04-16-12, 10:03 AM #1
Anders Breivik Faces Sentence of 3 Months Per Murder
Last year Anders Breivik murdered 77 people In Norway. He is now on trial for this crime and even "acknowledged" that he killed these people.
If convicted, he faces 21 years in prison which might be extended to life. Might? Not only does he not face the death penalty, but 21 years could be the sentence imposed for killing 77 people?
How is that justice? Why is a mere 21 years even a possibility for a guy convicted of murdering 77 people?
The man who carried out bomb and gun attacks in Norway last year which left 77 people dead has pleaded not guilty at the start of his trial in Oslo.
Anders Behring Breivik attacked a youth camp organised by the governing Labour party on the island of Utoeya, after setting off a car bomb in the capital.
He told the court he "acknowledged" the acts committed, but said he did not accept criminal responsibility.
The prosecution earlier gave a detailed account of how each person was killed.
If the court decides he is criminally insane, he will be committed to psychiatric care; if he is judged to be mentally stable, he will be jailed.
In the latter case, he faces a sentence of 21 years, which could be extended to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.
04-16-12, 10:19 AM #2
All of this was brought about by court rulings which have been driven by the bleeding-heart mindset of extreme liberal thinking. For example, as our own member Aguard has said, there's no such thing as a criminal. They are just ordinary people who have a mental illness which can be successfully treated. Therefore, we should handle them with kindness and compassion.
To which I say: HOGWASH!!!!!
04-16-12, 10:21 AM #3
And, with a 21 year sentence, he would leave prison at the age of 54.
Plenty of time to massacre even more people.
04-16-12, 10:23 AM #4
So we are passing judgments on the criminal penelties of other countries now? Um how much jail time did OJ get for murder? How about the guy who shot a black kid who was out buying a drink and a packet of skittles and it took international outrage to even get him CHARGED. Most of the world conciders the death penelty to be immoral, the US, china, North Koria, Some south east asian countries and Iran are some of the FEW barbarians who still use it.
04-16-12, 10:23 AM #5
I would think that once he entered prison someone there would murder him just like they did to Jeffery Dahrmer.
04-16-12, 10:37 AM #6
To the bloodthirstyOriginally Posted by Read Only
But, I'll tell you what: The first thing we need to do is strike the words "rehabilitation" and "correctional" from our prison culture. As it is, being an American, I come from a place where these words are mere window dressing. You know, the kind of thing you say so the jailers can feel like they're not dangerous psychopaths.
Having struck rehabilitation and correction from the discussion, we can focus on what prisons are really about—incarcerating people and making them miserable.
Having admitted this, we can then acknowledge the reality: There is no point in letting these people out of jail, since all we've done is pissed them off and made them more dangerous.
Recognizing that, we see two possibilities. First, a cultural experiment in which we simply try to torture people back into line. Second, a death factory in which we simply mill people toward the injection room.
And once we are capable of considering the discussion in terms of vendetta and bloodlust, which is all those "waah! they have color TVs!" arguments really are, and accept that arguments such as yours are really nothing more than neurotic complexes—sure, you want to dish out all the brutality and cruelty that criminals "deserve", but since it's through the device of the state, we should also pretend that it isn't brutal cruelty because otherwise it might sound like you're one of the kind of people that should be cruelly brutalized by a penal system—then, yes, we can actually have a real discussion about crime and punishment.
Until then, your hogwash argument describes itself.
04-16-12, 10:39 AM #7
Norway has a fairly successful rehabilitation program for offenders. I doubt Breivik will ever face release in his life time.
While you question how it is justice, there are some on your side of the pond who not only agree with him about who to blame for his slaughter, but they also claim to understand why he took the steps he did, even though, as the 'author' advises 'that it is wrong to "start murdering those responsible for" the threat to European civilization and their families'.
Breivik, who is a fan of the author in question, has claimed self defense and that his victims were ultimately responsible because they were not white and also supported multiculturalism.
04-16-12, 10:59 AM #8
04-16-12, 11:01 AM #9
04-16-12, 11:13 AM #10
Ah yes, the land of "justice" which must be code for racisium because the majority of murders are white males but the majority of those executed are black, strange that isn't it
04-16-12, 11:27 AM #11
No, the majority executed are actually White, about 58% vs 33% Black vs 9% Hispanic.
And it does have quite a bit to do with the actual States that still have the Death Penalty (predominately Southern States)
04-16-12, 11:32 AM #12
So what your saying is that even in your own country the death penalty is rare, there by showing the initial post to be a load of drivil from word one
04-16-12, 11:55 AM #13
We supposedly save it for First Degree murder and then for only the extreme cases.
First Degree Murder is essentially a planned murder.
Murder that is accompanied by "special circumstances".
First-degree murder with special circumstances
- for financial gain (1)
- the defendant had previously been convicted of first or second degree murder (2)
- multiple murders (3)
- committed using explosives (4) ; (6)
- to avoid arrest or aiding in escaping custody (5)
- the victim was an on-duty peace officer; federal law enforcement officer or agent; or firefighter (7) ; (8) ; (9)
- the victim was a witness to a crime and the murder was committed to prevent them from testifying (10)
- the victim was a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor; judge or former judge; elected or appointed official; juror; and the murder was in retaliation for the victim's official duties (11) ; (12) ; (13) ; (20)
- the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity" (14)
- the murderer lay in wait for the victim (15)
- the victim was intentionally killed because of their race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. (a hate crime) (16)
- the murder was committed during the commissioning of robbery; kidnapping; rape; sodomy; performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon the person of a child under the age of 14 years; oral copulation; burglary; arson; train wrecking; mayhem; rape by instrument; carjacking; torture; poisoning (17)
- the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (18)
- poisoning (19)
- the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (21)
- the defendant is an active member of a criminal street gang and was to further the activities of the gang (22)
- train wrecking which leads to a person's death.
So yeah, killing 70+ people would make this list
04-16-12, 12:14 PM #14
04-16-12, 12:17 PM #15
You realize that 21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway, right? It's not as if they let this guy off easily; he got their harshest sentence.
Not saying he shouldn't do more (and he probably will, through technicalities), just pointing out that it's not like when we let OJ walk.
04-16-12, 12:17 PM #16
STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY
- U.S. Gov't
- U.S. Military
STATES WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY (YEAR*ABOLISHED*IN*PARENTHESES)
New Jersey (2007)
New Mexico* (2009)
New York (2007)#
North Dakota (1973)
Rhode Island (1984)**
West Virginia (1965)
As to OJ, he walked because the jury found him not guilty.
African Americans commit a disproportionate number of murders in the United States: approximately half, according to government statistics. Yet in the death penalty states of post-Gregg America, black murderers have actually been somewhat less likely to wind up on death row than their white counterparts. Blacks committed 51.5 percent of murders nationwide between 1976 and 1998, according to a 2004 study by Professors Cornell law professors John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg and Martin T. Wells, but accounted for only 41.3 percent of those sentenced to death from 1977 to 1999. This relationship held true in every death penalty state, and—contrary to conventional wisdom—the under-representation of blacks on death row was greatest in the South.
Last edited by madanthonywayne; 04-16-12 at 12:53 PM.
04-16-12, 12:54 PM #17
Blacks kill themselves at a FAR greater rate than do whites, so it makes sense they will fall under these regs more often, so no, it isn't an admission that racism plays any role.
The number of homicides involving black youths — as victims and perpetrators — surged by more than 30 percent from 2002 to 2007, even as overall murder rates across the U.S. have been relatively stable
And what is racist about the fact that Georgia has the Death Penalty and Maine doesn't, but that Georgia the Black population is 30%, pretty much the same as the stats, while Maine doesn't but is less than 2% Black?
04-16-12, 01:03 PM #18
You're free to hold that such amounts to injustice in this (or whatever) particular case, of course, but it would be nice if you'd do so with some visible cognizance of the history and reasoning that led to the current state of jurisprudence in the country in question. Then we could maybe have a useful discussion instead of the troll-fest that has resulted.
Or not. Obviously people here kind alike the troll-fests.
04-16-12, 01:18 PM #19
What determines if a sentence will be per victim or just grouped together? He wouldn't ever get out if he was tried for each death.
04-16-12, 01:31 PM #20
Did you mean to say something like "black people murder other black people at a FAR high rate than white people murder other white people?"
If so, the rates in question are: 94% of black murders are committed by other blacks, while 86% of white murders are committed by other whites. Which hardly seems to justify shouting "FAR."
Which would have to imply that you were thinking of a rate compared to the total black/white populations - which is to say that you're simply pointing to the higher overall crime rate amongst black populations. And if you can't see the connection between that and racism, well, that says more about you than about racism. And if you're simply refusing to see said connection, well, that goes double. Do you imagine that people are unaware that the "black on black crime" meme is nothing more than an ugly racist canard, systematically deployed by the right wing noise machine for craven political ends?
By madanthonywayne in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 02-25-10, 09:42 AMReplies: 27
By Tiassa in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 01-04-10, 06:00 PMReplies: 31
By Michael in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 03-20-07, 01:06 AMReplies: 0
By OliverJ in forum World EventsLast Post: 04-16-06, 06:21 PMReplies: 82
By charles cure in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 10-09-05, 06:50 PMReplies: 233