Breivik

It wants to "abolish" classes but like racism, it believes that humans are divided by groups. In the case of classism, it is divided by "classes" (which is no true), and that one of this "classes", which are the rich, are evil and should have their property stolen or be killed. Yes, they want to abolish it, and that is why they discriminate the rich, because of being the "superior class" , which opress the poor and are evil, and do not deserve to exist, under the communist utopia of marxism. That is called classism (discriminate people by their "class").

So, like racism, is a fraudulent ideal and it discriminates people by accusing them of being part of groups who do not exist a reality. But as a marxist, you won´t agree with this, of course.

I'm not too much of a Marxist anymore but I do defend it and uphold several doctrines of it. Marxism, by itself, does not think that the rich are evil or that the poor are good. Simply that the poor will overthrow the rich. Class is a abstract concept, it is not a absolute fact. Marxism alone holds no personal morals, only most individuals that follow Marxism do. Racism has no logical basis, the fact that the rich are powerful and are a elite is backed by logic and evidence.

Put him in front of those parents of the children he murdered in cold blood and electrify the bastard, some people deserve to die for the progress and safety of the populace.

It's not. Unless, you're a madman.

They should have killed him right way, no trial etc

yes it wrong, its a free and democratic country. But it would have stopped this shitstrom and disabled breivik of talking more etc thus preventing , convincing crazy bastards that the shootings were right etc. Government would have been criticized (even I would have had i not known the future), but at least the scars of that day would heal more faster and Norway could have moved on, unlike now.

Wow, Warburg, arguing against juries? It's rare that you see something like that, in any context. The idea behind juries is that they're good because they're NOT professional legal interpreters. They can think about what makes sense to the average person, and thus allow the defendant's actions to be judged by society, not the government.

As to the death penalty being murder: it clearly isn't. Killing is distinct from murder and the death penalty couldn't even be considered as murder because it's not the action of an individual against society, it's the action of society against the individual. As LampRevolt says, it's morally compromised but, like with war, the state isn't bound by morality. To claim that it (or war, for that matter) constitutes murder is just as bad as the reds calling property theft.

That said, I detest the death penalty.

"The indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. However, the offender can be paroled or released at any time if it is determined that the offender is no longer a danger to society."

Well apparently the prison system in Norway works better than the one in the US, since they have a significantly lower amount of crimes per citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
(just homicide, but still)

He will get life in a prison or on a mental institution have no fear of that. They are never going to let him out.(or the risk of it is tiny)

A judge is a person when he's at home, but on the job he's more than that. He is the face of the law, and the law has no bias or prejudice.(at least that's how it is in Denmark)

A judge takes an education that lasts years to avoid this. The judges should be evaluated continously by psychologists to prevent this exact behaviour. A judge should only be the best of the best(and I'm not just talking about grades here) and therefore more qualified than a jury.

Do you people even read my previous posts? See response to CoEx for further explanation.

No, the average person elects representatives who make the laws. That's the way a society should judge a crime.
What "makes sense to the average person" may not be the right ruling, because the average person is(in most cases) oblivious to the intricacies of laws. It's not the government(executive) that makes the laws, but the representatives of the people,(legislative) but you knew that already didn't you? You just chose to ignore it...

Meh, I might have gone a little over board, and you're probably right on this one, but I still find it just as bad...(we don't really differentiate between a killing and a murder in my own language)
And what do you mean by "the state isn't bound by morality"? A responsible state definately is in my opinion.


And wow that was a lot to respond to.

That seems like a terrible method of punishing people. "You committed this crime and you served the maximum sentence for it, but we're going to stop you from leaving because it's possible you might commit crimes again."

Juries don't judge legal issues. That's what judges are for. Do you not have the right to a trial by jury in your country either or something? It seems like you have extremely limited knowledge of the way they work.

The point is that it's not the maximum sentence. That's why it's called indefinite detention. I would rather judge a person every 5 years than just once in their life. It seems more fair and it gives the criminals who would otherwise have gotten life a chance to rehabilitate somewhat.

Yes I know how juries work, but I was making the point that we gain representation in judging people by electing the representatives who make the laws by which we judge criminals. I'm somewhat handicapped by the fact that English is not my first language, and sometimes I would appretiate a break from the nitpicking. Could you answer my point?

It's pretty complicated, but yes, we do have juries(well actually lay judges) in the two first tiers of court. I pretty sure we don't have the right to a trial by jury(but I've never really been very interested in it), but if you appeal your case there will be lay judges at the next hearing.(is that the right word?) The jury only determines guilt, but the judges can overturn a jury's verdict, and the whole case will start all over with new judges and a new jury.
I know that the juries have a lot(or at least somewhat) more power in the US than in Denmark, but do you want me to talk about how juries work in the US too?

I am going to completely ignore any discussion and post what is important.

thats not funny. be a little more sensitive to the people who lost their loved ones.

But... But oil. =(