He is an unrepentant mass murderer of children who is being treated better than the average citizen by the state. It's a flaw of the Norwegian system in terms of justice that this commendable treatment is extended to absolutely everyone. The only way Breivik sees justice is at the hands of vigilantes.
Retribution is the polar opposite of justice. Justice was invented so that if someone burns your house, you don't burn his in answer. Justice was invented to avoid problems and crimes being dealt with retribution.
And that's why justices punishes while retribution avenges.
|
it's called 'retributive justice'... It is literally state administered retribution.
|
On May 04 2017 02:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:46 lastpuritan wrote:
Is Breivik still living a luxury life? Last time I checked he had his own flat with TV + Library + GYM + and game console. What a punishment that is, while millions of refugees are constantly denied entrance to the western world. I bet many Syrian refugees would agree to live in his cell, let's trade. Before I start swearing: You want to "trade people" like slaves so that you can fuck up one of those traded people's life more?
I don't give a fuck about Breivik's life. He's a mentally stable, sane predator. Some people are evil and that doesn't every time mean the society corrupted him, or he's driven into murder because of some mood problems. It's 2017 and he grew up within one of the most developed nations on earth. You can anytime ask uncle google "i'm about to kill many innocent people is that wrong?" And the answer you'll get no matter where you live is the same. He knew that his plan was evil, he knew that it was wrong, he had all the knowledge and sanity to calculate it but he did it. Would you beat your wife if you're raised in a family where your dad tortures your mother every day, it's always your choice and I don't believe its the fault of our society or education or the religion, it's all about your tendency. Almost all of these criminals in the courts say that they knew their actions were wrong, please attend one of those if you can.
If you guys believe he's getting some sort of punishment after ending 69 lives I respect that, but he probably knew the "punishment" he'll get and encouraged by that. I don't propose death penalty as an option, but he must be forced to produce electricity by riding bicycle some days, read books for blind people, plant trees, serve the society f....that ain't that hard to plan something better than feeding the clown all day. It's a gift for him, not a punishment, and I bet he secretly enjoys that. Because, hey, you commit one of the worst shootings of our era and still get 10 times better life standards compared to almost 70% of the worlds average citizen.
Retaliation doesn't mean justice but can we say almost 69 of the victims would agree to live under Breivik's conditions rather than dying like that. Meh.
|
Which is not how the western justice system gained credibility and modeled itself. The majority of our courts do not subscribe to the theory that the state should administer vengeance. That type of thought process finds its roots in religion and mob justice.
@lastpuritan: there are some crimes you cannot deter. We are limited in our ability to deter other humans if they are set on doing harm and do not care about their own personal safety. The person you are talking about likely expected to die or did not value their life to the same level we do. There is this base human desire to try to create systems that can prevent or minimize violent events. That if we find the right punishment, the right level of severity, we can prevent these things from happening. And it’s a trap because the people we are dealing with do not play by those rules. They don’t value what we value or care about their own safety.
Punishments should be based on we as citizens are willing to administer on a daily basis, likely for a life time. And what those punishments say about our nation and culture over generations. Don’t be like the US, were we don’t execute people on Sunday because of Christianity.
|
On May 04 2017 06:08 bardtown wrote:
it's called 'retributive justice'... It is literally state administered retribution.
There might be a bit of a language barrier at work.
Surely the UK does neither condone nor support personal retribution.
Whether you get adequate compensation within the given framework of the law for the damage and or loss you suffered is a completely different story. But this surely excludes physical punishment. (Though people might be forced to sell their valuable belongings like a house to commit financial support for their victim up to a certain point?)
I suspect the latter case is practiced, albeit I honestly don't know and would appreciate correction or confirmation.
|
Retribution does not mean corporal punishment. In the vast majority of cases it means fines or jail time. Plansix, I have no idea where you are coming from because the US is the most extreme example of retributive justice in the west. The US justice system is very, very firmly rooted in an ideological attachment to retributive justice. Norway is far less attached to the idea, but you still serve a proportional sentence. You're not simply released when you are deemed to be rehabilitated.
The thing about Breivik is that no amount of jail time comes within an order of magnitude of being proportional.
|
Yeah, and its really bad. Don't do it. Don't create a three strikes system or some other garbage. Don't bring back some fake debtors prison system. The 20th century proved that retributive justice is a bad system. We were on a good course in the 1970s and 1980s to creating a better prison system, but then the US fell off the wagon and made the living nightmare that we can't come to terms with.
I don't know how many times I have to say it. If the US is doing something in involving crime, it is likely wrong.
On May 04 2017 06:30 bardtown wrote:
The thing about Breivik is that no amount of jail time comes within an order of magnitude of being proportional.
Right, so there is nothing your nation can do. There is no response that is proportional, so be humane and live knowing your nation is better for it. Accept what cannot be changed.
|
Yeah, it's bad. The Norwegian system is more effective in reducing crime, but I don't think the US/UK could fund something like that, and it has its own drawbacks as discussed above.
I do accept that. Nevertheless it is not what he deserves.
|
Well that debate was sad to see. Though the saddest thing is probably that it won't even influence Le Pen voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
