Anders Breivik - Court Rules Him Sane.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think he should just be treated the same way as any other murderer. No special punishment at all. Dont martyr him, don't feed his ego. Just the rest of his life emptying his slop bucket with the other dregs.

[Coito ergo sum]

Anders Breivik deserves the death penalty.

....and, I'm against the death penalty.

Not really about what he deserves, its about whats best for society as a whole and the state going around killing defenceless (but obviously very evil) people is not considered to be best for society.

Please rephrase in the active voice.

Breivik is now in jail as a racist mass murdering child killer, never mind the death penalty keeping him safe from other prisoners is going to be extremely difficult. I don't think the Norwegians normally do solitary confinement but they might have to make an exception with him. I'm sure his prison will be a very nice place to go completely insane in

What is best for society, in my view, is to be rid of him quickly.

In part, however, in my view, it is at least in part about what he deserves. The point of graduated punishments for more or less severe crimes is based on the fact that some crimes are worse than others and some criminals more culpable than others, and some criminals may be rehabilitated and others not so much.

My view on this guy is that rehabilitation is highly unlikely, and not even desirable. By the latter, I mean that there is no possible circumstance that this guy can be, even if declared by 100 psychiatrists and experts of all sorts to be perfectly rehabilitated, released into society. Who would want to work with him? Who would want to live around him? Why should the parents of the dead children have to put up with him out and living a nice life? He is, in short, in my view, someone whose crimes are so heinous that there is no rehabilitation possible, and even if it were possible, I wouldn't want the time wasted on it because even if rehabilitated, I'd never want him released.

[Clinton Huxley]

He won't get released and I from what I've read, family members of the murdered are happy with the sentence.

[MrJonno]

What is best for society, in my view, is to be rid of him quickly.

Whats best for society is to have the lowest possible tolerance level for violence, ie its only justifiable in cases of imminent self or of others.

I'm against the death penalty for the same reason children shouldn't be beaten by parents, or bombing a country because it could be a threat in the future, for saying its ok to kill to protect property.

Basically its the opposite of the death penalty as deterrence ie it actually encourages violence and teaches that people that violence is ok if its for 'justice'

[Coito ergo sum]

What is best for society, in my view, is to be rid of him quickly.

Whats best for society is to have the lowest possible tolerance level for violence, ie its only justifiable in cases of imminent self or of others.

On what basis do you make this claim?

A similar argument can be made for incarceration being unjustified, and a form of torture. There was a time when incarceration was very rare as a punishment, and the idea of creating prisons and using incarceration as the main form of punishment or rehabilitation was pretty new in the 19th century.

I'm against the death penalty for the same reason children shouldn't be beaten by parents, or bombing a country because it could be a threat in the future, for saying its ok to kill to protect property.

Basically its the opposite of the death penalty as deterrence ie it actually encourages violence and teaches that people that violence is ok if its for 'justice'

Well, in what way does incarceration not also fit this? I can tell you most prisoners would rather take a whole host of beatings than sit in prison for years. Sitting in small rooms of 6 feet by 10 feet or 8 feet by 12 feet for years at a time is itself torturous and arguably violent. If a person is kept in solitary, it plainly screws with their brain, sitting alone for years. And, if kept in common with other inmates, it can be just as bad because of the violence and other commiseration among violent folks.

Punishment is going to be unpleasant.

I am against the death penalty too, for a variety of reasons. However, things not being black and white, when faced with extreme cases of horrific crimes -- like Breivik killing 77 people, including defenseless children -- or a pedophile rapist-murderer -- in the rare cases where the guilt is beyond any and all doubt, I lose sympathy for the monster. I remain against the death penalty because of pragmatic reasons -- it is not possible to have a system which is capable of sufficiently distinguishing between the "guilt beyond all doubt" cases and the mere "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" cases. In other words, as the saying goes, "hard cases make bad law." It's better, in my view, to have a system which does not execute anyone, than any system yet tried that has capital punishment.

I think it's a bit spurious, though, to engage in moralizing about it, somehow suggesting that it is a given that punishment is wrong because it increases violence, and such. If a spanking increases violence, then what do you think locking someone in closet for five years does? Decreases it?

[MrJonno]

A similar argument can be made for incarceration being unjustified, and a form of torture. There was a time when incarceration was very rare as a punishment, and the idea of creating prisons and using incarceration as the main form of punishment or rehabilitation was pretty new in the 19th century.

Before that we just hung them or put people's eyes out. When people come up with a better and more humane (for prisoners and society as a whole) alternative to prison for serious crimes I'm all for it. I'm sure in the future people will look back at our prisons as barbaric and they will have come up with something better until then we are just doing our best

[Audley Strange]

I wonder by what standard are we measuring sanity when we can pronounce an individual who kills dozens of people to promote a extremist political ideology sane.

[Coito ergo sum]

A similar argument can be made for incarceration being unjustified, and a form of torture. There was a time when incarceration was very rare as a punishment, and the idea of creating prisons and using incarceration as the main form of punishment or rehabilitation was pretty new in the 19th century.

Before that we just hung them or put people's eyes out. When people come up with a better and more humane (for prisoners and society as a whole) alternative to prison for serious crimes I'm all for it. I'm sure in the future people will look back at our prisons as barbaric and they will have come up with something better until then we are just doing our best

It's not at all clear that prison is more humane than the stocks, depending on the circumstances. It's not even at all clear that life without the possibility of parole, in a 6 x 10 cell, with one hour or daylight per day, max, pacing back and forth in a cage, is more humane than lethal injection. It's certainly not "objectively" so. We're just all used to prison as default punishment.

[MrJonno]

It's not at all clear that prison is more humane than the stocks, depending on the circumstances. It's not even at all clear that life without the possibility of parole, in a 6 x 10 cell, with one hour or daylight per day, max, pacing back and forth in a cage, is more humane than lethal injection. It's certainly not "objectively" so. We're just all used to prison as default punishment.

Hope there aren't many prisons like that left, life without parole is very very rare outside the US. We have about 30 or so prisoners with such a sentence in the UK I doubt if any other EU country has that many.

Average sentence in the UK for murder is 12 years served with being on probation for life if released.

Regarding whether terrible jails are worse than death with some of the worst criminals I wouldn't be in too much of a rush to prevent them killing themselves if they want but I don't want the state doing it.

Anyway I'm not against the death penalty for the sake of the criminal, I'm not even against it on the basis that some people may be innocent I'm against it on the ground that it is violence that is not a necessity

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not at all clear that prison is more humane than the stocks, depending on the circumstances. It's not even at all clear that life without the possibility of parole, in a 6 x 10 cell, with one hour or daylight per day, max, pacing back and forth in a cage, is more humane than lethal injection. It's certainly not "objectively" so. We're just all used to prison as default punishment.

Hope there aren't many prisons like that left, life without parole is very very rare outside the US.

?????
Pssst.... the red countries all still use life imprisonment...

We have about 30 or so prisoners with such a sentence in the UK I doubt if any other EU country has that many.

LOL -- excluding, of course,

Average sentence in the UK for murder is 12 years served with being on probation for life if released.[/quote]

Sounds abominable, since to be the "average" then there must be a deviation below 12, wherein murderers are being SENTENCED to 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 years -- for murder... sounds extraordinarily light, since under anglo-saxon law, murder is among the gravest crimes that can be committed. What would you get for a violent rape? 5 years?

Regarding whether terrible jails are worse than death with some of the worst criminals I wouldn't be in too much of a rush to prevent them killing themselves if they want but I don't want the state doing it.

Me neither. As I said, I'm against the death penalty. But, only someone with no heart could have no emotional response to a monster who kills 77 people, mostly defenseless children, in cold blood, is caught red-handed and admits it, and is glad he did it, and does a fist salute with pride when convicted... I think to not want that monster gone is a weird response.

Anyway I'm not against the death penalty for the sake of the criminal, I'm not even against it on the basis that some people may be innocent I'm against it on the ground that it is violence that is not a necessity

Sounds pretty arbitrary. It doesn't have to be any more violent than prison. Killing is not violence. Euthenasia by lethal injection is not "violence." Lethal injection doesn't become "violent" just because it's a sentence instead of a mercy killing.

[mistermack]

Murdered 77 people in cold blood but he is clinically sane........21 years minimum in prison. The families of the dead seem happy enough with the verdict.

This is madness. They'll be declaring George Bush sane next.

Actually, I think 21 years is the max, not the minimum. On the news, I think they said 13 years minimum, but that's just from memory. That's academic though. I can't see him getting parole under any circumstances.

[Coito ergo sum]

Murdered 77 people in cold blood but he is clinically sane........21 years minimum in prison. The families of the dead seem happy enough with the verdict.

This is madness. They'll be declaring George Bush sane next.

Actually, I think 21 years is the max, not the minimum. On the news, I think they said 13 years minimum, but that's just from memory. That's academic though. I can't see him getting parole under any circumstances.

Isn't that special.

He's 33 years old. He'll get out at 54, and have 30 or so years to enjoy himself. With Norway's welfare state, they'll be enlightened enough to give him housing, food and a monthly stipend to live a nice, comfortable life and write his memoirs.

Justice served.

[mistermack]

Murdered 77 people in cold blood but he is clinically sane........21 years minimum in prison. The families of the dead seem happy enough with the verdict.

This is madness. They'll be declaring George Bush sane next.

Actually, I think 21 years is the max, not the minimum. On the news, I think they said 13 years minimum, but that's just from memory. That's academic though. I can't see him getting parole under any circumstances.

Isn't that special.

He's 33 years old. He'll get out at 54, and have 30 or so years to enjoy himself. With Norway's welfare state, they'll be enlightened enough to give him housing, food and a monthly stipend to live a nice, comfortable life and write his memoirs.

Justice served.

I know. It's fucking ludicrous. 21 years is, I believe, the legal maximum in Norway.

Don't these people who make laws have a brain? But then, it's the old story. The public put them there.

[MrJonno]

Sounds pretty arbitrary. It doesn't have to be any more violent than prison. Killing is not violence. Euthenasia by lethal injection is not "violence." Lethal injection doesn't become "violent" just because it's a sentence instead of a mercy killing

Depends on what your definition of violence is I would definitely consider a mercy killing to be violent even if it was to cause less suffering.

Regarding life sentences some sources on average life sentences seem to contradict each other but all are in the range 12-15 years. This is before they are considered for parole but generally if they haven't caused anyone any serious injury they tend to get let out. I don't really have an issue with non premeditated murderer at least being considered for parole after this time.

Child murderers and those who use torture are generally far higher sentences.
Good examples for Northern Ireland could be a bit different in the UK but they look pretty typical to me

http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sente ... lings.aspx

[Coito ergo sum]

Sounds pretty arbitrary. It doesn't have to be any more violent than prison. Killing is not violence. Euthenasia by lethal injection is not "violence." Lethal injection doesn't become "violent" just because it's a sentence instead of a mercy killing

Depends on what your definition of violence is I would definitely consider a mercy killing to be violent even if it was to cause less suffering.

vi·o·lent   [vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2.
caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3.
intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4.
roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5.
furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.

A death can be violent or non-violent.

Regarding life sentences some sources on average life sentences seem to contradict each other but all are in the range 12-15 years. This is before they are considered for parole but generally if they haven't caused anyone any serious injury they tend to get let out. I don't really have an issue with non premeditated murderer at least being considered for parole after this time.

Well, a non-premeditated murderer would be eligible for parole in the US too.

Child murderers and those who use torture are generally far higher sentences.
Good examples for Northern Ireland could be a bit different in the UK but they look pretty typical to me

http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sente ... lings.aspx

Yep.