Mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik threatens to hunger-strike himself to death due to stricter pri
359 replies, posted
Oh and by the way, prison or medical staff cannot interfere if he chooses to hunger strike, even if he passes out and dies.
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48801340]At some point he'll be too weak to feed himself, and he won't be able to eat regular food. At that point I can imagine (though I don't know the laws regarding this) he will be force fed no matter what he wants.
No one who's in prison consents to being there - as a prisoner there are areas where your consent doesn't matter. Hunger strikes shouldn't be a tool for an inmate to get what they want.
On the other hand, if an inmate (or anyone else not in prison for that matter) legitimately wants to kill themselves, I think euthanisia should be an option for them. If we want to be humane, and let people end themselves while in prison, why take the half-measure of accepting people starving themselves to death? That isn't a humane way to die.[/QUOTE]
Prisoners have the right to make an informed choice to refuse receiving blood or to refuse to stop a hunger strike.
They have to be continually informed about their health conditions and what they are doing to their body, but as long as they know this it's illegal to force them to receive blood or nutrition.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48801366]You dont need extreme examples to prove that point; your moronic example is almost taken from a bad sci fi flick.[/QUOTE]
I'm still not sure you even got my point. He said he wanted to make sure there was no doubt. I made an (apparently moronic) example of how - even in extreme, silly cases - there will always be doubt, to show that whatever he says, there is a certain ratio of innocent-to-guilty-people-executed that he would be able to accept [I]if[/I] he wants to execute anyone at all.
Considering he wants to execute rapists as well (one of the hardest crimes to prove), this ratio must be pretty high.
How was my example "moronic" in this context?
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;48801394]Oh and by the way, prison or medical staff cannot interfere if he chooses to hunger strike, even if he passes out and dies.
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
Prisoners have the right to make an informed choice to refuse receiving blood or to refuse to stop a hunger strike.
They have to be continually informed about their health conditions and what they are doing to their body, but as long as they know this it's illegal to force them to receive blood or nutrition.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I guess he won't be force fed then. Can you point to the paragraphs explaining this? It's kinda hard to search for Norwegian info in Danish. Do you think the Norwegian state would allow a high profile prisoner like Breivik to starve himself to death, though?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48796842]Okay, lets run this through because you've never run it through for yourself at all.
Anders Brevik is a murderer who justified his murders by defining his victims as subhuman.
You, are advocating for the death of all people YOU consider subhuman.
The only actual difference is, he's killed people, and you just want people killed FOR you.[/QUOTE]
But the difference is he is basing his opinion on basic human values, he doesn't consider well adjusted members of society as subhuman only those that commit heinous crime and take away the most precious thing which is life. There is a massive difference in his opinion and that of Breivek.
Personally I don't condone capital punishment as it achieves very little although in certain cases like this for instance I don't think that Breivik is gonna turn out to be a nice guy after all no matter how he is treated.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48798636]Perhaps because the US with its strictly punishment based legal system has one of the highest reoffender rates in the world and has overflowing prisons?[/QUOTE]
So because the US has high reoffending rates it means that fear of punishment has NEVER STOPPED A SINGLE PERSON? There should be punishment + rehabilitation. I guess the US lacks the latter.
What should happen in your opinion with say someone who murdered his wife for some petty reason? Mandatory meetings with psychologist and letting him go into the world, perhaps some group therapy and that's it?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48798636]Punishment is a shit deterrence because if people are going to commit murder they also either believe they won't get caught or they don't care.[/QUOTE]
This is the lousiest logic you could come up with.
That's like looking at the tiniest bits of sand that went through a strainer and saying that the strainer never stopped anything and your explanation for believing it is "because those smallest bits were too small". That's how stupid that logic is. Yes, some bits of sand went through, how many did it stop?
Yes, those who committed murder believed they are not going to be caught and punished or didn't care. (I'm going to repeat myself now) How many were afraid of getting caught and punished and decided not to commit murder? How did you come to the conclusion that this number is 0? Are you a mind reader?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;48801549]How many were afraid of getting caught and punished and decided not to commit murder? How did you come to the conclusion that this number is 0? Are you a mind reader?[/QUOTE]
Arguably, no one who actually had planned for a murder would not take any interest in the law, because they would plan not to get caught. Punishment is not part of their plan, because they do not expect to be punished. Laws do not actually stop a crime itself, only add to preplanning phase of "is it worth the effort", after which they do absolutely nothing to anyhow halt a perpetrator of the crime. Punishment is also entirely irrelevant in regards to crimes of passion or moments-long decisions.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48801425]
Fair enough, I guess he won't be force fed then. Can you point to the paragraphs explaining this? It's kinda hard to search for Norwegian info in Danish. Do you think the Norwegian state would allow a high profile prisoner like Breivik to starve himself to death, though?[/QUOTE]
European human rights convention, article 8 and Norwegian patient and consumer laws paragraph 4 to 9.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;48801549]
What should happen in your opinion with say someone who murdered his wife for some petty reason? Mandatory meetings with psychologist and letting him go into the world, perhaps some group therapy and that's it?[/QUOTE]
Except no one said that anyone who has committed a crime will not be taken away from the society until (and if) they are considered to be capable enough to be returned.
[QUOTE=gufu;48801589]Arguably, no one who actually had planned for a murder would not take any interest in the law, because they would plan not to get caught. Punishment is not part of their plan, because they do not expect to be punished. Laws do not actually stop a crime itself, only add to preplanning phase of "is it worth the effort", after which they do absolutely nothing to anyhow halt a perpetrator of the crime. Punishment is also entirely irrelevant in regards to crimes of passion or moments-long decisions.[/QUOTE]
You just said that those who decided to murder someone because they are not afraid of being caught were not afraid of being caught...
For the third time now: How many people decided not to murder someone because they were afraid of being caught and punished? How do you know that number is 0? How can you tell that nobody ever thought "I want to kill this guy but they will catch me and put me in jail so I better not do that"?
As for crimes of passion, this obviously isn't meant for them. I want to know how you're going to deter crimes of passion though if you already brought it up.
[QUOTE=gufu;48801594]Except no one said that anyone who has committed a crime will not be taken away from the society until (and if) they are considered to be capable enough to be returned.[/QUOTE]
Hence the question mark?
Say there's someone I really want dead. Now I would ask myself "is it really worth the risk of getting caught and going to jail for many long years?" and "Can I hide the evidence well enough?". With your ideal situation I would just fucking kill the guy and give myself up to the police so I can spend next say 2 years in a great hotel while talking to a shrink and surrendering myself to the therapy. My guess is in your model the reoffending rate would be low but there would be pretty much no reason NOT to commit murder except personal sense of morality of the potential perpetrator. You are extremely naive if you think this wouldn't increase the first-offense number of crimes.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48801495]But the difference is he is basing his opinion on basic human values, he doesn't consider well adjusted members of society as subhuman only those that commit heinous crime and take away the most precious thing which is life. There is a massive difference in his opinion and that of Breivek.
Personally I don't condone capital punishment as it achieves very little although in certain cases like this for instance I don't think that Breivik is gonna turn out to be a nice guy after all no matter how he is treated.[/QUOTE]
Do you not see how slippery the definition of "heinous crime" can be? Saudi Arabia has chosen to define it to include people who are homosexual, as well as people who commit adultery. IS has chosen to define it as anyone who does not subscribe to their fundamentalist flavour of Islam. The Hutu in Rwanda chose to define it as "Tutsi or Tutsi sympathisers". The Khmer Rouge declared that all who did not follow their brand of agrarian socialism were enemies of the state and proceeded to kill two million people. I could go on.
You can proclaim from the top of a hill how your definition of "heinous crime" is better than all of the others, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is an arbitrary line drawn based on a set of subjective morals. When you use that arbitrary line to define who deserves to die and who doesn't, you fall victim to the same mindset that drives many of these people to kill in the first place. The only way you can avoid self-contradiction is by decrying all forms of killing, with the exception of exigent situations where life and property are at stake.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;48801593]European human rights convention, article 8 and Norwegian patient and consumer laws paragraph 4 to 9.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[/QUOTE]
This seems pretty vague, but judging by [url=http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_2013_03_161_ENG.pdf]the few cases (pg. 8-9)[/url] that fall under this, it seems like it is in fact covered. Though I have a question - in the text itself, I get the impression that it would be lawful for the country to have a law dictating that a prisoner could be force-fed, but in the conclusion it just says "Inadmissible" - am I reading the text totally wrong, or do you get that impression as well?
This seems a lot more clear cut, though:
[QUOTE]Pasienten har på grunn av alvorlig overbevisning rett til å nekte å motta blod eller blodprodukter eller til å nekte å avbryte en pågående sultestreik.
En døende pasient har rett til å motsette seg livsforlengende behandling. Er en døende pasient ute av stand til å formidle et behandlingsønske, skal helsepersonellet unnlate å gi helsehjelp dersom pasientens nærmeste pårørende tilkjennegir tilsvarende ønsker, og helsepersonellet etter en selvstendig vurdering finner at dette også er pasientens ønske og at ønsket åpenbart bør respekteres.
Helsepersonell må forsikre seg om at pasient som nevnt i første og annet ledd er over 18 år og ikke er fratatt rettslig handleevne på det personlige området, og at vedkommende er gitt tilfredsstillende informasjon og har forstått konsekvensene for egen helse ved behandlingsnektelsen.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the read up. I must admit that I get a bit carried away once in a while - for pretty good reasons I don't really like Breivik, so I suppose I got a bit harsh suggesting force feeding.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48799240]So in other words you concede that you enjoy the though of torture. Got it[/QUOTE]
You must be a leftist troll or just retarded or both. Got it.
Can you even read? I don't enjoy the thought of torture. I've said this several times but you fail to notice. Please read what I write before making false accusations.it makes you look like a leftist idiot.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48801675]Do you not see how slippery the definition of "heinous crime" can be? Saudi Arabia has chosen to define it to include people who are homosexual, as well as people who commit adultery. IS has chosen to define it as anyone who does not subscribe to their fundamentalist flavour of Islam. The Hutu in Rwanda chose to define it as "Tutsi or Tutsi sympathisers". The Khmer Rouge declared that all who did not follow their brand of agrarian socialism were enemies of the state and proceeded to kill two million people. I could go on.
You can proclaim from the top of a hill how your definition of "heinous crime" is better than all of the others, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is an arbitrary line drawn based on a set of subjective morals. When you use that arbitrary line to define who deserves to die and who doesn't, you fall victim to the same mindset that drives many of these people to kill in the first place. The only way you can avoid self-contradiction is by decrying all forms of killing, with the exception of exigent situations where life and property are at stake.[/QUOTE]
You only quoted heinous crime and not my whole sentence which was "only those that commit heinous crime and take away the most precious thing which is life." So your response isn't in context.
It wasn't a generalisation either as I was referring to the post within the context of this thread.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48801766]You only quoted heinous crime and not my whole sentence which was "only those that commit heinous crime and take away the most precious thing which is life." So your response isn't in context.
It wasn't a generalisation either as I was referring to the post within the context of this thread.[/QUOTE]
So you're defining "heinous crime" as "taking away someone's life"? Or am I reading you wrong?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48801772]So you're defining "heinous crime" as "taking away someone's life"? Or am I reading you wrong?[/QUOTE]
You are missing my point, perhaps the choice of words were unfortunate but I wasn't discussing the boundaries of "heinous" I was merely pointing out the difference between Brievik's opinion on subhuman and the guy who posted. I didn't condone either of their opinions.
[QUOTE]But the difference is he is basing his opinion on basic human values, he doesn't consider well adjusted members of society as subhuman only those that commit heinous crime and take away the most precious thing which is life. There is a massive difference in his opinion and that of Breivek.[/QUOTE]
No
What's the difference between arbitrary lines in the sand?
None
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48801684]This seems pretty vague, but judging by [url=http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_2013_03_161_ENG.pdf]the few cases (pg. 8-9)[/url] that fall under this, it seems like it is in fact covered. Though I have a question - in the text itself, I get the impression that it would be lawful for the country to have a law dictating that a prisoner could be force-fed, but in the conclusion it just says "Inadmissible" - am I reading the text totally wrong, or do you get that impression as well?
This seems a lot more clear cut, though:
Thanks for the read up. I must admit that I get a bit carried away once in a while - for pretty good reasons I don't really like Breivik, so I suppose I got a bit harsh suggesting force feeding.[/QUOTE]
It's really not about what impression I or other people get from reading it. These laws make it a human right in the EU to not be force fed or be given blood after an informed refusal.
Last time I checked, prison isn't meant to be a walk in the park. I don't sympathize with him at all.
If he wants to protest how he's treated by hunger-striking, he can go right ahead. Not many people are going to care, let alone empathize with him, for obvious reasons.
It would be better than making someone torture and execute him, so at least there's that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48801894]No
What's the difference between arbitrary lines in the sand?
None[/QUOTE]
If you honestly believe this guy's mindset is the same as Brievik's then crack-on.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;48801966]It's really not about what impression I or other people get from reading it. These laws make it a human right in the EU to not be force fed or be given blood after an informed refusal.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't what I was talking about, but whatever, it doesn't matter. I wasn't in any way disputing the fact that it's covered by Article 8.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48801732]You must be a leftist troll or just retarded or both. Got it.
Can you even read? I don't enjoy the thought of torture. I've said this several times but you fail to notice. Please read what I write before making false accusations.it makes you look like a leftist idiot.[/QUOTE]
No you haven't given any explanation other then "its necessary". WHY IS IT NECESSARY?
Also weren't you just calling us out on "calling you names"?
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48801732]You must be a leftist troll or just retarded or both. Got it.
Can you even read? I don't enjoy the thought of torture. I've said this several times but you fail to notice. Please read what I write before making false accusations.it makes you look like a leftist idiot.[/QUOTE]
imagine thinking left leaning social ideology is stupid.
we wouldn't be where we are if we treated each other like total shit all the time and did nothing to try and help people even if they don't "deserve" it.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48802265]If you honestly believe this guy's mindset is the same as Brievik's then crack-on.[/QUOTE]
If you can't honestly tell why they're similar, crack on.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48802970]If you can't honestly tell why they're similar, crack on.[/QUOTE]
So... Breivik wanted to kill those kids not only to prove a point that immigration politics have gone too far and that the pure-blood racist traits are dying out due to interbreeding/mixed blood relations, but also because he hated immigrants, which is equal to SwedishSpy's willingness to put down cold-blooded murderers because he believes such people deserve same fates they instill on others.... and that's why they're both psychotic maniacs? What about people willing to kill for their family, for their country, as compared to an idea? Suddenly entire military and self-defence branches are all about psychopaths?
Someone has been calling him out about living a really sheltered life, but IMO outlooks such as the one you instill only able to come from even more sheltered lives. Get realistic for once.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;48801669]You just said that those who decided to murder someone because they are not afraid of being caught were not afraid of being caught...
[/QUOTE]
No, you murder someone due to reasons (feelings towards them, their property, et cetera), not simply because you are not afraid of not getting caught.
[quote]
For the third time now: How many people decided not to murder someone because they were afraid of being caught and punished? How do you know that number is 0? How can you tell that nobody ever thought "I want to kill this guy but they will catch me and put me in jail so I better not do that"?[/quote]
It's not 0, but no crime is stopped there. Thinking of committing a crime is not a crime. Planing is (conspiracy to commit the crime), and can be interrupted by change in decision to commit the crime, which is separate from planning. Wanting to kill someone, for example, is not a crime. Killing them or planning to do so, is.
[quote]As for crimes of passion, this obviously isn't meant for them. I want to know how you're going to deter crimes of passion though if you already brought it up.[/quote]
You simply cannot affect it directly, unless you go for the source (mental well being of everyone).
[quote]
Say there's someone I really want dead. Now I would ask myself "is it really worth the risk of getting caught and going to jail for many long years?" and "Can I hide the evidence well enough?". With your ideal situation I would just fucking kill the guy and give myself up to the police so I can spend next say 2 years in a great hotel while talking to a shrink and surrendering myself to the therapy. My guess is in your model the reoffending rate would be low but there would be pretty much no reason NOT to commit murder except personal sense of morality of the potential perpetrator. You are extremely naive if you think this wouldn't increase the first-offense number of crimes.[/quote]
So, you will kill a guy to be basically stuck in a place for 2 years? It seems that you are trying to escape a terrible life, by trying to replace it with a limited one inside a jail cell with higher living conditions. Killing someone over such a thing either shows desperation or sociopath way of thought. Also, killing someone will throw you into a cell for 10 years or so. Sure, you'll be spending it in a warm jail cell, but you are basically going to be cut out from social life for 10 years. You can't really work doing what you want. You can't see your family any time you want. You are constantly under surveillance.
I fail to see how my ideal situation is any relevant to the decision process that lead to the murder.
TBH, it just seems that Poles really want into those Scandinavian cells because their quality of life is shit.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48804503]So... Breivik wanted to kill those kids not only to prove a point that immigration politics have gone too far and that the pure-blood racist traits are dying out due to interbreeding/mixed blood relations, but also because he hated immigrants, which is equal to SwedishSpy's willingness to put down cold-blooded murderers because he believes such people deserve same fates they instill on others.... and that's why they're both psychotic maniacs? What about people willing to kill for their family, for their country, as compared to an idea? Suddenly entire military and self-defence branches are all about psychopaths?
Someone has been calling him out about living a really sheltered life, but IMO outlooks such as the one you instill only able to come from even more sheltered lives. Get realistic for once.[/QUOTE]
If you can say you feel nothing over wishing anyone death, then yeah. How are you arguing with that?
Do you plan on being on topic or do you just want to attack the posters here
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48804503]Both guys (Brevik and SvedSpy) want blood of a human being to be spilled for a point that they stand for (Racism and "Sense of Justice" respectively). I mean, hell, last I checked, rape and murder (friends, immediate family, not the person killed of course) victims wouldn't do "tag backs", once out of the emotional pits.
Oh, and Soldiers don't want blood, last I checked. They follow orders to ultimately protect their country.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48804712]If you can say you feel nothing over wishing anyone death, then yeah. How are you arguing with that?
Do you plan on being on topic or do you just want to attack the posters here[/QUOTE]
If you can say you feel that everyone should be kept alive no matter what, then you're deranged. And I feel you do not have the right to call me back on-topic seeing as you've been focused on heavy criticism and pseudo-diagnostics of SwedishSpy's persona since page 3 at very least?
Anyhow, I see that you in particular feel uneasy with me showing flaws in your argument, and seeing as you're not even close to step off your "ideals" I will just move on, you clearly show you're not worth my time.
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gufu;48804729]
Both guys (Brevik and SvedSpy) want blood of a human being to be spilled for a point that they stand for (Racism and "Sense of Justice" respectively). I mean, hell, last I checked, rape and murder (friends, immediate family, not the person killed of course) victims wouldn't do "tag backs", once out of the emotional pits.
Oh, and Soldiers don't want blood, last I checked. They follow orders to ultimately protect their country.t[/QUOTE]
Your post confused me for a second :P.
Rephrase the paragraph about "tag backs" because I don't get it, sorry. (no sarcasm)
As for soldiers "just following orders to ultimately protect their country", tell that to numerous "soldiers" of Wermacht during Nazi reign? Soldiers don't want blood, yet look at all those militants in Middle East? How the US swarmed into Iraq after 9/11 attacks?
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48805036]
Your post confused me for a second :P.
Rephrase the paragraph about "tag backs" because I don't get it, sorry. (no sarcasm)
[/quote]
Basically, let's assume that someone had their child killed by someone. Once they get out of the pit of despair (or if, rather) and become capable of reasonable thought, usually they do not wish to kill the perpetrator, since then they end up in a position, where they would technically be the murderer of a murderer.
[quote]
As for soldiers "just following orders to ultimately protect their country", tell that to numerous "soldiers" of Wermacht during Nazi reign? Soldiers don't want blood, yet look at all those militants in Middle East? How the US swarmed into Iraq after 9/11 attacks?[/QUOTE]
Militants are not soldiers. They are literally a bunch of armed civilians with a hierarchical leadership system and a goal.
As for Nazis, an entire country has been misled to do a variety of things, including destruction of "subhumans" based on arbitrary definitions (just like out friend, SvedSpy, there). The failure to revolt against their masters is the personal failure of the German soldier.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48805036]If you can say you feel that everyone should be kept alive no matter what, then you're deranged. And I feel you do not have the right to call me back on-topic seeing as you've been focused on heavy criticism and pseudo-diagnostics of SwedishSpy's persona since page 3 at very least?
Anyhow, I see that you in particular feel uneasy with me showing flaws in your argument, and seeing as you're not even close to step off your "ideals" I will just move on, you clearly show you're not worth my time.
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
Your post confused me for a second :P.
Rephrase the paragraph about "tag backs" because I don't get it, sorry. (no sarcasm)
As for soldiers "just following orders to ultimately protect their country", tell that to numerous "soldiers" of Wermacht during Nazi reign? Soldiers don't want blood, yet look at all those militants in Middle East? How the US swarmed into Iraq after 9/11 attacks?[/QUOTE]
It's not worth your time to explain why you'd kill people who aren't imminent threats to others?
Okay.
Yeah I don't understand your high horse here
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.