08-27-12, 07:22 PM #81
Where do we get these moralising history professors???
Actually, I can turn it around and make a rule: no society lasted long where there wasn't capital punishment...
For Balerion about humans" intrinsic value: His intrinsic value is negative....
08-27-12, 07:31 PM #82
It is not a default, it is a reward for taking others' lives....
Why is his life so valuable suddenly???
--dead man kill no more
--closure for victims' families
--organ donation helps others, payback to society
--saving money on his keep
--community can start to heal
--there is no disadvantages
--if ever released it will cost a shitload to keep him NOT getting murdered/harrased
I don't care... If he is sane, I want him to suffer. Or die, whichever is less sadistic in your view....
P.S.: You never explained WHY he should be kept around? What is the gain?
08-27-12, 07:47 PM #83
To simplify it for you: the maximum penalty is 21 years in Norway. It is called the penalty phase. If a person stays longer in prison, that is not because he didn't serve his penalty, but for prevention, protecting society. But again, as usual, I was right, the maximum penalty IS 21 years...
Even if he killed 77 thousand people, it wouldn't give us the right to dig a hole and throw him in it.
but not everyone thinks like you do.
The community begins healing the moment the killing stops.
including the loss of moral highground
Going by your logic,
What? He doesn't get any special protection upon release.
This whole thing began by you citing the alleged superiority of our system to theirs.
As I already said, I don't have to list the positives of keeping a human being alive.
08-27-12, 08:11 PM #84
You: "First, they say, nobody gets more than 21 years, then next day say, well, not so fast, some people will get life. Sounds BS to me..."
To the grammar of your original statement, you are incorrect that nobody gets more than 21 years. The penalty in question is called "the indeterminate penalty," not "the 21-year-penalty." They call it indeterminate because there is no upper maximum. You are not guaranteed release after 21 years, you are merely guaranteed a hearing. That hearing can result in your freedom or an extension of your sentence by five years, and this process can go ad infinitum for the rest of your life.
Do you understand now?
According to you. According to me, his value has just gone NEGATIVE...
According to you. Also, societies based on principles like those, disappeared very quickly...
Same with your thinking.
In your mind. healing usually begins after justice. Him writing his racist epitomes on his laptop doesn't help healing...
Do you know who else had the moral high ground? Native Americans.. Where are they now??? They also lost their real estate grounds beside their lives...You can shovel your imaginative moral high ground (there is no absolute morality) in your ass, but at the end the might is just....
Don't go there. Going by your logic, having a few strong words with the criminal should do the punishment and rehabilitation.
There was a similar guy like this and upon release he was given a new identity and lives in a secret location. My guess is that using government money...
I never said such a thing, otherwise you could quote me. I simply criticized the Norwegian system.
Because it is a short list?
08-27-12, 08:16 PM #85
There is little doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we fully understand human behavior (or at least understand it much, much better than we do now), and the people of that time will look back on our present treatment of criminals with the same fascinated horror that we now reserve for the way the mentally ill were treated when it was widely believed that mental illness was caused by demonic possession.
08-27-12, 08:23 PM #86
It's amusing that STILL no one has bothered to post any links to "wide spread outrage" at this "unjust" sentence from NORWEGIAN sources. The only people calling it "unjust" are the yanks here. What actually makes you think you have the moral superiority to judge what THEY concider just to be unjust?
08-27-12, 08:40 PM #87
Now. It certainly appears that Norway has got a lot to brag about. A fairly crime-free society. Good rehabilitative processes in their penal system. I'm not going to damn an entire nation for what I consider to be one egregious injustice. It's just that no society is perfect and while I get that their system was set up to prevent overly-zealous judges from sending people away for times not deserved, I think we can clearly see that some people deserve the maximum and that maximum can be their entire life behind bars.
Based on his statements in court, I doubt Breivik will ever change, and I doubt he will ever see the light of freedom, and I’m not troubled by that. Once his sentence ends, judges can keep him in prison for an endless succession of five-year terms if he is deemed a danger to society, which seems likely.
08-27-12, 09:57 PM #88
08-27-12, 10:35 PM #89
A meaningless sentence, really. Talk to the victims' family and ask how they feel about it....The might is just. History is written by the winners and the losers are forgotten eventually. For thousands of years that's how it has been working . . . .Did you miss my post about gassing? Have you heard of shanking? Ordering hits from prison?You sure missed the latest news on overpopulation....
The "eye for an eye" is the justice of the Bronze Age, when civilization was grappling with a new technology that made possible the first "weapons of mass destruction": metal blades and armor. The "turn the other cheek" speaks to the denizens of the Iron Age, an era characterized by stronger governments, permanent written records, formal education and philosophy. We've been through another paradigm shift since then, the Industrial Revolution, which brought about its own wrenching changes in morality, and we're smack in the middle of the next one, the Electronic Revolution, which promises to unite all of humanity through instant communication.
I think it's fair, fitting, and necessary to come up with new rules. We don't have to behave like our ancestors. We can be better than they were, just as they could be better than their own cave-dwelling ancestors.Now, I'm in NO WAY demanding capital punishment. I've not asserted that it is required for a fair or crime free society. In fact, even though I believe it can be justified in horrific cases, I am not passionate enough about it to go out rallying for it. What I do believe is that the government's job is to create a balance in society and to see to it that wrongs are righted and that individual members keep up their end of the bargain or forfeit certain portions of their share of the franchise (sometimes all of it). If "righting that wrong" doesn't include lethal injection, I'm okay with that. But it should most certainly include a concept of "rights" which can be forfeit in rare circumstances, and in even rarer circumstances fore the entirety of a specific human lifespan. Now. It certainly appears that Norway has got a lot to brag about. A fairly crime-free society. Good rehabilitative processes in their penal system. I'm not going to damn an entire nation for what I consider to be one egregious injustice. It's just that no society is perfect and while I get that their system was set up to prevent overly-zealous judges from sending people away for times not deserved, I think we can clearly see that some people deserve the maximum and that maximum can be their entire life behind bars.
People who cause trouble must be apprehended and stopped, and when possible restitution must be made. I've got no problem with that. If we think that a particular individual cannot be trusted to reform, with the benefit of all the means at our disposal to heal and retrain him, then obviously we have to separate him from society so he can cause no more harm. As for "making him pay," well sure. If he wrecked your car then he should reimburse your insurance company. But killing him doesn't result in anyone being compensated for their loss. It just incurs additional loss on his friends and family.
What bothers me the most about this argument is that some of the participants seem to believe that because Mister X is a horrible man, that his mother and his father and his wife and his children must be horrible people too. That's the only possible way they can justify killing him and making all of those people feel like shit. Otherwise, they're no better than he is. Thoughtless, uncaring, overcome with their own emotions. I.e., uncivilized.
And as I said, if it's okay for us to kill him because we're angry and grief-stricken, now that his entire family is angry and grief-stricken, why is it not okay for them to kill us? No matter how it's dressed up, the entire argument in favor of capital punishment is illogical. And that is precisely because it is driven by emotions rather than reason.
08-27-12, 11:46 PM #90
08-28-12, 07:47 AM #91
08-28-12, 07:51 AM #92
The "eye for an eye" is the justice of the Bronze Age,
What bothers me the most about this argument
And as I said, if it's okay for us to kill him because we're angry and grief-stricken,
08-28-12, 08:26 AM #93
Yeah, this guy deserves some Texas justice. I normally despise most things Texan but they would know what to do with this creep.
08-28-12, 08:37 AM #94
Crime in Norway is very very low compared to the US and other countries outside of the Scandanavian countries. Could it be because they treat their humans like humans and not like an effigy of emotion?
Justice for justice sake is a knee-jerk reaction. Treating people like humans takes humanity. Unfortunately, that fades more and more from society as we go along. We like to think we are evolving, but most days it looks to me like we are more animalistic from day to day.
08-28-12, 08:52 AM #95
Originally Posted by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/anders-behring-breivik-verdict_n_1827458.html
Bolded are the victims families statements and those of survivors of the attack.
08-28-12, 09:27 AM #96
If he did get out after 21 years, he would need a new identity.
He would be given somewhere to live and enough money to live on.
I'd imagine that they would have to release him under some kind of license.
I don't know how they could do that, given that he would have served his full sentence.
He couldn't be released to go wherever and do whatever he wanted.
That would be a recipe for a lot of trouble should he return to his old ways.
In this instance the judge may have wished to impose a longer sentence, say an indeterminate life sentence,
with the possibility of parole after 21 years. The terms of parole could then severely limit his activities.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people in Sweden asked for that law change.
But "Hard cases make bad law" is a very true maxim.
08-28-12, 09:34 AM #97
Your arguments for the death penalty don't stack up any better now than they did when we had a Formal Debate about the topic. Remember that? Here's the link:
Recall that I rebutted all the arguments that you have repeated in the current thread. Maybe you should re-read and refresh your memory.
08-28-12, 10:02 AM #98
Very well, I'll say this much: certainly there are a variety of other legal approaches that could be used. As an individual at the mercy (although not quite) of the state, naturally one could propose a hundred different staggered solutions to the eventual release of Mr. Breivik; he could have a special parole, he could be ankle-braceleted, he could be licensed or watched or monitored from space. Any of these things could be done.
Here's the thing.
It's fairly likely they won't be.
Without being an expert on Norwegian law (other than in the days when they used to pay out weregild and tie badgers together for fun), I speculate wildly that they have no ankle-monitors, will use no special parole aside from the minimum required by law, and are unlikely to task a satellite specifically to him. Now, it is possible that they really do have one or more of these things, or that they even acquire them 21 years from now. But such would require proactive law. Does such a thing exist? It is rare, and it would be exceedingly rare in the case of a single man to be released after what I'm Norway insists is a sufficiently punitive and/or reconstructive detention period and locale. To create special law or modify already existing ones - I assume he's the first of his kind? - would require a proactive law with some kind of tacit admission that standard law is or would be insufficient to handle Breivik, and this is something legal systems don't do, and which lawyers don't do unless someone is paying them.
Breivik may well come out quite finely adjusted; so adjusted, in fact, that he could be used as a TV antenna by the mechanically inclined. But, given his stance on certain issues, this seems unlikely. And it is thus unlikely in parallel that Norway will adapt to the challenge of his particular...nature. Breivik will emerge, Norway will be unprepared and new tragedies will be planned. Or perhaps it's only my old pessimism.
People run to the death penalty because it seems simple and direct. It satisfies revenge and keeps the public good order. Dead, one feels, is dead, and that's that. And it certainly would be, absent legal process. It's not perfect either, but it has the semantic feel of brushing the judges and their tomfoolery out of the way. I can sympathize, and I do. Frankly, I'd have had him shot.
08-28-12, 10:05 AM #99
Oh, and in what possible insane future do we live where a man's rage against a murderer is confined to throwing plates and yelling (but 'really hard'), this in the land of the descendants of the Vikings? Remember them? With the pointy hats (well, not really) and the dragon ships and the pillaging and murdering? What, did all the tough ones leave or something? Holy hell.
08-28-12, 10:14 AM #100
By thecollage in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 01-20-07, 03:38 AMReplies: 5
By spuriousmonkey in forum About the MembersLast Post: 05-22-04, 08:04 AMReplies: 7
By notPresidentAndrew in forum Art & CultureLast Post: 01-29-03, 06:55 PMReplies: 3
By Fen in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-30-02, 06:53 PMReplies: 30
By Rick in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-26-02, 08:23 AMReplies: 8