Quote from Boris Lozac :

Yeah it's great, in my country you can't even defend yourself if a burgler walks in your house, you have to be like 'oh hello sir take whatever you want', if i stab him or shoot him I go to jail, i can't even defend myself in my own home.
I'll take the US "shoot anyone in your front yard in the face" law any day over that..

This.

Seconded!

When seconds count the police is only minutes away....

Actually you have this act of emergency law in Norway.
Examples of this is:

Someone is badly hurt, you have to get to hospital fast. There has been incidents where the police have dropped all fines / charges for the drivers when they can prove they drove a sick / ill person.

Also, there was this neightbour who killed the other neightbour's dog. What happend next was that the owner of the dog whent on a rampage, and eneded up murdering the one who shot. The court came to the conclusion that it was an provoken accident, and that the owner of the dog got and mental break-down when his dog died, therfor he did not go to jail for the episode.
I sadly don't have scource for this one, but it was a big discussion regarding this on school, wheter or not this was the right judgement.

Lastly, there are self defence laws here. If someone is threatning your life, you can apply force back. By that means that if someone is trying to kill you, you can try to harm the person
However, it need to be good evidences that you were in danger, before you can use the self defence act in a court.

Not sure what it's like in other countries, but here you'd probably get away with killing someone if you can prove your life was in immediate danger. This is the only time I could ever justify killing someone - if, personally, at that moment it was either you (or someone with you) or them.

This is entirely different from seeing someone in your yard and coming out guns a-blazing. Tony Martin* take note.



*Shot a teenager in the back and then claimed 'self defence'

Have I said ANY EU country dumb face?

Quote from bbman :

Well, Europe has moved on from the middle ages...

So letting a mass killer live is worth it? Waste of time and money is worth it? In a sense it's more liberal to kill them rather than to let them suffer.

Justice is an eye for an eye, whatever way you look at it, THAT is true justice, allowing a guy to live a life, whether a life of torture in prison or a life of luxury it's still the same, they are using up time and resources whilst the people they killed are no longer on the planet serving as decent human beings.

Why should tax payers pay for his food and water tax payers that are the family of the deceased when they have lost so much?

I holeheartly disagree, the justice you refering to is something similar to dark ages / middle east these day, it's just not sivilized and it's no justice at all. Killing someone is, excactly killing someone. Who are we to say that "this murder is OK, since the guy is bad". Isn't that the same the murder do? He thinks he is above others and have the right to kill others because that's justice in his / her eye.

An eye for an eye only causes a circle of neverending bloodshet and nothing good comes out of that. What we need to do is to stand above the killer, and not go down to his low level.

Personally, rotting for the rest of my life in a jail cell would be a far worse punishment than having the easy way out and being executed.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Yeah it's great, in my country you can't even defend yourself if a burgler walks in your house, you have to be like 'oh hello sir take whatever you want', if i stab him or shoot him I go to jail, i can't even defend myself in my own home.
I'll take the US "shoot anyone in your front yard in the face" law any day over that..

It's all about reasonable force. If there's a burglar in your house, pulling a knife or a gun on him will 99% of the time make him shit himself and run away, so if you do actually stab/shoot you are using well beyond reasonable force.

Quote from DeKo :

It's all about reasonable force. If there's a burglar in your house, pulling a knife or a gun on him will 99% of the time make him shit himself and run away, so if you do actually stab/shoot you are using well beyond reasonable force.

It's true, Deko. Self defense laws here are just stupid. I went once to police to report my car had been robbed (rear window was broken, they went in but didn't steal anything, cause there wasn't anything to steal in it).
Policeman asked if my car was moved and I said no. He answered that they couldn't do anything about it then.
I've asked him what could I do myself to protect my car next time if I see someone robbing it? He said "nothing, and I wouldn't advise you to, because you'd be the one with pressed charges against". He explained if I attacked the robber and:

1. cause him browses or brake one tooth it'd be consider like minor charges
2. bleed him or brake a bone or brake two or more teeth, that would be major charges

So, next time I catch someone trying to rob my car I can just bark at him hoping that he would go away. That's how stupid some of the laws here are and I completely agree with Boris wanting that particular US law in our country too.

What happens when some kids goes to steal some apples at an old man's house, and then he shot them dead?
"Oh, they were stealing from me, I got to defend myself".
That is what the American system encourages these days, so NO, I do not want that law in any country near me.

But I agree, there are a lot of bad police work out there. The laws is not the problem, is the ones trying to apply them who does wrong.
At least the police could try to collect some evidences, or at least care, but meh... but again, thats the system - good things and bad things comes out from it.

Just mount a webcam close to the car, and next time someone breaks something - send the video tape to the police and they can identify the person(s).

Edit: Your forgiven

Quote from The Very End :

I*iot deleted his message like a real troll that he is, so it sounded like i speak with myself or to the poster above..

Quote from The Very End :

What happens when some kids goes to steal some apples at an old man's house, and then he shot them dead?
"Oh, they were stealing from me, I got to defend myself".
That is what the American system encourages these days, so NO, I do not want that law in any country near me.

It doesn't have to be that drastic, but our system is drastic in opposite direction. You can just watch them do it and you are able to do absolutely nothing legally. It's completely crazy.
Of course, I do not greet a "shoot everybody on your land" type of law, but some kind of self protection would be nice.

Quote from The Very End :

Just mount a webcam close to the car, and next time someone breaks something - send the video tape to the police and they can identify the person(s).

Another bad low in our country: if they steal money or goods valued less than 200 EUR, they would not go after them (that's why policeman asked if the car was moved, because then it would've been treated as a stealing attempt).

So, basically you are not able to legally protect your own property from robbers.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Justice is an eye for an eye, whatever way you look at it, THAT is true justice,

Bullshit. That's not justice, it's revenge.

Justice is punishing someone for their crimes. Removing their liberty for the rest of their lives is justice. Killing them is the easy way out.

Have you saw one of those prisons? He will live better then most people on freedom...

Quote from Crashgate3 :

This is entirely different from seeing someone in your yard and coming out guns a-blazing. Tony Martin* take note.



*Shot a teenager in the back and then claimed 'self defence'

Or, shot in their direction, (not directly at either of them) while they were still in the house, which is what actually happened.

Quote from The Moose :

Bullshit. That's not justice, it's revenge.

Justice is punishing someone for their crimes. Removing their liberty for the rest of their lives is justice. Killing them is the easy way out.

So other people should fund their 'living'? It's bullshit my brother gets killed, and I pay through tax to keep the murderer alive? That's not justice....

There is a difference between "being kept alive" and the treatment he gets in norwegian prisons. The man has several cells, for crying out loud! There are currently 6000 students without a place to live, but Scumbag mofo got his own office, funded with MY taxmoney. That's not right!

Personally I used to think that long sentences are better than death sentences because the way I thought death sentence is actually the easier solution for the guilty. But after that I've learned more about the justice system and what are its purposes. Sentences have basically 5 different purposes:
Retribution
Deterrence
Denunciation
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
Reparation


Now personally I try to use logic and facts and remove any ideologies when I try think about this. I don't think retribution should have any place in modern justice system. I think incapacitation is the most important aspect of sentencing. Removing a dangerous individual from the society. But I also think rehabilitation is very important which is why removing from society is problematic. Of course the point where to draw the line is difficult as well. Where does rehabilitation become ineffective?

One of the reasons american justice system has higher recidivism rates than UK is the different focus. UK system tends to focus more on rehabilitation. So while rehabilitation has indeed helped to reduce crime and is indeed effective one also needs to remember that the cases we are focusing now are the most serious ones. The ones that either get long prison sentences or even death penalties in other countries.

I've not yet come across any study which says that in the case of most serious crimes (like mass murders) the rehabilitation could actually do its job. Which at the moment leaves the long prison sentence as the only option. I think death sentence should be one of the tools of the justice system. I don't think there are any good reasons why it should not be used. Most of the reasons against death sentence are just ideological. We should not kill. Well we should not kidnap and imprison people either. The way I see it it is just double standard to say long prison sentences are fine but death sentence isn't.

The way I see it death sentence is the most extreme form of punishment for the most extreme cases. It is the most extreme form of incapacitation and it is also extremely effective.

I think we should acknowledge the fact that we can not heal or cure everyone. Rehabilitation is a great tool that works but not 100%. Sometimes you just have to put the society in front of individual. I think it is fair point that a person can become too dangerous for the society. And once that happens the society needs to use the more deadly tools to protect itself.

So in essence I'd say Breivik is too dangerous to live. We need a sure way to incapacitate him and prevent him from killing more. Death sentence does just that.

Exactly, when it's cases like this that there is no doubt he did it, or when they confess like he did, then the death sentence is the right way.

Quote from Hyperactive :

I don't think retribution should have any place in modern justice system.

I think death sentence should be one of the tools of the justice system. I don't think there are any good reasons why it should not be used.

i think what youre suffering from is called cognitive dissonance

Quote from danthebangerboy :

not directly at either of them

Ah, with magic, turning bullets?

The death sentence can never be the right way.

You cant condemn murderers on one hand then agree that murdering someone as a punishment is fine. And that's what the death penalty is, no matter how you want to dress it up...it's state sanctioned, pre-meditated murder.

I have no problem with complaints that his prison may be too easy, but that's really a separate issue, and no matter how comfy his prison may be, it really is no way to live the rest of your life. Can you seriously tell me that spending 60 odd years without the ability to ever leave a pretty small area is living a life?
Don't forget, he's not going to have an easy time in Jail. He's a child killer. Child Killers are looked down upon as the lowest of the low even amongst criminals. He's a control freak..he'll have no control of his life now. Anyone that argues that he's got it too easy in prison is deluded. After a few years inside I bet if you offered him the death penalty he's take it.

The cost to taxpayers is a complete non argument imo. It's a moral question.. do we lower ourselves to the level of these criminals? Do we become murderers for the sake of revenge? Surely we have moved on as a species. We are better than them. Let's act like it. It's not like they would suddenly reduce your taxes ever time they knocked off a prisoner anyway

Norwegian suspect in mass murders reportedly hated Muslims



"A 32-year-old Norwegian man who killed at least 92 muslims, most of them children......"

Serving only 21 years.

Very sad, thats a true devil in disguise.