PDA

View Full Version : What should Breivik's punishment be?


apple
08-02-2011, 10:01 AM
In most states, he'd get the death penalty.

In most European countries, he'd get life in prison.

However, in Norway, there are only two options (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14311157):

21 years for terrorism.

30 years for crimes against humanity.

In theory, this can be extended for 5 year terms. But this has never happened (see the article). In fact, this is how 21 years works out in practice:

A male nurse found guilty of murdering 22 of his elderly patients was released in 2004 after serving 12 out of his maximum sentence of 21 years in prison.

Ain't that a glorious, "humane" system?

Barbaric, primitive and uncivilized as Ocean would say I am, I vote for the death penalty.

sugarkang
08-02-2011, 10:34 AM
I generally oppose the death penalty in the United States because human judgment is fallible. Beyond a reasonable doubt has been shown to fail time and time again. However, in the case of Nidal Hassan or Breivik, there is no reasonable doubt standard necessary. There's no doubt at all, actually. And I wish there were an "absolutely fucking sure" standard for death in America. If we meet that standard, I don't mind the death penalty. In fact, Americans might feel more like they lived in a just society instead of the general feeling that evil goes unpunished.

miceelf
08-02-2011, 10:49 AM
I generally oppose the death penalty in the United States because human judgment is fallible. Beyond a reasonable doubt has been shown to fail time and time again. However, in the case of Nidal Hassan or Breivik, there is no reasonable doubt standard necessary. There's no doubt at all, actually. And I wish there were an "absolutely fucking sure" standard for death in America. If we meet that standard, I don't mind the death penalty. In fact, Americans might feel more like they lived in a just society instead of the general feeling that evil goes unpunished.

The only possible reasonable doubt is about insanity.

I generally oppose the death penalty for similar reasons, but there's a special category that I am less gung-ho about opposing, and Breivik, like Hassan (although he seems slightly more likely to be insane) fall into those categories. The Wichita killers, this guy, Bundy, et al.

apple
08-02-2011, 11:08 AM
The only possible reasonable doubt is about insanity.

I generally oppose the death penalty for similar reasons, but there's a special category that I am less gung-ho about opposing, and Breivik, like Hassan (although he seems slightly more likely to be insane) fall into those categories. The Wichita killers, this guy, Bundy, et al.

It looks like my instincts were right about you, you are relatively moderate.

And yes, having this position on this board does make you fairly moderate.

Hume's Bastard
08-02-2011, 07:33 PM
It's the Norwegians' call, not ours.

apple
08-02-2011, 08:23 PM
It's the Norwegians' call, not ours.

Does that mean we can't have an opinion about it?

Hume's Bastard
08-02-2011, 08:50 PM
Does that mean we can't have an opinion about it?

Knock yourself out!

But, Norwegians have no vote in the US Congress, and I can't tell Georgia juries - I'm a Florida resident (not out of love, my parents moved there and forced me to change my residence while I'm in South Korea) - what to decide on capital punishment either.

I'll give you this, though. I haven't looked at how successful Norway is at rehabiitating its criminals, but a super-lux super max does seem a bit too much (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_super_lux_super_max).

I would prefer science be science everywhere, though, federalism be damned!

JonIrenicus
08-02-2011, 10:04 PM
so few responses and votes, must be because the people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances don't want to explain themselves, there is no cloak to hide behind like "we can't ever be sure"

and when all those excuses are stripped away, the verdict is, I'll pass on making a judgment here.


For my part, this is precisely where the death penalty has the most merit, not circumstantial evidence, but cases where are absolutely sure.

graz
08-02-2011, 10:17 PM
so few responses and votes, must be because the people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances don't want to explain themselves, there is no cloak to hide behind like "we can't ever be sure"

and when all those excuses are stripped away, the verdict is, I'll pass on making a judgment here.


For my part, this is precisely where the death penalty has the most merit, not circumstantial evidence, but cases where are absolutely sure.
No hiding. I want you to DIAF. Just because.

apple
08-02-2011, 10:26 PM
No hiding. I want you to DIAF. Just because.

Leftist tolerance, love and understanding strikes again!

Wonderment
08-02-2011, 10:28 PM
so few responses and votes, must be because the people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances don't want to explain themselves, there is no cloak to hide behind like "we can't ever be sure"

There are few responses and votes because the choices are rigged.

The appropriate consequences (sentence) in this case should not be simplistically measured in years, but should depend on what Norway determines is in its best public safety and rehabilitative-restorative justice interests moving forward.

Norway seems like a much more advanced nation than the USA in penal philosophy and practices, so I think they'll do just fine.

graz
08-02-2011, 10:48 PM
Leftist tolerance, love and understanding strikes again!
For you apple, just worm infestation. Because I care.

miceelf
08-02-2011, 10:50 PM
so few responses and votes, must be because the people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances don't want to explain themselves, there is no cloak to hide behind like "we can't ever be sure"

LOL @ no cloak.

not like its an anonymous poll or anything.

The real reason so few people responded is more likely the same reason that no one is reading my online novella. They simply aren't interested

Ocean
08-02-2011, 11:00 PM
They simply aren't interested

That's correct. This is the same situation used in other places in this forum. It's like hearing:

Come! Play with me! The games I like! My rules! What? You don't want to play with me? Coward!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2cBrQztTZnammheJxe-gb8SsbPmjtt7jb2ijYdcQrAKs1-6Jb

apple
08-02-2011, 11:17 PM
For you apple, just worm infestation. Because I care.

And I wish the plague known as Windows Vista on you.

apple
08-02-2011, 11:18 PM
The appropriate consequences (sentence) in this case should not be simplistically measured in years, but should depend on what Norway determines is in its best public safety and rehabilitative-restorative justice interests moving forward.

Suppose Norway determines that releasing him immediately serves its public safety and rehabilitative-restorative justice (so called) interests bests, would you favor releasing him immediately?

apple
08-02-2011, 11:19 PM
LOL @ no cloak.

not like its an anonymous poll or anything.

Actually, it's not anonymous - insofar as your username goes.

Hume's Bastard
08-03-2011, 12:27 AM
Suppose Norway determines that releasing him immediately serves its public safety and rehabilitative-restorative justice (so called) interests bests, would you favor releasing him immediately?

Suppositions are for those who've made up their minds alteady! Just because Norway limits its prison terms and favors rehabilitation over punishment doesn't mean the Norwegians are wet rags. I'm actually interested to see if and how prison works on this guy, and if he gets another 5 year term indefinitely until he dies in a cell. This is an opportunity for Norway to demonstrate its values, not its passions.

sugarkang
08-03-2011, 12:27 AM
Actually, it's not anonymous - insofar as your username goes.

Hah. I didn't know you could see who voted for what.
I VOTED FOR DEATH! High five?
I like how the liberals don't stand for anything, sit back and complain. Oh, you misspelled something.

Sulla the Dictator
08-03-2011, 04:11 AM
He should be executed. I support capital punishment for a wide array of crimes; so this one is a no brainer.

miceelf
08-03-2011, 07:37 AM
I VOTED FOR DEATH! High five?
I like how the liberals don't stand for anything, sit back and complain.

But, you're a liberal, and so am I. And we voted.

apple
08-03-2011, 10:47 AM
Just because Norway limits its prison terms and favors rehabilitation over punishment doesn't mean the Norwegians are wet rags.

How about answering the question? Are you willing to take the "rehabilitation over punishment" approach to its logical conclusion?

I'm actually interested to see if and how prison works on this guy, and if he gets another 5 year term indefinitely until he dies in a cell. This is an opportunity for Norway to demonstrate its values, not its passions.

If experience is any guide, Norway will once again demonstrate its defective, psychotic and criminal-loving values, like it did when the man who murdered 22 of his patients was released after 12 years.

And if he turns back to terrorism and murders yet more people, Norwegians might finally get some common sense. And maybe they won't.

apple
08-03-2011, 10:48 AM
But, you're a liberal, and so am I. And we voted.

So did Don Zeko. But I don't see the votes of graz, Wonderment, Ocean and D. Hume.

miceelf
08-03-2011, 10:59 AM
So did Don Zeko. But I don't see the votes of graz, Wonderment, Ocean and D. Hume.

or badhatharry, or burgess.

sugarkang
08-03-2011, 11:37 AM
But, you're a liberal, and so am I. And we voted.

Well, I'm a liberal*. And you're just a murderous liberal.

miceelf
08-03-2011, 11:44 AM
Well, I'm a liberal*. And you're just a murderous liberal.

And plenty of conservatives haven't answered the poll either. I guess I don't understand your drive to take a particular interpretation of lack of participation in the poll (it means people are afraid to debate their views on the death penalty, an especially weird claim given that over on the other side it's been debated to death in the couple of diavlog discussions around breivik), and apply it only to liberals who didn't answer the poll (also strange, given that several liberals responded and several non-liberals didn't).

apple
08-03-2011, 12:22 PM
or badhatharry, or burgess.

I think we both know what they'd say, don't we? On the other hand, I'm genuinely curious about whether the liberals I mentioned will go for 'life' or '30/21 years'.

sugarkang
08-03-2011, 12:33 PM
And plenty of conservatives haven't answered the poll either. I guess I don't understand your drive to take a particular interpretation of lack of participation in the poll (it means people are afraid to debate their views on the death penalty, an especially weird claim given that over on the other side it's been debated to death in the couple of diavlog discussions around breivik), and apply it only to liberals who didn't answer the poll (also strange, given that several liberals responded and several non-liberals didn't).

I think conservatives just have a hard time finding their way to this section of the boards. :)

Hume's Bastard
08-03-2011, 07:56 PM
How about answering the question? Are you willing to take the "rehabilitation over punishment" approach to its logical conclusion?

Answer me this, and I'll consider a sincere answer, because you've demonstrated you don't repay the effort - have you ever worked in a jail or prison? Any law enforcement organization?

apple
08-03-2011, 08:45 PM
Answer me this, and I'll consider a sincere answer, because you've demonstrated you don't repay the effort - have you ever worked in a jail or prison? Any law enforcement organization?

No and no. Do I get the answer to my question now, or do you want to cross-examine me further?

uncle ebeneezer
08-03-2011, 09:24 PM
Where's the option for "let the jury decide."

apple
08-03-2011, 10:37 PM
Where's the option for "let the jury decide."

I don't think Norway has juries. Also, juries can be wrong, as they were in the case of OJ, MJ, Casey Anthony.

Besides, I want to know what people's values are. Do leftists think that it's just to release this monster after 21 years, after mercilessly butchering in cold blood 77 defenseless children with machine guns?

AemJeff
08-03-2011, 10:58 PM
I don't think Norway has juries. Also, juries can be wrong, as they were in the case of OJ, MJ, Casey Anthony.

Besides, I want to know what people's values are. Do leftists think that it's just to release this monster after 21 years, after mercilessly butchering in cold blood 77 defenseless children with machine guns?

Of course juries can be wrong. That's part of the price you pay for living in an open society.

apple
08-03-2011, 11:07 PM
Of course juries can be wrong. That's part of the price you pay for living in an open society.

Or you could go with the Norwegian system, where judges (presumably less susceptible to lawyerly intrigues) decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The ideal would be the mirror image of the Anglo-American system: judges decide who's guilty, and juries sentence the defendant.

And yes, I know you'll think that this idea is incredibly stupid.

miceelf
08-03-2011, 11:15 PM
Given that this turns out to be just some stupid attempt to prove a point I really regret voting in this thing.

Won't be doing that again.

apple
08-03-2011, 11:19 PM
Given that this turns out to be just some stupid attempt to prove a point I really regret voting in this thing.

Won't be doing that again.

If you're referring to anything I've said, I can assure you that it's only curiosity, and not any agenda, that spurred me to create this poll. Of course, I never had any doubt about what Sulla or JonIrenicus would say, but I did wonder about what option those on the left would choose. And I have to say, I've been pleasantly surprised by the people who have voted.

AemJeff
08-03-2011, 11:35 PM
Or you could go with the Norwegian system, where judges (presumably less susceptible to lawyerly intrigues) decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The ideal would be the mirror image of the Anglo-American system: judges decide who's guilty, and juries sentence the defendant.

And yes, I know you'll think that this idea is incredibly stupid.

"Hate" is too strong. The problem is that you have to place a great deal of trust in the judges, far more so than in a common law jurisdiction. Juries are ad hoc by design and harder to corrupt systemically - and far from perfect, much like democracy.

apple
08-03-2011, 11:58 PM
"Hate" is too strong. The problem is that you have to place a great deal of trust in the judges, far more so than in a common law jurisdiction. Juries are ad hoc by design and harder to corrupt systemically - and far from perfect, much like democracy.

I doubt that judges will be that easy to corrupt in a first world country. Sure, there may be individual judges who are corrupt (and thank God for the appeals process), but it'd be pretty hard to corrupt more than the exception. On the other hand, it seems to me that juries can be very easily manipulated by the likes of Johnny Cochran. A dispassionate review of the evidence is all that's needed to establish guilt or innocent (under law), and I'm not sure juries are very well-suited for that. Of course, this is all just speculation.

I also think that juries will be less susceptible to sob stories of defendants about how they just *had* to do this or that crime, which is why I'd like juries to pass out sentences.

sugarkang
08-04-2011, 01:54 AM
I also think that juries will be less susceptible to sob stories of defendants about how they just *had* to do this or that crime, which is why I'd like juries to pass out sentences.

You can only expect so much from a jury. They also tend to hand out $200 million punitive damage awards because corporations are evil and, pfft, fuck em anyway!

apple
08-04-2011, 04:40 PM
You can only expect so much from a jury. They also tend to hand out $200 million punitive damage awards because corporations are evil and, pfft, fuck em anyway!

And often times, these punitive damage awards are very much justified. Also, they are more of a deterrent than trusting in the kind hearts of the CEO's, as corporations respond to incentives (as a libertarian, you know this). So when these incentives are (thought to be) absent, Ford calculates that the damages it would have to pay as a result of lawsuits due to the known flaw in the Pinto would be less than the cost of the $6 re-adjustment, and refuse to fix the problem.

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 01:36 AM
And often times, these punitive damage awards are very much justified. Also, they are more of a deterrent than trusting in the kind hearts of the CEO's, as corporations respond to incentives (as a libertarian, you know this). So when these incentives are (thought to be) absent, Ford calculates that the damages it would have to pay as a result of lawsuits due to the known flaw in the Pinto would be less than the cost of the $6 re-adjustment, and refuse to fix the problem.

So, you think some dumb bitch that put her hot McDonald's coffee in her lap while pulling out of the drive thru and spills it all over herself gets to sue McDonald's for $100 million? That's justice?

graz
08-05-2011, 04:01 AM
So, you think some dumb bitch that put her hot McDonald's coffee in her lap while pulling out of the drive thru and spills it all over herself gets to sue McDonald's for $100 million? That's justice?

I know a presumptuous asshole that is typically hyperbolic and overzealous when serving up his partisan coffee:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 05:38 AM
I know a presumptuous asshole that is typically hyperbolic and overzealous when serving up his partisan coffee:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Yeah, graz. Maybe go back to posting frivolous links? Substance isn't your forte. Juries are, like, so smart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants).

Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages.

miceelf
08-05-2011, 06:17 AM
So, you think some dumb bitch that put her hot McDonald's coffee in her lap while pulling out of the drive thru and spills it all over herself gets to sue McDonald's for $100 million? That's justice?

Someone points out that sometimes settlements are fair, and the only way to get justice done, and you respond with this?

What's your understanding of what "sometimes" means?

And, the McDonald's coffee episode is actually way less egregious than is commonly perceived.

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 07:11 AM
Someone points out that sometimes settlements are fair, and the only way to get justice done, and you respond with this?

What's your understanding of what "sometimes" means?

And, the McDonald's coffee episode is actually way less egregious than is commonly perceived.

A few points.

First, I don't care about McDonald's. They can afford it. This is what people like graz don't understand.

Second, I don't care that some idiot woman got a huge settlement. This is also what people like graz don't understand.

Here's what's important. These types of lawsuits become modern folklore. This is the kind of crap that signals to people that there's money to be made in frivolous lawsuits. It's the billions of dollars in wasteful litigation that's at issue. It's the billions of dollars in new business startups that aren't happening because of shit like this. So, as far as this being how I respond, well, yeah. I think it's a BFD. Especially in light of the fact that neither major political party seems to understand where jobs come from.

And the other point was that juries are stupid.

TwinSwords
08-05-2011, 08:31 AM
So, you think some dumb bitch that put her hot McDonald's coffee in her lap while pulling out of the drive thru and spills it all over herself gets to sue McDonald's for $100 million? That's justice?

I wonder how many people believe these lies.

For those interested in reality, there was an interesting report on the July 8, 2011 edition of On the Media that discussed the lies that have been told about the McDonald's hot coffee case over the years.

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/6285/hotcoffee.png (http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/08/hot-coffee/)

Listen: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/08/hot-coffee/

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 08:34 AM
I wonder how many people believe these lies.


Why does it not surprise me that you're in favor of frivolous lawsuits? Do yourself and all Americans a favor. Educate yourself (http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard.html).

AemJeff
08-05-2011, 10:16 AM
A few points.

First, I don't care about McDonald's. They can afford it. This is what people like graz don't understand.

Second, I don't care that some idiot woman got a huge settlement. This is also what people like graz don't understand.

Here's what's important. These types of lawsuits become modern folklore. This is the kind of crap that signals to people that there's money to be made in frivolous lawsuits. It's the billions of dollars in wasteful litigation that's at issue. It's the billions of dollars in new business startups that aren't happening because of shit like this. So, as far as this being how I respond, well, yeah. I think it's a BFD. Especially in light of the fact that neither major political party seems to understand where jobs come from.

And the other point was that juries are stupid.

No, no the only discernable point is that you responded to a statement of grand principle by plucking a single ambiguous instance out of the air and tried to refute the larger principle with it. Then, when called on it you implied that your example was, in fact, trivial and claimed you had another point entirely, apparently regarding public opinion and other random irrelevant-to-the-original-point issues, and then offered a broad (and also irrelevant) swipe at the U.S. political parties. But you did end with a non-sequitur! Bravo.

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 10:54 AM
Bravo.

Bravo indeed for polishing off a dozen glazed in one sitting.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2034/1165lordofthedonuts.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/1165lordofthedonuts.jpg/)

AemJeff
08-05-2011, 11:47 AM
Bravo indeed for polishing off a dozen glazed in one sitting.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2034/1165lordofthedonuts.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/1165lordofthedonuts.jpg/)

Ah, Superior wit! Should I wither in the face of my tongue-tied opponent's default strategy? It's probably more fun to bait him into another pastry reference. Anyone want to start a pool? I'm paying 100:1 on the chance that sk can come back with something either on point, or at least useful in the context of a war of words. Come on Dozens Master, show your stuff!

popcorn_karate
08-05-2011, 02:18 PM
So, you think some dumb bitch that put her hot McDonald's coffee in her lap while pulling out of the drive thru and spills it all over herself gets to sue McDonald's for $100 million? That's justice?

you are an ignorant fuck with no clue about that sweet little old lady that was a) not driving and b) not in the drive through and c) didn't sue mcdonalds for millions of dollars. maybe try pulling your head out of your ass occasionally.

sugarkang
08-05-2011, 06:38 PM
you are an ignorant fuck

THANKS!

eeeeeeeli
08-05-2011, 06:47 PM
Why does it not surprise me that you're in favor of frivolous lawsuits? Do yourself and all Americans a favor. Educate yourself (http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard.html).
There are clearly costs and benefits to litigation. The trouble is in finding a sweet spot between protecting ordinary people from powerful businesses and protecting business against truly frivolous lawsuits.

I mean, we could go back and forth all day presenting examples and counter-examples of situations in which the legal system worked or did not work. People have gotten huge settlements they didn't deserve, or businesses that did horrible things paid what they owed.

There is always going to be a certain sloppiness factor when the legal or regulatory environment will never be able to account for every scenario, businesses will continue to do dirty things, and people will continue to take advantage of sympathetic juries.

The problem comes in trying to push things too far in either direction. You don't want to lose the deterrence and justice factor that litigation provides, keeping businesses liable for unsound practices. But neither do you you want to lose the innovation and investment security that comes in knowing you won't be subject to a frivolous lawsuit.

Oddly, I've heard libertarians argue against regulation, preferring to rely on litigation to keep a check on businesses. But this seems backwards.

Instead, I would think you would want a solid regulatory environment so that the frivolity of lawsuits can be kept to a minimum. Of course, a problem here might be regulatory capture, which is a real concern, and definitely can put smaller business at a disadvantage. But so too can litigation, wherein bigger businesses can afford larger legal fees.

One way these matters get resolved is at the government level, where consumers and businesses have advocates, and regulation is lobbied for or blocked - hopefully in some reasonable fashion. But the more money in politics means the sleazier this process gets. Of course, then you have libertarians arguing money = speech. Maybe these folks would rather the whole thing be blown up, regulations gutted.

I'm not sure how then you protect ordinary folk from those who miss the fine print where Ayn rand talked about being honest and responsible. When you don't have a rule of law, the lowest common denominator has a way of rearing its ugly head, and its every man for himself. At least a courtroom provides a forum, a congress a lobby.

Ocean
08-05-2011, 06:57 PM
Oddly, I've heard libertarians argue against regulation, preferring to rely on litigation to keep a check on businesses. But this seems backwards.


That's exactly right. Perhaps pointing out the possibility of frivolous lawsuits as a political point in a public forum reveals more of a pro-corporation sympathy than a libertarian principle.

sugarkang
08-06-2011, 02:14 AM
That's exactly right. Perhaps pointing out the possibility of frivolous lawsuits as a political point in a public forum reveals more of a pro-corporation sympathy than a libertarian principle.

Perhaps your understanding of economics, law and the propensity for regulatory arbitrage is poor.

kezboard
08-06-2011, 08:46 AM
We have to protect budding entrepreneurs from urban legends now?

Ocean
08-06-2011, 09:01 AM
Perhaps your understanding of economics, law and the propensity for regulatory arbitrage is poor.

You're quite right about that. But that's irrelevant to my point.

sugarkang
08-06-2011, 09:31 AM
But that's irrelevant to my point.

On the contrary, it's completely relevant. Here's what you said:

Perhaps pointing out the possibility of frivolous lawsuits as a political point in a public forum reveals more of a pro-corporation sympathy than a libertarian principle.

1. Corporations are defined by law. They can have thousands of employees or as few as just one. So, your great insight is that I prefer a legal entity that can employ anywhere between one to thousands of people over some abstract libertarian principle that you haven't defined?

2. Are you sure you meant libertarian principle?

3. As far as my actual sympathies are concerned, they are for businessmen and women, small or large, and entrepreneurs in general. Because guess what? That's where the jobs come from.