Thread: Breivik gives Nazi salute in court challenge jail isolation

Originally Posted by Looper

If someone knows they will be strung up and it will be done quickly that is a stone-wall deterrent. Please don't bore us with your tedious statistical studies showing otherwise.

Tranlsation: Please don't bore me with any facts. I know how it works and my mind is made up.

^^^That is all very fascinating MrG.

However, I would humbly assert that it is a pile of horses' sweaty bollix.

Do you find the prospect of being executed to make a you a bit hot under the collar?

Would the prospect of execution be enough to make you think twice about a course of action?

I would also like to keep this on topic. Can we come back to 'deterrence'. We have not done with the relationship between revenge and justice yet.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

If someone knows they will be strung up and it will be done quickly that is a stone-wall deterrent. Please don't bore us with your tedious statistical studies showing otherwise.

Tranlsation: Please don't bore me with any facts. I know how it works and my mind is made up.

What do you expect... the poor chaps a graduate in post-truth studies at trump university

Originally Posted by MrG

Settled as far as I'm concerned. There may be some sense of justice in a personal sense

Is it really settled?

I outlined 2 dimensions to the revenge aspect of justice (victim and societal). I assert that revenge is a valid component of the calculus of justice. Do you agree with this basic assertion or not?

You keep appending -lust onto the term. Is this an attempt to cheapen the validity of the claim that revenge is a legitimate component of acts of justice?

I don't believe such cheapening is warranted. I believe revenge is a full partner in the collection of aims which acts of justice set out to achieve. The west needs to get over its moral squeamishness about the 'R' word.

Originally Posted by MrG

Sorry, Looper, you don't run the conversation, and deterrence is as much a part of this topic as revenge lust. If you want to call the piles of research over years and years that dispute the validity of Captial Punishment as a pile of sweaty bollox, that's your embarrassment.

I fully accept that there are good arguments against capital punishment. These are mainly on the grounds of a moral objection to killing of any kind which is a sound line of argument although not one with which I agree.

I think the broader argument is weakened by appealing to patent nonsense such as the idea that the prospect of being executed is not a deterrent to a course of action. People do not want to be executed. It is a much more sobering prospect than incarceration. I think you can fabricate statistical studies to support just about any old nonsense. I don't buy the argument that execution is not a deterrent, especially if the execution is to be carried out promptly. Execution in the states currently means sitting around on death row with your thumb up your ass for 15 years doing TV interviews. What a pile of bollix. Execution should mean that you are swinging within 12 months of your prosecution. That would be a far more sobering prospect.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by stroller It is mercyful not to chop off the entire hand of a thief - that would be barbarism - just one finger every time they're getting caught, that way there is a permanent reminder for him and a warning for unsuspecting shopowners, for example.

ld also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.

I guess you are being humorous?

I'd appreciate a reasoned response rather than dismissal & ridicule. Even though my proposal may go against your liberal, mercyful attitude, it meets most of your criteria:

1. Deterrence of the offender from re-offending by suffering through punishment (imprisonment or fine)
2. Deterrence of others from offending by exemplary punishment (imprisonment or fine)
3. Rehabilitation of the offender (education and therapy)
4. Containment and mitigation of risk by physical containment of a dangerous offender (prison)
5. Study of the offender to gain understanding of the psychology behind the offending for future mitigation (academic study)
6. Victim Revenge - Giving the victim and their family a sense of justice through seeing the suffering of the offender as retaliation for their suffering
7. Societal Revenge - Letting society see that the offender who breaks the rules that everyone has democratically agreed to live by and legally enforced is made to suffer accordingly so that his net benefit is zero or negative

No containment, i.e. prison necessary, thus also cost effective. The loss of a finger is educational and deterrent enough.

Wow, I don't understand you guys... unbelievable the majority of you will laugh with glee if any farang is beaten to a pulp (regardless of the circumstance) some will even coldly scold a suicide victim FFS..

But here we have one of the most vile and heinous acts ever committed in recent human history against mankind, by this animal and empathy suddenly emerges for him from the shackles within your chest...WTF?


Looper, is one of the most liberal minded/reasonable guys on this forum (IMHO) - if anyone was going to empathize with that animal, I'd pick him, not you guys..

Did you geezers flip a coin before replying? heads side with the 77 murdered kids, tails side with the cold blooded killer...

I could go to a nun's convention and ask 100 nuns what they think... I bet 99.999% of them would say blow his brains out.

Come on guys, the cnut doesn't deserve any comfort or consideration - he extinguished his human rights when he methodically and sadistically murdered those kids.

Even mild mannered Dick, would happily pull the trigger (multiple times).

Originally Posted by Looper

I outlined 2 dimensions to the revenge aspect of justice (victim and societal). I assert that revenge is a valid component of the calculus of justice. Do you agree with this basic assertion or not?

I agree that revenge is personal, as in a personal emotion. Societal revenge, to be justice, should work in the constraints of reasonable norms. Shall we torture torturers? Is that your idea of revenge justice? Should we treat all sick criminals the same way they treated their victems...maybe let the victims families choose the punishment. What are reasonable norms. The safe of society is one, and locking up dangerous people without possibility of parole is safe.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think the broader argument is weakened by appealing to patent nonsense such as the idea that the prospect of being executed is not a deterrent to a course of action. People do not want to be executed. It is a much more sobering prospect than incarceration. I think you can fabricate statistical studies to support just about any old nonsense.

The argument is not weakened at all. It's true. Your observation that people do not want to die for their crimes is valid. But they find that when people are committing crimes they do not think they are going to get caught. Hence, no deterrent.

Same with murders of passion--not insanity, passion.

These statistics are not fabricated as you so blithly and ignorantly accuse. Apparantly do did not know that they have been long established facts for years. It also costs more for the State to kill someone in the long run, but I'm sure you'll find that out in even a cursory glance at the research out there. I've given you good start, and if you're serious about the topic you'll find some on your own.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

But here we have one of the most vile and heinous acts ever committed in recent human history against mankind, by this animal and empathy suddenly emerges for him from the shackles within your chest...WTF?

Have you read the thread?

He is not an animal, as much as we might like to disown him. He is one of us. For some here, one of God's creation.
I have not used the word "empathy" during this exchange.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

Looper, is one of the most liberal minded/reasonable guys on this forum (IMHO).

Lawdy.... Lawdy.... Lawdy....

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

I could go to a nun's convention and ask 100 nuns what they think... I bet 99.999% of them would say blow his brains out.

How much are you prepared to lose, Gamblin' Man?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

If someone knows they will be strung up and it will be done quickly that is a stone-wall deterrent. Please don't bore us with your tedious statistical studies showing otherwise.

Tranlsation: Please don't bore me with any facts. I know how it works and my mind is made up.

What an utterly bizarre comment.

Completely telling though.

Mr G. ^

Loopy seems like a reasonable guy to me. Of course, we can't agree with everything each of us think/say... but in general he seems pretty intelligent and articulate to me.

That nun analogy was the first thing that popped into my vacuous head, just after waking up... (silly example I know) just trying to make a point.

Point being that even the most tolerant of folk, would care more for the 77 young kids he murdered than any perceived lack of creature comforts (internet, porn channels, flower garden, view of the alps, etc) that this animal is lacking.

His prison cell looks better equipped than some farang's apartments in Toyland.

He is a soulless animal mate... being human is about our ability to empathize with others. Killing 77 innocent kids in cold blood, immediately removes any default human rights and proves without any doubt, you should be caged up like the wild animal you are.

God's creature? 555 that's even more silly than my Nun comment.. there is no God in this universe, as is clearly evidenced by these horrendous crimes. No Santa, no tooth fairy or Zeus, either.

*I know you didn't say you believe in the God fairy-tale. You were referring to other members of this forum.

^ I don't wana bash on anyone... some of his writing feature too advanced prose for my simple brain to digest is all... still think he's a good guy and makes some valid points.

Originally Posted by stroller

No containment, i.e. prison necessary, thus also cost effective. The loss of a finger is educational and deterrent enough.

Originally Posted by MrG

Societal revenge, to be justice, should work in the constraints of reasonable norms. Shall we torture torturers? Is that your idea of revenge justice?

Well I guess we are really having 2 different dicussions here

1. Does modern justice incorporate state assisted revenge

2. Is the death penalty justifiable in some cases


So (1) does modern justice incorporate state assisted revenge...

When a convicted offender is about to be sentenced the law in many countries first calls for victim impact statements to be read to the court. My understanding is that this is so that the measure of punishment can be tailored more closely to the level of suffering that the offender caused which I would say is state assisted revenge by any other name.

I think judicial process and sentencing undoubtedly incorporates an element of what would have been known otherwise as revenge. The word makes people uncomfortable when it is used in the context of judicial process and I have outlined my idea of why that is the case. i.e. 2nd testament Christian philosophy has given us the incorrect idea that revenge is somehow unworthy and immoral.

Acknowledging that justice involves an element of revenge does not in any way require that the offender be subjected to similar acts that he perpetrated. It simply requires that their suffering (as measured on some arbitrary suffering scale) be made proportionate to their crime. Part of the function of justice is to demonstrate to society that the rules under which they live are morally sound. Therefore cutting people fingers off is not going to happen as that is barbarism. Methods and modes of punishment must be civilised.


(2) So then, is the death penalty civilised? That is a very big question. Lots of people react squeamishly to state sanctioned killing of humans even when those humans have committed the worst acts imaginable. It is good that the population is squeamish. It shows that we are indeed growing more civilised as the centuries pass. Hangings used to be the best public entertainment available in more primitive times and children were publicly hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.

What I am proposing is civilised ending of life quietly, painlessly and behind closed doors. Not a public spectacle. And this should be reserved for the worst cases where terrible suffering has been inflicted on a large scale and no remorse is shown.

Society has another Christian hangover. The sanctity of life. (this is what misguidedly informs the debate about assisted suicide - another debate entirely - You can't assist a sufferer to go because life is sacred). But we are just highly evolved animals. Life is 'sacred' to the extent that we democratically agree that it is sacred. It is not sacred in some absolute mystical sense.

There are many circumstances under which killing humans is OK. Self defence, war, assisted suicide, philosophical conundrums such as killing one innocent person to save many.

I am proposing that there is one other circumstance where it is OK. That is when a person has so thoroughly offended and debased society that their offences could never be reasonably be said to have been paid for through incarceration. The reason why I find Breivik to tick all the required boxes for slipping past the general modern disapproval of capital punishment are:-

(1) The scale of his murder
(2) Most victims were killed individually one by one
(3) He shows no remorse
(4) He is sane
(5) He seems to revel in and enjoy his celebrity
(6) He says he would do it again
(7) He goes out of his way to offend society further with his Nazi views (why do they allow him press coverage?)
(8) He lives in relative comfort compared to most prisoners but causes his victims more suffering by bringing frivolous legal cases to complain

^ Q1. (to you all) Would you have him executed? Yes/No?

Q2. If yes, by what means?

Q3. If no, imagine it was your son/daughter murdered... revisit Q1.

Q4. If still no...under what conditions should he be imprisoned - and how long?

Here's hoping even if you choose imprisonment, you would keep him inside until his death.

Oh.. one more question for you guys...straight up, no BS... would you pull the trigger?

You know my stance already... BANG! bang bang...

bang...

stomp... BANG! giggle.. bang!... selfie... BANG!!

Originally Posted by taxexile

for what he did he needs to suffer and suffer hard for a long time.

Then he has to be kept alive..

Yes, putting him out of his misery would be humane.
Make him sit alone in a dark cell for the rest of his days.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Make him sit alone in a dark cell for the rest of his days.

With nothing but an internet connection to smeg's facebook page, (after all everybody deserves at least one friend) and a link to piwanoi's google search history.

Breivik hasn't yet begun to learn the meaning of the word suffering! amirite Loopy?

Transgressions or bad netiquette will be punished by having thoughtful and motivational tweets from Ant blasted into their cells 16 times daily and if that is not enough they can be further subjected to the collected musings of a few poets and other ne'er do wells as gathered by TD's foremost literary critic B-Boy (emphasis on Boy).

In the unlikely event that even that inhumane and incalculably cruel treatment fails to produce a reformed and beneficial member of Loopers Republic of Stepford I shall send them a very strongly worded letter. And I mean very strongly worded, it may even contain profanity I am sorry to say.

Originally Posted by slackula

Transgressions or bad netiquette will be punished by having thoughtful and motivational tweets from Ant blasted into their cells 16 times daily

#KeepingThatShitReal

^ 555 very good, Slack.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by slackula

Transgressions or bad netiquette will be punished by having thoughtful and motivational tweets from Ant blasted into their cells 16 times daily

#KeepingThatShitReal

Does Smeg, I mean cedric2, I mean onree know you've been nicking his cue cards?

Originally Posted by Looper

between revenge and justice yet.

monkey tryin to be human.

no offence just sayin like.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Yes, putting him out of his misery would be humane.
Make him sit alone in a dark cell for the rest of his days.

That's not going to happen, he will run through the Norwegian court system, then the EU court of human rights, which have said, many times, IE US super max prisons.
Isolation is not allowed as a form of long term punishment.

He is not allowed to be in solitary confinement as a punishment for his crimes, court gave a sentence, the sentence was imprisonment, at that point he is just another prisoner, no special rules.

For those who think he will be killed in main stream/general population or some form of protection unit, they have no idea how prisons work.

He will be seen as what he is, a stone killer, a hero to some, a man to be feared by others and a rallying point to extreme groups in the prison.

This is not a Norwegian problem, legally, it is a western soft on punishment problem, we don't have the laws.

Told this story before, rolled around on the ground, 2 lifers with shivs fighting, if I had died in the fight, 30 days loss TV [Australia] no capital punishment, that's it.

He get out of Solitary, starts problems, kills again. nothing they can do, he has the max term already.

Often a fuzzy line between schizophrenic and some lesser diagnosis, dangerous and not, etc., but it seems that there might be enough going to reclassify this guy as a goner if they can put him away longer than the sentence he got.