Breivik

Isn't the death penalty such a wonderful and logical thing?

I thought it was pretty funny.

thats not funny and change your fucking avatar.

Even though i wouldn't give a damn if Breivik died. I am against the death penalty and even though this shakes up my principles a bit i stand by them. Best case is he gets isolation for 21 years then gets put back on trial when he is out of jail.

I can't do that.

Well that's a lie, I can, I just don't want to.

Try him for what? The same thing? What the fuck? Isn't that illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights?

Edit: Turns out it is, unless new evidence is provided.

There is no life in prison sentence here in Norway.

The state is killing to revenge killing. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
I like the "free and fair....juries." Juries are in no way fair. The average citizen is baised and could make fatal errors of judgement. They should not be allowed to judge people.
You can't justify the murder of a person who is no threat to you. This is pure, hateful revenge, and don't try to tell yourself otherwise.

So instead of having 12 average everyday Joe's judge whether a man is guilty or not, it is better to have one person judge whether a man is guilty or not? Every human, like you said, has prejudices and can make mistakes. However, where one man lacks, is where another man excels. If you have 12 people judging, I doubt it that they will all have the same prejudices, faults, and strengths. However, if you only let a single judge decide who is innocent or guilty, than obviously, his prejudices will play a part in his decision, a much larger part than what you would see out of a jury of 12.

In England we have "Whole life orders" (Something like that), in which the convicted remains behind bars until he dies.

Hasn't been used much ;_;.

I wouldn't say that murderers aren't threats to people, they are murderers after all. Anders Brevik excelled at it, whose to say he won't try again when he's let out?

How is he no threat to us? People have broken out of prison before, and gone on murderous rampages after breaking out. I would imagine give how nice the prisons in Norway are, that it would be even easier.

Doubt it, we have an extremely high guard prisoner ratio. Plus Breivik is supervised at all times making escape almost impossible.

Pretty much. Maximum sentence you can get is 21 years no matter what.

I think they can put him up for trial again though if they leave the bomb charges out of this charge Then charge him with that when he get's out though I'm not sure.

He's still going to be let out in 21 or so years, right? What if he tries it again? Hurts and kills more people? I'm no advocate for the death penalty, just imprisonment until he dies.

See that's where you are wrong, I said that the average citizen is baised and has prejudices. The judges should be the best of the best and evaluated yearly.

And that's exactly why we don't have plummers do heart surgery or make doctors fix our cars... Judges excel in, well, judging...

The judge is more qualified to make that decision because he has spent years honing his skills and passing psychological tests. He is without prejudice(or will not let it influence him) just like the law.(or at least it should be)

Wrong again. The prisons in Norway(and Denmark for that matter) are secure. You can actually treat your prisoners humanely and still keep a prison safe.(I think the last prison escape in Denmark was in the 80's)
By threat I also meant direct physical threat and acting in self-defense.
Furthermore, your logic is flawed. We are punishing a person for what he has done, and not what he might do.(though we might take it into consideration) The risk of a prison escape from a maximum security prison and an ensuing killing spree is also minescule.

See response to Sly.

Pedro: I'll get back to you in a minute.

I see the death penalty as blatant murder. I just don't have any moral problems with that. It's murder in the name of the majority so it isn't punishable. Just like war.

Had to look up recidivism
Revenge might just be a part of the equation, but it is the thing that plays the most important role in people's minds when talking about capital punishment in the US. I would basically call retributivism "an eye for an eye" theory, which seems outdated to me.

Which is what I said to Sly. The average Joe will be biased and have prejudices, furthermore, he will also be horrified by crimes that a judge have(if you can) gotten used to. The punishment will therefore in most cases be so much more severe and in some cases, final.(death) A judge should(in theory) be able to set aside his personal life etc, and judge based on the law and on the evidence presented to him.

I hate to use the slippery slope, but I think it's dangerous to start taking people's rights away when they do things the society or state does not want them to do.
I agree that Breivik will never be able to rehabilitate himself in society, and he does deserve to die for his crimes, but I do not think that the state should degrade itself to the level of killing people. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's justified to kill a person because of his crimes if he no longer poses a significant or immidiate threat to society.
Also, how can you not see it as murder? The state intentionally kills someone who poses no threat to them, and it's even premeditated!(no but really?)

They have indefinite detention. 21 years without parole and then they evaluate the case every 5 years.

It shows that killing 70 odd people has consequences. It shows that if you decide to kill a bunch of innocient civilians, you will punished. And tell me what will putting him in a cushy norwegian "prison" acheive? And on top of that for only 21 years tops?

If you're not a psycologist, how the hell can you presume his brain is not fuctioning correctly. I think he was just a right-wing fanatic and a terrorist. Was Osama bin ladin's brain not functioning correctly?

Honestly I find that the max sentence that a person can get in Norway for murder to be 21 years to be a crime in and of itself. While I do disagree with the death penalty, but not the state's right to use it, having such a low cap makes no sense. Especially in such a unique case.

That being said, I also believe that the conditions of the max security prison in Norway are too lax. That prison is nicer than my apartment. Realistically, I do not believe that under these circumstances their is any moral way to "rehabilitate" the prisoners that stay in the prison. If any sort of, for example, organized American prison group were to stay there... well you can imagine what one could do with a flat scree TV.

I understand, prison is not a very good deterrent, nor should punishment be the full focus of the prison system. But the response to his actions are too soft, and do not fit the crimes he had committed.

A judge will always have prejudices. A judge is still a person. Every person has some kind of bias and prejudice.

Your right he shouldn't be. However, a judge is still a human being, and he/she will usually let their prejudice influence their actions, even if it is subconsciously.

So when you are sentencing someone to 21 years, you are not thinking in the slightest what he might do once he gets out of prison?