Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[mistermack]

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in that argument.
Slavery isn't going to work when those running it don't own the slaves, and don't make anything from their work.
Slavery is fundamentally suited to private enterprise, not a communist system.

[Seth]

As far as I'm concerned, if a man goes out and works ten hours a day on minimum wage, and is expected to pay tax on what he earns, then inheritances should be taxed AT LEAST at the same rate as that.
Income is income, whether it comes from your parents, or an employer.

Er, it IS taxed, when the decedent earns it. Why should it be taxed again merely because he has died and given it to his heirs?

Income is income, whether it comes from your parents, or an employer

Income is earned. Inheritance is a gift from one person to another. It's like a birthday present. Do you propose to impose a tax on birthday presents too?

Try to read what you're criticising. You might not agree with it, but that's no reason to pretend it isn't there.

I read it, it's bollocks.

This argument that money has already been taxed is ludicrous.

Only to thieves who want to take what isn't theirs. Why should death be a taxable event? One's property has been fully paid for both by the effort of earning it and the taxes paid when it was acquired. If I want to give you some object I've earned and purchased, and paid taxes upon, why should you pay an additional tax on that transfer?

And, you are aware, are you not, that it is not the INHERITORS who are taxed, but the ESTATE that is taxed, prior to distribution to the heirs. "Inheritance tax" is the wrong term, because it's actually a Death Tax. Now, upon what rational basis does someone owe 50 percent (or whatever) to the government merely because one has the temerity to drop dead, pray tell? If ever there was an unjust and immoral tax, it's the Death Tax.

All income has been taxed before.

Precisely. When it's earned. Why tax it again?

It's you who should have to justify why people should get a tax break when they receive inherited money.

Usually it's not money, it's goods, and the tax is levied on the "fair market value" of the property. But even if it is money, why should it be taxed? It was fairly earned and taxed when it was earned. That's the key, you see: "earned."

They pay if they work for it. Even if they work for their parents. Why should they not pay, when they get it for nothing?

Because they got it for nothing, as a gift from their parents, to make their lives better than the lives of their parents, so that they can continue to move up in the world and not be driven right back down to the very bottom of the economic ladder by confiscatory, socialist taxation of the event of the death of a loved one. Families work hard and build up wealth, both as money and as property, so that their children will be better off than they were, but you would simply steal all that work away, work that has been paid for with the sweat and blood of the parents, and leave their children without the very purpose for which their parents spent their lives accumulating wealth.

You would destroy family businesses and farms because you are too fucking greedy to make your own way, and have to get what you want by stealing it from others, who unlike you worked hard to provide for their families.

That's the reality of the Death Tax. It's about greedy fucks jealous of the economic success of others using the blunt force of government to strip the next generation of that carefully husbanded and accumulated wealth out of pure, unadulterated jealousy and envy. It's about greedy, jealous fucks who want others to start at the bottom merely because they didn't have parents who gave them a leg up. It's about the most evil sort of socialist/communist hammering down of anyone who actually succeeds economically into the stinking proletarian mire of egalitarianism just because the evil fucks of the dependent class can't stand to see anyone better off than they are, all the while being to fucking bone lazy and incompetent to make their own way in the world.

[Seth]

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in that argument.
Slavery isn't going to work when those running it don't own the slaves, and don't make anything from their work.
Slavery is fundamentally suited to private enterprise, not a communist system.

Nonsense. Slavery works great for communists because it allows the indolent dependent class to be more indolent and dependent while whipping their slaves to produce the goods they need and want to make them better able to wallow in their indolence and dependence.

In Soviet Russia, EVERYONE was a slave to the Central Committee, and it worked out rather well for the Communist elite, and still does.

[Woodbutcher]

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in that argument.
Slavery isn't going to work when those running it don't own the slaves, and don't make anything from their work.
Slavery is fundamentally suited to private enterprise, not a communist system.

Nonsense. Slavery works great for communists because it allows the indolent dependent class to be more indolent and dependent while whipping their slaves to produce the goods they need and want to make them better able to wallow in their indolence and dependence.

In Soviet Russia, EVERYONE was a slave to the Central Committee, and it worked out rather well for the Communist elite, and still does.

If you change communists to capitalists and Russia to the USA Sandi could have made this post.

[Seth]

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in that argument.
Slavery isn't going to work when those running it don't own the slaves, and don't make anything from their work.
Slavery is fundamentally suited to private enterprise, not a communist system.

Nonsense. Slavery works great for communists because it allows the indolent dependent class to be more indolent and dependent while whipping their slaves to produce the goods they need and want to make them better able to wallow in their indolence and dependence.

In Soviet Russia, EVERYONE was a slave to the Central Committee, and it worked out rather well for the Communist elite, and still does.

If you change communists to capitalists and Russia to the USA Sandi could have made this post.

Nobody's a slave to capitalism. You are free not to work and nobody will force you to do so. Of course, you may starve to death, but that's your problem.

[Coito ergo sum]

Psychiatrists assessing self-confessed Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik have concluded that he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

They believe he was in a psychotic state both during and after the twin attacks on 22 July that led to the deaths of 77 people and injured 151.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

[Dries van Tonder]

http://rt.com/news/breivick-not-fit-trial-471/

Confessed mass killer Andres Breivik is not mentally sound and cannot be held accountable for the double terror attack in July, which ended with 77 people dead, doctors have determined, as cited by Norwegian media.
Psychiatrist Torger Husby, who was among the medical team examining the self-proclaimed crusader, said he and his colleagues had come to a clear conclusion on the 32-yaer-old’s mental health, but declined to elaborate.
Psychiatrists who evaluated the mental state of mass killer Anders Breivik have come up with an assessment for a Norwegian court on Tuesday.
The key findings are expected at a news conference later on Tuesday. The finding by the two forensic psychiatrists will help determine whether Breivik is sentenced to prison or psychiatric care.
"The conclusion is … is that he is insane," prosecutor Svein Holden told a news conference. "He lives in his own delusional universe and his thoughts and acts are governed by this universe."

[Svartalf]

Good, put him in a padded bin and melt the key in the lock.

[Seth]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

[JimC]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

Agreed.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

I think the concept is that if he did not have the mental state to appreciate the nature of his actions or tell right from wrong, then he could not have the necessary mens rea to be guilty of the "crime" in the first place.

There is no question that he "killed" people (well, assuming that the police arrested the right guy - none of us were there - so that is what a trial would be for), but assuming he killed the people, then there is still a question as to whether the killings were murder. Murder requires a specific kind of mens rea - intent to kill or intent to do great bodily harm. The insanity defense negates the "intent" element, because he couldn't formulate that particular mental state.

There would be no point in punishing him if he was unable to tell right from wrong or to appreciate the nature of his actions at the time of he committed them, because he would not be aware of what he is being punished for and the rehabilitative effect of punishment would be nonexistent, since he he didn't do the deed because he wanted to.

The reason people don't like the insanity defense is more along the lines of not buying it. We don't believe, no matter what the psychiatrists say, that he didn't know what he was doing. Alternatively, we don't care that he didn't know. He did it. Fuck him. I agree with the latter. There is no real way this fellow will ever be reasonably able to be admitted back into society, regardless of his mental state at the time of the killings.

[Seth]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

I think the concept is that if he did not have the mental state to appreciate the nature of his actions or tell right from wrong, then he could not have the necessary mens rea to be guilty of the "crime" in the first place.

Indeed it is. But in that case "involuntary manslaughter" would be the lowest charge I'd accept. One does not have to have an "intent" to commit that crime.

There are "strict liability" crimes that ignore mens rea entirely, like running a stop sign or trespassing, and I see no reason why one should be excused all responsibility and liability for the killing of another person merely because one was insane at the time, particularly not this sort of insanity. He may have been living in his own paranoid, schizophrenic world, but he knew exactly what he was doing. That he did not perceive it as being "wrong" is to me irrelevant. He committed the crime, he must pay the price of doing so, and more importantly society must be protected against his falling into psychotic delusion and doing harm again, permanently. Once you succumb to such urges, there is no way to guarantee that he will not do so again in the future.

When a vicious dog attacks someone, we don't give them a second chance to attack again, and the rule should be the same for the "criminally insane." Sorry if that sounds "inhumane," but I judge people on their actions, not their intentions, and I see no reason to forgive such actions and place society at risk by declaring someone who does such things "innocent by reason of insanity."

There is no question that he "killed" people (well, assuming that the police arrested the right guy - none of us were there - so that is what a trial would be for), but assuming he killed the people, then there is still a question as to whether the killings were murder. Murder requires a specific kind of mens rea - intent to kill or intent to do great bodily harm. The insanity defense negates the "intent" element, because he couldn't formulate that particular mental state.

Then the law is wrong and needs to be amended to provide that murder may still be done even if the person is delusional at the time. After all, the fact that he was insane at the time does not mitigate the harm he did or protect society against his future acts. The people are just as dead and they deserve justice, which is not served by letting him get away with murder simply because he's adjudicated to be insane. As I said, insanity should be a mitigating factor in his sentencing, but it should not prevent society from pronouncing him guilty of murder. He knew full well he was killing people. He wasn't fighting imaginary monsters when he accidentally drove his car into a crowd, he identified his enemies, carefully and calculatedly targeted and killed them. That he didn't believe he was doing wrong is, or should be utterly irrelevant to his conviction for an intentional and pre-meditated plan of murder.

There would be no point in punishing him if he was unable to tell right from wrong or to appreciate the nature of his actions at the time of he committed them, because he would not be aware of what he is being punished for and the rehabilitative effect of punishment would be nonexistent, since he he didn't do the deed because he wanted to.

As I said, insanity should be a mitigating factor in the sentence. Sentences are not just about punishment, they are about both justice and rehabilitation. But he should not walk free after some counseling and treatment with no record of having murdered dozens of people. He is a dangerous psychopath and will always be dangerous even if some doctor somewhere says he's "healed" of his mental defect. He should be constrained in his actions and watched carefully for the rest of his life, and only a "guilty" verdict gives the government the power to do that regardless of what some psychiatrist, who may be wrong, says.

The reason people don't like the insanity defense is more along the lines of not buying it. We don't believe, no matter what the psychiatrists say, that he didn't know what he was doing. Alternatively, we don't care that he didn't know. He did it. Fuck him. I agree with the latter. There is no real way this fellow will ever be reasonably able to be admitted back into society, regardless of his mental state at the time of the killings.

And the danger of leaving him to the psychiatrists is that now the future danger to the community is determined by doctors, who can look only at his mental state at one point in time (Is he sane now or not?) and not at the magnitude and effect on society of his crime and his potential for future crime, or to justice for the murdered as a court can. This means there is substantial room for either error or some set of bleeding-heart doctors who decide that it's not fair to incarcerate him because they disagree with the diagnosis or the conditions under which he's being held and treated.

[mistermack]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

You can kill someone, and not be guilty. If you ARE GENUINELY insane, it really is not your fault.
No more than if you are physically ill.
Take the rare cases where people have killed their partner in a dream, without waking. You can't call them guilty. If you genuinely are not conscious or sane, you can't be called guilty.

The problem is that psychiatrists would have us believe that they can tell. No they can't. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. And I have to agree with your last bit, someone like this should never walk free, on the word of any psychiatrist or panel. I don't trust their word on sanity, or on the safety of a "cure".

I would just classify genuinely insane killers as innocent, but too dangerous ever to be free. They can't have the benefit of the doubt. The public has to have that.
And no way does this guy fit the bill of a genuinely insane killer. Unless he has a long history of insanity and didn't do all that planning that we heard of.

[Audley Strange]

All those deaths, all the time and effort wasted on this guy. How does keeping him alive benefit mankind exactly?

[mistermack]

All those deaths, all the time and effort wasted on this guy. How does keeping him alive benefit mankind exactly?

It's perfectly simple. That might be any one of us one day. And we might be innocent.
They do convict the wrong people all the time, you know.