I think people that do vrime like this has forfeited their right to reenter our society, hence no need to spend tax dollars on rehabilitation, and as little as possible on keeping them alive. Keep them out of society is the main objective in my opinion.
Oslo (Norway) struck by terror bomb and several killed in shooting attack
(441 posts, started )
Obviously no, mr pedantic
shooting in the direction of someone and directly at someone are not the same thing, plus there is no way he could have aimed for them directly anyway, because it was night time.
Which is why they are relocated to a safe facility away from society...
I have to retract my previous statement somewhat: it seems MOST of Europe moved on from the Middle Ages... Both in light of some comments here, and as I found out Belarus still does it and it would be possible in Russia too...
Anyway, let's face it: his death would accomplish nothing - it can't undo what he did and it will not fill any hole left behind by the heinous crime. You would however stoop to his level, mirror his hatred exactly and in the end you would be no better than him. Life-long incarceration might be a bit too lenient, but it is currently the best way to make sure he won't do harm again without you losing your humanity...
Everyone is suffering from it when we talk about death sentence.
I don't think anyone is dressing it up in any way.
So what does that make prison then? State sanctioned, pre-meditated kidnapping is fine then? Going with that idea any punishment from any crime is wrong because it is always just tyranny and "morally wrong" to do such things to people.
Why exactly life long kidnapping and disconnection from society, friends and relatives is some how fine but death sentence isn't? What exactly makes one better from another? Is there even such huge difference between the two?
In the end the price to taxpayers may be measured in lives when the released breivik decides to do his thing again.
You make the argument from opposition sound like they just want revenge. An eye for an eye. When it is in fact all about incapacitation. Death sentence is nothing more than little more extreme case of incapacitation compared to life long prison sentence.
When someone does something horrible the society must make sure he does not do it again. It has nothing to do with punishing or retribution. It is about incapacitation.
It's already been stated that he'll likely never get out.
As Moose says, it's a moral choice, you have to draw the line somewhere. If it means maying a negligible amount more tax to live by those standards then so be it. I daresay it would be cheaper to stop collecting and processing our domestic refuse, but I'm happy to pay towards a society that considers itself above living in its own shit.
So would cutting off his arms and legs, poking out his eyes and sewing his mouth shut. It would certainly be cheaper than detaining him. But we don't because we are above that.
By what grounds it is morally ok to kidnap people for the rest of their lives but not sentence them to death? How is one wrong wrong but other wrong is necessary?
Indeed. Now I've seen the light. I did not understand before that death sentence is the same as "cutting off his arms and legs, poking out his eyes and sewing his mouth shut...(because it is) cheaper".
It was a horrible thing yes, he was dressed as a police officer and fooled a lot of the kids to belive he was a cop - then he shot them
But to make clear, it's 21 years + 10 additional years. After that time there will be a new evaluation each 5 years, which it will be desided if he is a free man or if he needs to do 5 additional years in prison. I think it's safe to say that he will get be in jail for the rest of his life.
About the guy mention something about 200 bucks limit for police to investigate it - on that part I agree with you! It's silly, but at same time I can understand it, if the police does not have the foundings or men to follow it up. But it's sad, a crime is a crime, and often criminals starts in small then go bigger and bigger til they canot go back. The system should try to catch them and rehabilitate them before they are too far into the shit to be rehabilitated.
In a prison, you don't work, you don't even have to make your own food. Breivik is classed as a psychotic, he's not going to SEE another inmate, so to suggest he's lowest of the low is irrelevant because nobody is going to see him to be able to beat him up.
You say we shouldn't kill a murderer because that's lowering ourselves to THEIR level, but apparently in your mind, it's ok for OTHERS to beat that person within inches of their life.
Why should hard working honest people pay for a killer to live with a roof over his head and food on his table? Well they shouldn't and the only way to make it fair to everyone involved is to give these people the lethal injection, and be gone with the time, money and hassle of keeping them alive.
As a taxpayer if you're happy with paying money towards a criminal killer whilst you struggle to put food on your own table for your own children then maybe you need to re-think your priorities.
Is it? Wow, thanks for informing me what's ok in my mind.
I see your ability to ignore what was said and make up your own interpretation hasn't diminished.
I can't speak for people that are in that situation, but personally I'd rather keep paying for people to be detained for life rather than be complicit in their murder to save a few quid. I'm more concerned about what is morally right rather than money. Anyone that is in favour of the death penalty rather than life imprisonment for financial reasons has lost all sense of humanity.
@ Hyperactive.. I'll respond to your points later.
It's many many many times more expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep them alive due to the legal costs. So choose between paying to keep him alive or paying alot more to kill him
Interesting conversation 
But why do you all differentiate between a convicted murderer like Breivik, and yet support state murders.
"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns said at a UNHRC Geneva seminar on Monday June 18 following the release of 28-pageUN report on US drone attacks. He told the conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
If it is true, he said, that "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime".
http://www.asiantribune.com/ne ... ys-top-un-official-geneva
Shouldn't there be one rule for all, therefor Breivik, rather than being in jail, should receive the Nobel Peace prize.
And probably be appointed president.
But why do you all differentiate between a convicted murderer like Breivik, and yet support state murders.
"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns said at a UNHRC Geneva seminar on Monday June 18 following the release of 28-pageUN report on US drone attacks. He told the conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
If it is true, he said, that "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime".
http://www.asiantribune.com/ne ... ys-top-un-official-geneva
Shouldn't there be one rule for all, therefor Breivik, rather than being in jail, should receive the Nobel Peace prize.
And probably be appointed president.
Explain how, all you need is a needle and a poison legal costs are already high anyway as the bastard is probably going for appeal every 6months anyway..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18735471
So that's $307 million dollars per execution in California.
So that's $307 million dollars per execution in California.
What I think is grotesque with the death penalty, is when 16 year old kids has to sit 15 years in jail and then get executed.
As someone stated earlier, death penalty is not justice or punishment, it's the easy way out. If I ever have to be in a situation where someone has murdered someone of my family, I would much rather use "my tax money" on keeping him alive in prison.
And why are people so against taxes anyway? Taxes are borring, yes no doubt, but have you ever stopped and think of all the great things that has been build and supported over the years thanks to it?
If some of that money goes to the jail system, and hopefully can rehabilitate someone and punish others, then I am very content with that.
As someone stated earlier, death penalty is not justice or punishment, it's the easy way out. If I ever have to be in a situation where someone has murdered someone of my family, I would much rather use "my tax money" on keeping him alive in prison.
And why are people so against taxes anyway? Taxes are borring, yes no doubt, but have you ever stopped and think of all the great things that has been build and supported over the years thanks to it?
If some of that money goes to the jail system, and hopefully can rehabilitate someone and punish others, then I am very content with that.
Yea, and that's in America, where people sit on death row for years without actually being sentenced at all.
Or end up being executed but later it turns out that they were innocent. I don't know if apologising after they've been murdered is a big help 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
How much better and more effective could all that money have been spent... *sigh*
Haha, still, we canot complain 
We got silly amounts of money compared to other parts of the world.
Tax = wealthfare IMO.
We got silly amounts of money compared to other parts of the world. Tax = wealthfare IMO.
In the modern age, a person can be convicted of murder with 100% indisputable proof.
Breivik was the killer, it's all complete truth. These are the people we should be sentencing to death, the people that will spend the rest of their life in prison using up time and money, but normally they plead insanity and get off with a cushy warm cell and anything they want providing they scream about suicidal behavior enough.
So it is grotesque to be 15 years in prison waiting for your death but waiting in prison for 50 years for your death is the better option?
How is death penalty the easy way out compared to life sentence where you just lock someone up and just wait for him to die of old age just do you do not need to do it? Out of sight, out of mind.
The problem with that idea is that it somehow presents it as a solution that limiting the upper end of the sentence length somehow "helps" those who are convicted despite being innocent. With that logic the extreme case is that we should not even have justice system because it is not infallible. Basically the idea is completely wrong and there is some sick logic in your idea. Basically it means we know for a fact that our justice systems convict people wrongly and yet the only thing we should do about is to reduce the sentence lengths??
We should not shorten or lessen the sentence lengths to try to "fix" problems with the justice system. We should fix the justice system itself if it produces wrong sentences.
I mean that they are on cells without a sentence on them, as someone stated earlier, sorry for beeing unclear here.
I think life time prison is much more of a punishment, than what death penalty is. As stated before the biggest reason I'm against death penalty is that it is a primitive way of judging (eye for an eye attitute). Secondly is that a life in prison, no matter how you look on it, is utterly devestating. Never to be released, never to be a free man again.. That is true despair in my eyes. Also the person have to live with all his actions, which I think can be pretty horrible too for a person who is not completely nutcase.
I think life time prison is much more of a punishment, than what death penalty is. As stated before the biggest reason I'm against death penalty is that it is a primitive way of judging (eye for an eye attitute). Secondly is that a life in prison, no matter how you look on it, is utterly devestating. Never to be released, never to be a free man again.. That is true despair in my eyes. Also the person have to live with all his actions, which I think can be pretty horrible too for a person who is not completely nutcase.
So you see the long sentence as revenge? You just want the hardest punishment to get revenge to the criminal? You say you do not like death penalty because for you it is "eye for an eye" yet at the same time you say all you want from the justice system is revenge.
Good point, and I am not sure if I could give a reasonable answer or reason for that. Of course I want a murderer to be punished, anything else would be silly, but at same time I want it to be human, sivilized punishment. Now, we could of course talk if it's human / etically to lock someone away for a lifetime, but I am not going into that because I would cleary lose 
I try not to think of punishment as revenge, more like an judgement, or way of limiting the freedom of someone who has taken away an life - a way / signal to show that the system has the right to take away basic human priviliges (freedom), when extreme actions / violations of a certain ruleset has been broken.
Ultimately I wishes that more criminals could be rehabilitated and released into the society, to continue onwards with an meaningfull life and a place in the society.
Life time prison should only be used in extreme cases.
I try not to think of punishment as revenge, more like an judgement, or way of limiting the freedom of someone who has taken away an life - a way / signal to show that the system has the right to take away basic human priviliges (freedom), when extreme actions / violations of a certain ruleset has been broken.
Ultimately I wishes that more criminals could be rehabilitated and released into the society, to continue onwards with an meaningfull life and a place in the society.
Life time prison should only be used in extreme cases.
I think there are things that cannot be undone and once you do it, you lose the right to reset your life, prisonment is just a reflection of how the society will accept you. If you won't be accepted it may actually be better to stay in prison, people now can run business, write books, painted etc if they behave well.
I'm not discussing what the correct time in prison is for any offence, I'm just pointing out the fact that if someone is wrongfully convicted then it's easier to attempt to redress this issue if you havn't killed them.
We jail people because we believe that their actions are not acceptable to us as a society, therefore if you commit unacceptable behaviour then society chooses that you should be incarcerated for a specific period as punishment.
And society accepts that this will come at a cost, paid through taxes, to remove those that we believe guilty, after a trial, for a set period of time.
In the case of murder, what is an accepted period ?
If you kill someone, remove their life, then what is an acceptable punishment ?
And, the point I'm actually trying to make, what is the difference between an individual committing murder, or a state committing murder.
Are states exempt from responsibility for their actions while individuals should be punished ?
Please discuss !
And yes, absolutely, I know a number of people who changed their lives after a prison sentence and are now advocates to help others not make the same choices that they did earlier in their lives.
If you are unprepaired to accept you screwed up, won't accept that your actions affect others then should you be released ?
When you clearly refuse to behave by societys standards and state you'll reoffend as your the only person who matters and what you do to others is irrelivent to you then the rules change.
We've got a case like this where I am, and the locals have offered to deal with this particular problem. Legal - no. Effective - yes.
Oslo (Norway) struck by terror bomb and several killed in shooting attack
(441 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG