Conquer Club

MeDeFe wrote:I claim that a lashing and/or execution at the behest of the victim's families are less civil(ised) because of several things. Firstly, something I normally don't like very much.

The slippery slope.
Of course, Breivik's is a quite clear-cut case. There's no real doubt that he murdered and injured a large number of people. But what do you do when it's a tad less clear? I don't think there's any benefit to introducing legal distinctions of "this guy did it for sure so we'll convict him" and "we think this guy did it for sure so we'll convict him". There's no good way to draw the line between the two. A person's either convicted or they aren't. If they're wrongly convicted there must be a way to reimburse them, otherwise the system truly is, in your words, "a joke of justice". Death makes any such reimbursement impossible.
The other slippery slope is asking why you should allow the victims' relatives to opt for capital punishment in a case like Breivik's, but not in a case where an enraged husband kills his wife who's cheating on him right after he caught her in the act. I assume you wouldn't want to allow the victim's family to say the court should declare a capital punishment in that case.

Secondly.
His "lovely standard of living" is a cell of a few square meters. Sure, that may be "better" (by whatever standard) than some homeless people have, but that's no reason to lower the standard of living for felons to below what can be called 'humane'. I don't even see why you're referring to it as "subsidising".

Thirdly.
You mention externalities caused by Breivik's imprisonment rather than execution, but you do nothing to show how they occur. You mention writings and discussions, but fail to say what's bad about them? Several right-wing (read: xenophobic) websites, leading persons, and publications have distanced themselves from Breivik. He can say whatever he wants, but he's still a mass murderer. That doesn't look good on his CV, and even people who're ideologically sympathetic to his views will realise that and keep their distance. Ideologically, Breivik is isolated.

greenoaks wrote:3 months for each murder is more than what OJ Simpson got.

BigBallinStalin wrote:What does "SERIEUSEMENT" mean?

saxitoxin wrote:I couldn't hear what AoG said.

BigBallinStalin wrote:21 years is a joke. Food, a place to live, and a community of (probably) like-minded peers. So harsh! I wonder if he gets visitors and is allowed to write and communicate with the outside world... (if so, that's more benefits).


It's the type of crime which should come with 200 lashes and the option to be killed--at the discretion of the victims' family members. If any single one votes "death," then death will be granted to the criminal.

MeDeFe wrote:How very civilised of you.

Baron Von PWN wrote:I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. However people like Breivik should be taken out to the woodshed and put down like a rabid dog.

AOG's thing said.

Kim dot com 20 years. Breivik 21 years

Seriously?

When incarcerated, the Justiciar Knight should do everything in his power to escape from prison," he wrote. If successful, the "knight" should plot between three to five assassinations as a "bonus operation.

Breivik killed 77 people, Norway sentenced him to 21 years in prison.
This gives us a very nice equation to work with: 77 people = 21 years
Then we do some math: 1 year=365.25 days, 21 years = 7670.25 days
Unit we end up with is 1 person = 99. 61 days
Using this we can figure how long Hitler would have been incarcerated for.
Hitler = about 11 million deaths
99.61 x 11,000,000 = 1,095,750,000 days in prison = exactly 3,000,000 years
Our conclusion: In Norway Hitler would have been sentenced to…
[drumroll please]
21 fucking years

Army of GOD wrote:

Breivik killed 77 people, Norway sentenced him to 21 years in prison.
This gives us a very nice equation to work with: 77 people = 21 years
Then we do some math: 1 year=365.25 days, 21 years = 7670.25 days
Unit we end up with is 1 person = 99. 61 days
Using this we can figure how long Hitler would have been incarcerated for.
Hitler = about 11 million deaths
99.61 x 11,000,000 = 1,095,750,000 days in prison = exactly 3,000,000 years
Our conclusion: In Norway Hitler would have been sentenced to…
[drumroll please]
21 fucking years

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:21 years is a joke. Food, a place to live, and a community of (probably) like-minded peers. So harsh! I wonder if he gets visitors and is allowed to write and communicate with the outside world... (if so, that's more benefits).

Not necessarily. The Telegraph did a photo set of Norway's new maximum security prison. While he will be able to receive incoming communication (each resident suite has a flat-screen plasma TV bedside), he will only have access to a computer if he chooses to bring or purchase his own laptop. Additionally, the en suite lavatory only has a shower (no baths are provided residents except on special request) and the resident personal refrigerators do not contain freezers. Bedding is only changed once per week and residents can be prohibited from access to the gymnasium, library, movie theater or games room for poor behavior.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... ml?image=1

Maugena wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Breivik killed 77 people, Norway sentenced him to 21 years in prison.
This gives us a very nice equation to work with: 77 people = 21 years
Then we do some math: 1 year=365.25 days, 21 years = 7670.25 days
Unit we end up with is 1 person = 99. 61 days
Using this we can figure how long Hitler would have been incarcerated for.
Hitler = about 11 million deaths
99.61 x 11,000,000 = 1,095,750,000 days in prison = exactly 3,000,000 years
Our conclusion: In Norway Hitler would have been sentenced to…
[drumroll please]
21 fucking years

I was actually going to call Breivik the Norwegian Hitler when I got back...
But seriously.
Not labeling him as insane for killing massive amounts of people is ludicrous.
You might as well say his actions were justified.
Killing someone you know for a reason: Murder.
Killing a lot of people you don't know for a reason that has nothing to do with them: Just murder. Clearly not insane.
What if he had killed them one by one instead of all at the same time? Would that have changed the verdict of his sanity?
If Norway doesn't do something about this, someone should.