LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535
Anders Breivik - the Norwegian murderer.
Death Penalty for him - yes or no - why, why not, and if not, what instead?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535
Anders Breivik - the Norwegian murderer.
Death Penalty for him - yes or no - why, why not, and if not, what instead?
Last edited by Galant; 16-04-2012 at 04:54 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Why bother with the Death Penality for him? Does it save money over imprisonment?
I doubt it would act as a deterrent....
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
No to death penalty, because I'm passionately opposed to it, as much as some crimes and individuals may warrant it.
He should be locked up in a mental health institution for the rest of his life - because that's what he fears. I'm not 100% on whether that's an option under Norwegian law or not.
I'm not at all convinced he's sane but I'm deeply worried the trial is giving this sick, twisted individual the publicity and stand he so obviously craves. That said, I'm not sure what the alternatives would be..
nichomach (20-05-2012)
According to some English language news sources I've read, its not. However Dead Tree Press is often very wrong on these matters.Originally Posted by pollaxe
Apparently if under mental health, the rehabilitation is when the institution believes you are not a danger to yourself or others, there is also this guideline of a decade been thrown about as a maximum under Norwegian law.
But of course I can't remember which one I read it in, where, or google it up.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway, but it can be extended (and likely would be). I'd say that prison is the place for him. His actions were criminal.
Surely the answer to the question depends on what you think the punishment should motivate - rehabilitation? removal from society? is so, to protect society or to simply deprive them of liberty? eye for an eye justice?
The second issue is which is greater punishment, and which benefits society as a whole the most? Death, which is perhaps the ultimate punishment but risks him becoming a martyre, or pay for him to live in (relative) comfort at the Norwegian tax payers' expense?
Whatever the answer to the question, Brevik is, if proven, guilty of heinous crimes, and will either end up in prison or a mental health facility - that much is almost certain.
Why dont they use criminals for clinical trials instead of innocent animals ?
Let them serve a purpose and replace animals who deserve better .
It would speed up much needed improvements in health considerably and indirectly leave fate as the judge of what will happen.
Imprisonment is hardly punishment as long as they have their health ( there are many disabled who suffer far worse and have done nothing ) - take that security away like it is for those of us who dont have it - let their bodies be their prisons instead .
m
Well, instinctively and coldly, my first thought would be to either put him to good use (slave-labour, trials or something) or dispose of him. There's no point of keeping him around at tax-payers cost.
Jail seems to serve more as a protecting the public from someone rather than punishment. Sure, it'll be bad at first, but as long you kept fed and healthy, you'd adapt, especially over "life". So if it's just to keep the public protected, or him protected from the public, death would seem a more definate and cheaper way of doing it.
If he's mentally ill, is it fair to punish him through no fault of his own? Well, in this case, he knows what's right and wrong, and was it fair to his 77 victims? Even if you put him in a mental institution, what's the point? Let's face it, he's beyond rehabilitation. If you're lucky, you might get him to feel remorse; that would at least start him being punished.
And isn't that the whole point? Punishment in this case? Death would probably not serve as a punishment; certainly in extreme circumstances like this, it's highly unlikely to even prove to be a deterrent. Torture? Doesn't have to physical to be affective; could be mentally somehow. Well, that's illegal, although could be questioned whether you would view it as immoral.
Personally (I'd admit to being quite hot-headed and obviously not a balanced view as I haven't researched it thoroughly enough), I think in this case... put him through hell and then send him there.But then, if you went down that route, where would you draw the line...
Last edited by Gerrard; 16-04-2012 at 07:25 PM.
I can't see how you can justify killing him in response to his crimes, it erodes all moral high ground by which you punish him in the first place. After all, if killing is wrong, then it's wrong, no second guessing or justification.
I also think that holding him in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day is a *far* nastier punishment than being simply put to death...
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
Id agree , but how many people are in solitary confinement - esp if theres no room ?
Keep in mind there are many too who like the life in there , as they do mental institutes because its free food and board , kindred souls .
Its all about perception , just because 80% of the public think its punishment , doesnt always mean the criminal feels the same - theres always the exception , esp when it
comes to people who take it ( literally )
m
This is one of the few instances where the death penalty is, in my mind, a no-contest question.
Sometimes there is reasonable doubt, sometimes you have to judge the severity of the crime, neither is in doubt here.
If 'mentally ill' then rehabilitation? Really? If not then he's a nutter who deserves to die, either way I know what my opinion is. Using solitary as a 'worse' punishment? Well that's worse than death for him then so surely death is a *better* option?
If my child was on that island I'd be wringing his neck with my bare hands....
Last edited by Rob_B; 16-04-2012 at 10:36 PM.
Double post
Last edited by Rob_B; 16-04-2012 at 10:27 PM.
The Death Penalty is barbaric, dated and doesn't deter criminal behaviour, it's pure revenge, it's disgusting like the people who support it.
Every life can be put to a use and there are so many jobs that they can be put to work at, I always felt that hard labour or chain gangs was the best way to deal with people like him or my all time favourite, mine clearance and other dangerous jobs where it's better to use these people then a free person. If he dies on the job, then he died on the job doing something good. If he doesn't then he does a service to the country and earns his living expenses.
An other view on the matter is that, if you take the example of Brevik and how many he killed, he would make a good soldier, put a remote controlled explosive collar around his neck or inside him and have him do jobs, if he doesn't do what he is told, flick that switch since he selected suicide.
I should add, I don't have a problem with killing the criminal when you trying to capture him.
We could learn a lot from flims like the Running Man and Cyber City Odeo 808 on how to deal with people like that.
This very thread is why the law is going to poo. How can anyone possibly discuss what is best to do for someone who killed 77 people? WTF? Seriously?
In Afghanistan or Iraq people kill each other every day and nobody thinks anything else of it, yet this guy kills 77 people and most folk here think the better punishment would be improsenment or banging him in a nut house?
WHAT? The guy wants standing against a wall and a bullet putting in his head. Stop being PC and start being serious. It's pure nuts to let this guy breathe any longer.
Last edited by g8ina; 17-04-2012 at 06:43 AM. Reason: removed ref to deleted post
So death penalty is barbaric but strap a bomb around his neck and send him off to do some dirty work or you'll detonate it is ok?.... What?!
The difference between the two is one is state murder where they don't have a choice and the second is they do have a choice, they can live and do a job or if they refuse to do a job, try to escape, harm or do something that is dangerous then they are choosing euthanasia.
But you have to understand, the collar is just a protective device, not an punishment or anything, it's a safety device to make sure the criminal does what he is told and restrain him like a pair of handcuffs.
Same with pro-choice, people should have choices to choose what they want to do with their own lives and bodies.
You have a problem with that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
