Mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik threatens to hunger-strike himself to death due to stricter pri
359 replies, posted
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48801793]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]
Okay, I misread your initial post. My apologies. Take my post as a reply to his.
[QUOTE=Richardroth;48802012]Last time I checked, prison isn't meant to be a walk in the park. I don't sympathize with him at all.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, the US had one of the highest recidivism rates of any country. Retributive justice doesn't work. It feeds into a vicious cycle of crime and breeds harder and harder criminals.
[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]
You really think we're all that different? The only difference between a Taliban fighter and a US Marine is where they were born. If the Taliban fighter had been born in the US and exposed to all the stories of how them dirty Muslims are killing innocent people in the Middle East, you can bet he would be scrabbling to take up arms against those evil terrorists. If the US Marine had been born in Afghanistan and exposed to all the stories of how US forces are invading our lands and killing our families, you can bet he would be raring to go kill himself some American pigs.
[QUOTE=gufu;48804687]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]
What? You're not making any sense. Yes. You murder someone because of some reason. Additionally you have to not be afraid of being caught. If you were afraid you wouldn't have done it.
[QUOTE=gufu;48804687]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]
What a ridiculous logic.
So if a person wants to kill someone else but does not do it [U]solely[/U] because he's afraid of being caught and punished then "no crime is stopped here"?
[QUOTE=gufu;48804687]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]
Why 10 years? You said you want to let them go once they are not a threat to society. The weight of the question "is murdering this guy worth the risk of getting punished?" is severely reduced if instead of going to a shitty place for many years you go to a nice place for a few years. In other words someone who would be afraid of going to prison for 20 years for murdering someone is going to think that going to a nice hotel for few years is worth it. How can you fail to see that reducing the punishment is relevant to the decision process that lead to murder is beyond me.
Also cut your personal insults please.
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48806997]You really think we're all that different? The only difference between a Taliban fighter and a US Marine is where they were born. If the Taliban fighter had been born in the US and exposed to all the stories of how them dirty Muslims are killing innocent people in the Middle East, you can bet he would be scrabbling to take up arms against those evil terrorists. If the US Marine had been born in Afghanistan and exposed to all the stories of how US forces are invading our lands and killing our families, you can bet he would be raring to go kill himself some American pigs.[/QUOTE]
You can't see the difference between punching someone to steal their wallet and punching someone to stop them from assaulting an innocent?
So all the data that shows harsher prisons and punishments cause higher recidivism rates is just wrong because you say so?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;48807014]What? You're not making any sense. Yes. You murder someone because of some reason. Additionally you have to not be afraid of being caught. If you were afraid you wouldn't have done it.[/quote]
Exactly, not sure what you are trying to argue there.
[quote]
What a ridiculous logic.
So if a person wants to kill someone else but does not do it [U]solely[/U] because he's afraid of being caught and punished then "no crime is stopped here"?
[/quote]
Thinking about crime is not crime, because that would imply that crimethink is real.
[quote]Why 10 years? You said you want to let them go once they are not a threat to society. The weight of the question "is murdering this guy worth the risk of getting punished?" is severely reduced if instead of going to a shitty place for many years you go to a nice place for a few years. In other words someone who would be afraid of going to prison for 20 years for murdering someone is going to think that going to a nice hotel for few years is worth it. How can you fail to see that reducing the punishment is relevant to the decision process that lead to murder is beyond me.
[/quote]
Except that no one is getting rid of the general harsh time-length sentences. Not murderboning people in revenge of their crime does not mean that parts of their lives are being wasted away behind bars, no matter how comfortable they are. No one is talking about reducing the punishment, just not killing people who commit crimes, just because they commit crimes. 20 years is hardly a few.
[quote]
Also cut your personal insults please.
[/quote]
Can't into space, et cetera.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48807197]So all the data that shows harsher prisons and punishments cause higher recidivism rates is just wrong because you say so?[/QUOTE]
Harsh prison sentences and punishments generally reflect the crime, so I would hazard a guess that higher recidivism rates occur less in petty criminals.
Let him rot.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48802454]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]
I have already written why it's necessary. It's needed so that the victims can get proper justice. What he's doing now with protesting against "stricter" prison conditions and complaining about his gaming console is pretty much an insult to all victims. At the very least, the victims should decide his fate, which is either life in prison without parole or death penalty. I don't think you realize how hard it is on the families that lost a loved one due to Breivik's rampage. No one has asked them if they'd want harsher punishments for Breivik.
[B]And I'd like to withdraw my previous stance on whether Breivik and similar criminals are human or not. What I wrote was mostly out of frustration with what Breikvik gets away with. He's a human being of course but a disgrace to mankind. An example of how shitty mankind can be.[/B]
[B]And I realize that death penalty of any kind is never ever (officially at least) happening in an European democracy so I'd in fact settle with longer prison sentences and prisoner labor, which should comply with already established laws, human rights and whatnot.[/B]
At least, Breivik and similar people should get life in prison without parole, get a very basic prison cell with only a bed, shower and toilet (not a hotel room that he currently has) and should be forced to work 8 hours/day 6 days/week and it must be manual labor of some kind. Obviously no Gulag type of shit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48807197]So all the data that shows harsher prisons and punishments cause higher recidivism rates is just wrong because you say so?[/QUOTE]
You seem to be against any form of strict punishment. Would you suggest we should abolish prisons, hold hands with Breivik and similar people and sing Kumbaya with them and then let them go? Shouldn't Breivik at least get life in prison without parole, in a basic prison cell as described above? Breivik hasn't been punished for his crimes at all.
There are cases when society thought that the punishment wasn't harsh enough. A good example is Hagamannen (a serial rapist in Sweden). He got 14 years in prison in 2006 (he should've gotten life in prison IMO) but was released on parole some time this year. Soon after he was released, he got attacked and beaten down with a golf club. While attacking him may not be a civilized thing to do, I can't say that I feel sorry for him. Point is that bureaucrats and research papers on punishments, crime rates and recidivism don't take society's opinions on what proper punishment is into account. If Hagamannen didn't get parole, maybe he wouldn't have gotten attacked. So blindly listening to research papers can, in some cases, be dangerous to both society and the criminals.
[QUOTE]I have already written why it's necessary. It's needed so that the victims can get proper justice. What he's doing now with protesting against "stricter" prison conditions and complaining about his gaming console is pretty much an insult to all victims. At the very least, the victims should decide his fate, which is either life in prison without parole or death penalty. I don't think you realize how hard it is on the families that lost a loved one due to Breivik's rampage. No one has asked them if they'd want harsher punishments for Breivik. [/QUOTE]
Although not a right I think the victim's wishes are more important than Breivik's but that won't have any bearing on the outcome.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48808663]I have already written why it's necessary. It's needed so that the victims can get proper justice.[/QUOTE]
I'm one of very few people on here who believes that capital punishment has its place in society, but your idea of a modern justice system is alarming even to me. I don't think there's a justice system in the world today that operates based on the whims and wishes of the victims of crimes. I can't imagine what leads you to believe that it's a good idea for the law of the land to be based on the emotions of people who have been put in distressing and sometimes devastating circumstances. if that's the way the law worked then there would be a whole lot of people doing 25-life for fender benders and petty theft.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48808956]I'm one of very few people on here who believes that capital punishment has its place in society, but your idea of a modern justice system is alarming even to me. I don't think there's a justice system in the world today that operates based on the whims and wishes of the victims of crimes. I can't imagine what leads you to believe that it's a good idea for the law of the land to be based on the emotions of people who have been put in distressing and sometimes devastating circumstances. if that's the way the law worked then there would be a whole lot of people doing 25-life for fender benders and petty theft.[/QUOTE]
I did over-simplify it. Obviously, no one would get a life sentence over fender benders, burglary or other "common" crimes because the victim wants it. But in extraordinary cases such as killing sprees or serial rapists, the victims' opinion should be able to affect the length and harshness of the punishment to a certain degree, as long as they are within the boundaries of current legislation. So in the case of Hagamannen, if a majority of those affected wants him to not be eligible for parole, they should have their wishes granted.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48808663]At the very least, the victims should decide his fate, which is either life in prison without parole or death penalty.[/QUOTE]
would you go by majority vote or a jury system where everyone has to be in agreement? if you go with the former, you're disregarding the victims' wishes and doubtlessly digging up old wounds, if not upsetting or even borderline ruining whole lives if they don't get the desired outcome. if you go with the latter, the victims may never be in agreement, especially in a crime with [I]nearly seventy people dead[/I], all of whom had loved ones and family members who would have to be involved in the decision for this victim-based justice to mean jack shit.
in total you could be looking at as many as a hundred people, possibly far more depending on what's arbitrarily defined as a victim in such a large-scale crime, all in one forum, who have to reach one [B]unanimous[/B] conclusion on an extremely divisive and personal issue before justice can proceed. do you think the people who don't want execution or don't agree with the manner of it would be satisfied at the end when they're pressured into a decision they don't agree with? would more people really be happier than if you didn't force a decision at all?
i'll tell you what i think: i think you expect everyone, everywhere, to be as sick as you are.
[QUOTE=Cone;48809014]would you go by majority vote or a jury system where everyone has to be in agreement? if you go with the former, you're disregarding the victims' wishes and doubtlessly digging up old wounds, if not upsetting or even borderline ruining whole lives if they don't get the desired outcome. if you go with the latter, the victims may never be in agreement, especially in a crime with [I]nearly seventy people dead[/I], all of whom had loved ones and family members who would have to be involved in the decision for this victim-based justice to mean jack shit.
in total you could be looking at as many as a hundred people, possibly far more depending on what's arbitrarily defined as a victim in such a large-scale crime, all in one forum, who have to reach one [B]unanimous[/B] conclusion on an extremely divisive and personal issue before justice can proceed. do you think the people who don't want execution or don't agree with the manner of it would be satisfied at the end when they're pressured into a decision they don't agree with? would more people really be happier than if you didn't force a decision at all?
i'll tell you what i think: i think you expect everyone, everywhere, to be as sick as you are.[/QUOTE]
First of all, show me proof that you are a certified doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist. Until then, you don't have the authority to call others sick. It just makes you look like an idiot. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who lost a family member to a mass-murderer. It's mental scars that never go away.
The victims are those who got injured or lost a loved one. The decision would try to take into account every opinion and I'm sure most of the victims would agree that he should be locked up his entire life. Again, no one has asked the victims what they think would be an adequate punishment so we don't know what they think. Research papers and bureaucrats aren't always right.
Would the victims be "sick" by your leftist definition if they decided that Breivik should spend the rest of his life in a very basic prison cell?
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48809008]I did over-simplify it. Obviously, no one would get a life sentence over fender benders, burglary or other "common" crimes because the victim wants it. But in extraordinary cases such as killing sprees or serial rapists, the victims' opinion should be able to affect the length and harshness of the punishment to a certain degree, as long as they are within the boundaries of current legislation. So in the case of Hagamannen, if a majority of those affected wants him to not be eligible for parole, they should have their wishes granted.[/QUOTE]
this is problematic for many reasons. first and foremost, this is a contradiction of the very foundations of modern law. the complexity of modern laws exists to prevent people from falling victim to abuses of the law. the reason everyone is entitled to a fair trial and humane treatment is to protect the innocent, not the guilty. another thing is that your idea of justice leaves a massive gap for people to fall victim to intimidation. if someone is raped by a gang member and the rapist's punishment is dependent on the victim's will, then the victim could easily be intimidated into choosing the lightest sentence possible. and if they choose a severe punishment they could be subject to retaliation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48807197]So all the data that shows harsher prisons and punishments cause higher recidivism rates is just wrong because you say so?[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about recidivism?
While harsh punishment causes higher recidivism rates they also lower the number of first offenders. That's why I said you need punishment+rehabilitation.
[QUOTE=gufu;48808108]Exactly, not sure what you are trying to argue there.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to reword my first reply in this chain because you seem to completely misunderstood me.
[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.[/QUOTE]
What you said here translates to "those who broke the law were not afraid of getting caught and punished so the threat of punishment doesn't work". It's nonsensical. You don't know how many people who wanted to kill someone decided NOT TO because they were afraid of getting caught and punished. You are pointing at the smallest bits of sand that went through the strainer and saying "see? those bits went through because they are smaller than the holes in the strainer so the strainer doesn't work" without knowing what did not go through the strainer.
[QUOTE=gufu;48808108]Thinking about crime is not crime, because that would imply that crimethink is real.[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing stopping a crime with interrupting a crime? I don't even know what kind of mental gymnastics is this. If I wanted to kill someone and the sole reason I'm not doing it is because I'm afraid of being caught and punished, then[B] the law has stopped me from committing murder[/B]. What the fuck is this shit about crimethink or whatever? You're saying that a crime has to happen in the first place to stop it. It makes no sense.
[QUOTE=gufu;48808108]Except that no one is getting rid of the general harsh time-length sentences. Not murderboning people in revenge of their crime does not mean that parts of their lives are being wasted away behind bars, no matter how comfortable they are. No one is talking about reducing the punishment, just not killing people who commit crimes, just because they commit crimes. 20 years is hardly a few.[/QUOTE]
You are shifting the topic now. I wasn't talking about capital punishment. The topic was "punishment never stopped a single person from committing a crime".
As for your bolded bits SwedishSpy, that's good.
But there are a few bits I almost feel compelled to "correct."
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48808663]At the very least, the victims should decide his fate, which is either life in prison without parole or death penalty.[/quote]
In that case then, the victims don't really get to choose his fate. What if one family wanted to pardon him?
Point is, it's irrelevant what the families want here. It's not how the prosecution process works, at least not in Norway. So, derp.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48808663]At least, Breivik and similar people should get life in prison without parole, get a very basic prison cell with only a bed, shower and toilet (not a hotel room that he currently has) and should be forced to work 8 hours/day 6 days/week and it must be manual labor of some kind.[/quote]
Sure, life in prison sounds good for a man like Breivik. But what do you mean by only a bed, shower, and forced labor? No benefits to be gained from working? How do you think that would work out? So I'm just going to assume you still want allow them [I]some[/I] benefits, so definitely not Gulag-type shit.
Talking about Breivik himself, he's not even complaining about the lack of benefits or new Playstation games. He's complaining about isolation. Working would function as a great time for socializing as well. And they may have cancelled his University studies as well, which was the "only thing" he had, like probably meaning time with some teachers.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48808663].
You seem to be against any form of strict punishment. Would you suggest we should abolish prisons, hold hands with Breivik and similar people and sing Kumbaya with them and then let them go? Shouldn't Breivik at least get life in prison without parole, in a basic prison cell as described above? Breivik hasn't been punished for his crimes at all.[/QUOTE]
If it was proven that it reduced crime rates and recidivism, why not. We don't have prisons so you can feel superior about them, we have them to try and reduce the amount of crime, or if a person cannot be trusted ( such as Breivik) to keep him separated for the safety of
Also, how would you even sentence people.on what they deserve. Who decides that? The relatives? You ? "People"?
Why would Norway (or anyone) use a factually worse system, see BDAs sources I'm on a phone, just so people feel someone got punished enough.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48809046]First of all, show me proof that you are a certified doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist. Until then, you don't have the authority to call others sick. It just makes you look like an idiot. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who lost a family member to a mass-murderer. It's mental scars that never go away.
The victims are those who got injured or lost a loved one. The decision would try to take into account every opinion and I'm sure most of the victims would agree that he should be locked up his entire life. Again, no one has asked the victims what they think would be an adequate punishment so we don't know what they think. Research papers and bureaucrats aren't always right.
Would the victims be "sick" by your leftist definition if they decided that Breivik should spend the rest of his life in a very basic prison cell?[/QUOTE]
we don't know what they think, so why do you think everyone would be in agreement? how exactly do you take every opinion into account when at least a few of them are going to be directly contradictory? "i think we should kill him," "i don't think we should kill him." what, are you going to only kill half of him? do you saw his legs off? you're not putting yourself in their shoes, you're assuming that they're all going to want the guy to get tortured to death. if they don't all want the same thing then the system completely falls apart.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48809137]As for your bolded bits SwedishSpy, that's good.
But there are a few bits I almost feel compelled to "correct."
In that case then, the victims don't really get to choose his fate. What if one family wanted to pardon him?
Point is, it's irrelevant what the families want here. It's not how the prosecution process works, at least not in Norway. So, derp.
Sure, life in prison sounds good for a man like Breivik. But what do you mean by only a bed, shower, and forced labor? No benefits to be gained from working? How do you think that would work out? So I'm just going to assume you still want allow them [I]some[/I] benefits, so definitely not Gulag-type shit.
Talking about Breivik himself, he's not even complaining about the lack of benefits or new Playstation games. He's complaining about isolation. Working would function as a great time for socializing as well. And they may have cancelled his University studies as well, which was the "only thing" he had by his words, like probably getting to work with some teachers.[/QUOTE]
The victims would be capable of compromising and reaching an agreement, even if it may take some time. And do you really think one of the affected families would want to pardon him? And I know it's (sadly) irrelevant due to how most justice systems work. Just an opinion (which will most likely be considered insane by leftist wannabe psychiatrists).
He has demanded a PS3 (Swedish article: [url]http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/utrikes/762723-anders-breivik-kraver-playstation-3-i-fangelset[/url] ) before and he has also demanded to get a computer with an internet connection so he can communicate with people outside the prison. He's being treated way too well, hence my suggestion for basic prison cells without luxuries such as gaming consoles, TV sets and computers. He has no chance at rehabilitation so it's better to leave the "good" prison cells for those who actually have a chance at rehabilitation.
Breivik would just get the most basic benefits that are required by human rights regulations. It's not a human right to get a prison cell that looks like a hotel room.
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;48809165]we don't know what they think, so why do you think everyone would be in agreement? how exactly do you take every opinion into account when at least a few of them are going to be directly contradictory? "i think we should kill him," "i don't think we should kill him." what, are you going to only kill half of him? do you saw his legs off? you're not putting yourself in their shoes, you're assuming that they're all going to want the guy to get tortured to death. if they don't all want the same thing then the system completely falls apart.[/QUOTE]
They're more than capable of reaching an agreement. Something that more or less appeals to all families. And would you kindly read what I write? I did not mention torture at all in the post you quoted. And I did elaborate victims affecting the punishment in another post.
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48809099]this is problematic for many reasons. first and foremost, this is a contradiction of the very foundations of modern law. the complexity of modern laws exists to prevent people from falling victim to abuses of the law. the reason everyone is entitled to a fair trial and humane treatment is to protect the innocent, not the guilty. another thing is that your idea of justice leaves a massive gap for people to fall victim to intimidation. if someone is raped by a gang member and the rapist's punishment is dependent on the victim's will, then the victim could easily be intimidated into choosing the lightest sentence possible. and if they choose a severe punishment they could be subject to retaliation.[/QUOTE]
A single rape isn't really something that can be considered an extraordinary case. Extraordinary cases are things like serial rapists and killing sprees. I wrote that the victims decision would affect the harshness of the punishment to a certain degree, [B]in extreme and unusual cases[/B], and that it has to be within legal boundaries. So no death penalty if it's outlawed in the country. Your example with someone being raped by a gang member would be like any other prosecution process.
They still might never come to an agreement. He killed over 70 people, so quite a few families to ask.
So, that doesn't really work. You might as well try to come up with some-what comprehensive laws instead. Like, you know, what countries try to do.
Also what you're suggesting asks for higher civil activism. In countries where a lot of national or even smaller local decisions are put up to a vote between the citizens, citizens quickly get tired of voting. Same would happen with this, and the families.
I agree that Breivik's prison conditions are a bit much though, like gaming consoles. He did a man's crime, and he should suffer from it by having a lot of his freedoms taken away from him. His friends, his family, certain luxuries etc.
But the chance to do some meaningful and productive work, that effectively benefits society, while enjoying some little-ish benefits himself in your basic cell, and some social time with his "own kind", should not be taken away from him. It makes them more productive and eager to work, as well.
Everyone carries their own crime after all. Even though he is a very dangerous criminal, and it's not safe to ever let him out, it should all be manageable to let him sit down by some table during rec-time, without spoiling them like babies with three PS3's, and without psychological torture by isolation and no chance to do anything except eating your daily meal.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48809228]They're more than capable of reaching an agreement. Something that more or less appeals to all families. And would you kindly read what I write? I did not mention torture at all in the post you quoted. And I did elaborate victims affecting the punishment in another post.[/QUOTE]
But you didn't though. You restated that victims should get to decide the length and severity of the punishment. I'm going to ask again: first, how do you reconcile part of a group wanting death and the other not, so that both parties will be pleased with the outcome? Death is a perfectly binary thing. As you've shown, some won't be satisfied by anything less.
By extension, how does this make the victims feel better if at least a few of them will need to compromise for anything to actually happen? With how personal the issue would obviously be, did you consider that they may actually feel worse when they inevitably have to compromise than if they'd simply not had the choice?
I mean you've done such an excellent job of saying how unhappy at least a couple of the victims must be that Breivik's not dead. It would be awfully frustrating to come so close to having him killed and then have to back down and sell out all the friends and family he murdered, wouldn't it? Emotionally draining for sure, maybe life-ruining, even. On the other side, would [I]all[/I] of the deceased have wanted capital punishment? Could all their loved ones really be so sure? The dead's wishes may directly contradict.
The sad fact is, feelings of failure are inevitable for at least some. This illusion of choice could make a few feel better, I'll grant you, but what it'll [I]definitely[/I] do is make just as many feel far, far worse. And if that's all anyone gets out of it then it's probably a pretty fuckin' retarded idea, yeah?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48794185]Sympathy is irrelevant. If a prisoner is being mistreated then the prisoner is being mistreated, although we don't know if that's the truth yet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, dozens of innocent people were mistreated when he [b][i]murdered them[/i][/b].
[QUOTE=viper shtf;48794064]Put this bastard in Huntsville state prison here in Texas and see how he likes that.[/QUOTE]
Send him to detroit!
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;48813224]Yeah, well, dozens of innocent people were mistreated when he [b][i]murdered them[/i][/b].[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;48813224]Yeah, well, dozens of innocent people were mistreated when he [b][i]murdered them[/i][/b].[/QUOTE]
So what, we mistreat him more to make up for his mistreatment of others?
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;48813224]Yeah, well, dozens of innocent people were mistreated when he [b][i]murdered them[/i][/b].[/QUOTE]
So why perpetuate the cycle?
Like why? What purpose does it serve? What does it do? Even if a few people do feel some restitution from the death of a killer, is that enough to make us kill a person? To make wronged people feel better?
What if people don't want the death penalty or don't care for it? Why torture or harm a person to that extent if they're not an imminent threat? It seems wasteful, and it seems like you need people to actually indulge in the hateful side of themselves to torture or kill someone, and I don't think we should embrace that selectively. Why do you?
It's worth pointing out that you can't realistically have a death penalty without at least one wrongly convicted person being killed. Setting aside the ethics of killing someone who is definitely guilty, is it really worth implementing a revenge based justice system if people are killed for crimes they didn't commit? Executions are hard to take back.
[QUOTE=SwedishSpy;48809228]The victims would be capable of compromising and reaching an agreement, even if it may take some time. And do you really think one of the affected families would want to pardon him? And I know it's (sadly) irrelevant due to how most justice systems work. Just an opinion (which will most likely be considered insane by leftist wannabe psychiatrists).[/QUOTE]
So basically in any crime with multiple victims the case never gets solved due to a hung vote between the families. I also love how you kept whining about us being "name callers" and you call us "leftist wannabe psychiatrists" (This is of course disregarding the fact that the term you're looking for is psychologist)
He has demanded a PS3 (Swedish article: [URL]http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/utrikes/762723-anders-breivik-kraver-playstation-3-i-fangelset[/URL] ) before and he has also demanded to get a computer with an internet connection so he can communicate with people outside the prison. He's being treated way too well, hence my suggestion for basic prison cells without luxuries such as gaming consoles, TV sets and computers. He has no chance at rehabilitation so it's better to leave the "good" prison cells for those who actually have a chance at rehabilitation. [/quote]
First off he sure as hell isn't getting any of those things (specifically an outside internet connection) and none of us insinuated that he should. Also norway has no shortage of "luxury prison cells" anyways because thats pretty much all they build. Add to that the fact that norway has a low crime rate and you realize most of those cells are probably empty anyways.
[quote]
Breivik would just get the most basic benefits that are required by human rights regulations. It's not a human right to get a prison cell that looks like a hotel room.[/quote]
So what accommodations would you have in his cell?
[quote]
They're more than capable of reaching an agreement. Something that more or less appeals to all families. And would you kindly read what I write? I did not mention torture at all in the post you quoted. And I did elaborate victims affecting the punishment in another post.[/quote]
I'm sure that the victims will come to a reasonable and sound conclusion /sarcasm.
Not only that but by having emotionally involved people be involved in the ruling for the case you're basically making it so every sentence will be maximized and that 75% of the time shit will get stuck on a hung vote
[quote]
A single rape isn't really something that can be considered an extraordinary case. Extraordinary cases are things like serial rapists and killing sprees. I wrote that the victims decision would affect the harshness of the punishment to a certain degree, [B]in extreme and unusual cases[/B], and that it has to be within legal boundaries. So no death penalty if it's outlawed in the country. Your example with someone being raped by a gang member would be like any other prosecution process.[/QUOTE]
So you want to massively overcomplicate a process thats already massively complicated? And again, by including the victims in the ruling all you accomplish is giving every one affected by the new system a max sentence
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48816842]So basically in any crime with multiple victims the case never gets solved due to a hung vote between the families. I also love how you kept whining about us being "name callers" and you call us "leftist wannabe psychiatrists" (This is of course disregarding the fact that the term you're looking for is psychologist)
He has demanded a PS3 (Swedish article: [URL]http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/utrikes/762723-anders-breivik-kraver-playstation-3-i-fangelset[/URL] ) before and he has also demanded to get a computer with an internet connection so he can communicate with people outside the prison. He's being treated way too well, hence my suggestion for basic prison cells without luxuries such as gaming consoles, TV sets and computers. He has no chance at rehabilitation so it's better to leave the "good" prison cells for those who actually have a chance at rehabilitation. [/quote]
First off he sure as hell isn't getting any of those things (specifically an outside internet connection) and none of us insinuated that he should. Also norway has no shortage of "luxury prison cells" anyways because thats pretty much all they build. Add to that the fact that norway has a low crime rate and you realize most of those cells are probably empty anyways.
So what accommodations would you have in his cell?
I'm sure that the victims will come to a reasonable and sound conclusion /sarcasm.
Not only that but by having emotionally involved people be involved in the ruling for the case you're basically making it so every sentence will be maximized and that 75% of the time shit will get stuck on a hung vote
So you want to massively overcomplicate a process thats already massively complicated? And again, by including the victims in the ruling all you accomplish is giving every one affected by the new system a max sentence[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair, some users in this thread spent considerable amounts of time spewing out assumptions about my mental health (without even knowing me on a personal level) and thus acting like wannabe psychologists. And I realized afterwards that I mixed up psychiatrist with psychologist. I know the difference.
How do you routinely, consistently ignore the actual arguments in front of you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48818010]How do you routinely, consistently ignore the actual arguments in front of you?[/QUOTE]
I didn't ignore them. I wrote earlier that I'm giving up and leaving the argument. I just wanted to point out how stupid the psychologist shit was. And it's quote obvious that no matter how good or bad my arguments would be, you cannot be convinced. Thus I don't see the point anymore. It was fun in the beginning though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.