Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:12 am**

Gillipig wrote:Maug, I must say I'm a little confused by the very idea that someone can be judged sane after having killed 77 innocent people while thinking he did his country a favor. If that's sane, how hollow isn' that word? What's the point in even considering if someone's sane or not?

I agree.

I also don't think "Insanity" should be a defense in Capital Murder cases.

Mental Retardation possibly... but that is clinically a different phenomina.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:19 am**

The major fail here, is that he gets to communicate and promote his hate for the next 21 years to his fan base.
Like Clifford Olson in Canada, who would write taunting letters to his victims parents over the years of his incarceration.

Prisons for these mass murdering individuals have just become containment warehouses to keep them out of sight, out of mind and us temporarily safe from the criminal, while sending a message to the next ass-hat that the personal cost of your sick goals is minimum.

When can we safely decide that people like this are no longer allowed to become among us? When can we morally start thinning the herd with the death penalty? No one cried tears when they executed Nazi's for war crimes, so whats the minimum body count to engage permanently removing this element from society and showing those with similar designs that adopting another perspective might be a healthy life choice?

J

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:27 am**

Maugena wrote:Not labeling him as insane for killing massive amounts of people is ludicrous.

I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

I'm not sure the laws in Norway, but in general that's how it is. If they guy had been declared insane, as you seem to wish he had been, then instead of prison (as nice as it looks from Saxi's picture), he'd have gone to a mental health facility. He could have eventually been "cured" and quite possibly been released. Maybe in less than 21 years even.

At least by Norway declaring him sane they can keep him locked up for 21 years, and I'd wager quite willingly that the guy isn't ever going to get out of prison. It seems Norway has the option of just keeping him in prison by just saying he is a continued danger.

If you want him declared insane because of his forthcoming writing, rhetoric and communication with radical fringe groups, I'd have to say that him being declared "sane" or "insane" probably won't matter much to people inclined to be sympathetic to this murderer's cause.

I think it was a good idea to have the guy said to be sane. Then the State can throw the full force of the law at him. An insane person just needs help is all, don't you know. Would you want to help this guy "get better"? I wouldn't, I'd as soon put a steel jacket in his brain than talk with him.

So, why do you think it would have been better that he be declared insane? Because he didn't want to be declared insane?

Even in Norway there are consequences of applying law to a sane or insane person. A sane evil bastard, I suppose you treat humanely. An insane person, on the other hand, you treat kindly. This guy isn't worth being treated kindly, IMO.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:38 am**

Johnny Rockets wrote:The major fail here, is that he gets to communicate and promote his hate for the next 21 years to his fan base.

Meh, those inclined toward that type of hate are gonna be haters whether or not this scumbag is talking, walking, breathing or not. I'd say that due to the effects of his actions it's turned more people against his cause than for it. There would have been people sympathetic toward the guy's views, but not really willing to hurt anyone. Guy goes on killing spree and the previously sympathetic now revile the guy.

JR wrote:Like Clifford Olson in Canada, who would write taunting letters to his victims parents over the years of his incarceration.

Yeah, that's unfortunate to say the least. Messed up is all I can say, but who knows. After about 20 years in prison the guy might be sending letters saying he's sorry. Of course, the cynic in me would feel that it would only be an attempt to get himself freed after serving his pathetically short sentence......

JR wrote:so whats the minimum body count to engage permanently removing this element from society and showing those with similar designs that adopting another perspective might be a healthy life choice?

J

I don't know, maybe we should ask the US government, or just about most of the governments of the world. So, what is the current body count of innocent people killed in the War on Terror (for instance)?

Just asking is all. It seems in this messed up world, some people who kill or order to kill, are punished. Others who kill or order to kill are given medals or reelection and called "courageous heroes". It's all a matter of perspective I guess.....

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:17 pm**

jimboston wrote:
Gillipig wrote:Maug, I must say I'm a little confused by the very idea that someone can be judged sane after having killed 77 innocent people while thinking he did his country a favor. If that's sane, how hollow isn' that word? What's the point in even considering if someone's sane or not?

I agree.

I also don't think "Insanity" should be a defense in Capital Murder cases.

Mental Retardation possibly... but that is clinically a different phenomina.

A mental disability should not be an "excuse" for committing murder!
It's like this: 'Yeah this guy killed 50 people with a machine gun, but since he thought he was in a video game shooting aliens, we're gonna have to give him a more lenient sentence.' Do the relatives of those 50 people he killed give a damn if he thought he was shooting aliens? My guess would be "no".

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:08 pm**

patches70 wrote:
Johnny Rockets wrote:The major fail here, is that he gets to communicate and promote his hate for the next 21 years to his fan base.

Meh, those inclined toward that type of hate are gonna be haters whether or not this scumbag is talking, walking, breathing or not. I'd say that due to the effects of his actions it's turned more people against his cause than for it. There would have been people sympathetic toward the guy's views, but not really willing to hurt anyone. Guy goes on killing spree and the previously sympathetic now revile the guy.

JR wrote:Like Clifford Olson in Canada, who would write taunting letters to his victims parents over the years of his incarceration.

Yeah, that's unfortunate to say the least. Messed up is all I can say, but who knows. After about 20 years in prison the guy might be sending letters saying he's sorry. Of course, the cynic in me would feel that it would only be an attempt to get himself freed after serving his pathetically short sentence......

JR wrote:so whats the minimum body count to engage permanently removing this element from society and showing those with similar designs that adopting another perspective might be a healthy life choice?

J

Patches makes some good points. Think most of yall are overreacting. Shit happens, people die. Whether it is by a gun, a pen, or lack of food and water, drowning, etc.

I don't know, maybe we should ask the US government, or just about most of the governments of the world. So, what is the current body count of innocent people killed in the War on Terror (for instance)?

Just asking is all. It seems in this messed up world, some people who kill or order to kill, are punished. Others who kill or order to kill are given medals or reelection and called "courageous heroes". It's all a matter of perspective I guess.....

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:09 pm**

[bigimg]http://chicagocaptioning.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/prison-cell.jpg[/bigimg]

The Nords are admittedly pretty far ahead of us when it comes to rehabilitation and crime prevention. We have infinity criminals and early parole for rapists and all that. Their sh*t seems to be working for them, so I won't judge.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:47 pm**

well, we do incarcerate 4 billion non-whites for every white. It's possible that both systems are flawed.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:24 am**

Army of GOD wrote:well, we do incarcerate 4 billion non-whites for every white. It's possible that both systems are flawed.

Possible just ours? I am not for cap murder unless your a pedophile.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:40 am**

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:well, we do incarcerate 4 billion non-whites for every white. It's possible that both systems are flawed.

Possible just ours? I am not for cap murder unless your a pedophile.

So if someone kills 100 people..... JAIL! If someone touches a kid inappropriately......EXECUTION!
Anyone else think this is a bit of an overkill?

Not that sexually harrassing a minor is something we should encourage but there are worse crimes. Like actually killing people.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:00 am**

Gillipig wrote:Maug, I must say I'm a little confused by the very idea that someone can be judged sane after having killed 77 innocent people while thinking he did his country a favor. If that's sane, how hollow isn' that word? What's the point in even considering if someone's sane or not?

Yeah, blows my mind.

jimboston wrote:I also don't think "Insanity" should be a defense in Capital Murder cases.

Mental Retardation possibly... but that is clinically a different phenomina.

I don't think it should be either.
If you show any potential intent to cause more harm with the continuation of your life, it should be ended.

patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

Gillipig wrote:A mental disability should not be an "excuse" for committing murder!

This.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:36 am**

jimboston wrote: The guy should get strung up by hooks through his finger nails... and his balls should be cut off.

I wonder whether this can be done legally :ugeek:

I guess it is possible to bring this sort of punishment into the books via emergency legislation in the Norwegian parliament and apply it retrospectively. I am sure it will be appealed in European Court of Human Rights. Such appeal is likely to be upheld, so Norway would have to leave ECHR to carry it out.

IMHO, it sounds like a lot of hassle unless stuff like this starts happening regularly in Norway...

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:31 am**

Gillipig wrote:
jimboston wrote:
Gillipig wrote:Maug, I must say I'm a little confused by the very idea that someone can be judged sane after having killed 77 innocent people while thinking he did his country a favor. If that's sane, how hollow isn' that word? What's the point in even considering if someone's sane or not?

I agree.

I also don't think "Insanity" should be a defense in Capital Murder cases.

Mental Retardation possibly... but that is clinically a different phenomina.

A mental disability should not be an "excuse" for committing murder!
It's like this: 'Yeah this guy killed 50 people with a machine gun, but since he thought he was in a video game shooting aliens, we're gonna have to give him a more lenient sentence.' Do the relatives of those 50 people he killed give a damn if he thought he was shooting aliens? My guess would be "no".

We are on the same page here Gillipig.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:33 am**

Pope Joan wrote:
jimboston wrote: The guy should get strung up by hooks through his finger nails... and his balls should be cut off.

I wonder whether this can be done legally I guess it is possible to bring this sort of punishment into the books via emergency legislation in the Norwegian parliament and apply it retrospectively. I am sure it will be appealed in European Court of Human Rights. Such appeal is likely to be upheld, so Norway would have to leave ECHR to carry it out.

IMHO, it sounds like a lot of hassle unless stuff like this starts happening regularly in Norway...

I'm talking about what SHOULD be done.

Yeah, I know we have a lot of stoopid laws and a lot of stoopid people that make what we SHOULD do seem difficult.

In JimWorld this would be his punishment.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:13 am**

Gillipig wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:well, we do incarcerate 4 billion non-whites for every white. It's possible that both systems are flawed.

Possible just ours? I am not for cap murder unless your a pedophile.

So if someone kills 100 people..... JAIL! If someone touches a kid inappropriately......EXECUTION!
Anyone else think this is a bit of an overkill?

Not that sexually harrassing a minor is something we should encourage but there are worse crimes. Like actually killing people.

You have any kids, Gilly?

Sexually harassing a minor is a little bit different from having to put 5 sutures in an 6 year old's anus because of tearing. Then pouring a boatload of therapy into the individual because they have been "touched" since they were 4, and he's worried to death about his younger siblings.
Sexual abuse can emotionally and mentally damage a person for life, disabling them and thus requiring society to spend a large amount of resources supporting them. ( income/therapy/medications)

Those that victimize innocents in this way should be killed. Period.

JRock

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:42 am**

Johnny Rockets wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:well, we do incarcerate 4 billion non-whites for every white. It's possible that both systems are flawed.

Possible just ours? I am not for cap murder unless your a pedophile.

So if someone kills 100 people..... JAIL! If someone touches a kid inappropriately......EXECUTION!
Anyone else think this is a bit of an overkill?

Not that sexually harrassing a minor is something we should encourage but there are worse crimes. Like actually killing people.

You have any kids, Gilly?

Sexually harassing a minor is a little bit different from having to put 5 sutures in an 6 year old's anus because of tearing. Then pouring a boatload of therapy into the individual because they have been "touched" since they were 4, and he's worried to death about his younger siblings.
Sexual abuse can emotionally and mentally damage a person for life, disabling them and thus requiring society to spend a large amount of resources supporting them. ( income/therapy/medications)

Those that victimize innocents in this way should be killed. Period.

JRock

I love how you call me Gilly with an "y". I truly do lol.
However you're throwing around the death penalty way too irresponsibly. If you're going to execute anyone who's sexually abused a child you morally need to do away with anyone who commits an even worse crime. So every murderer will have to be put down as well. And if you're going to give every murderer the death sentence you'll have a lot of cases were people were wrongly executed for a crime they never committed. The same is more than true for pedophilia. Eye witness evidence is a weak form of evidence compared to scientific evidence like footprints, dna tests. Most child abusers are sentenced based on eye witness evidence. So needless to say, you'll have some wrongly sentenced pedophiles out there. Which yet again means executing innocent people.
Also think of this. The majority of all people who end up raping children were raped when they were children themselves. So they're just "continuing the trend".
I find it hard to justify any view of them as "creatures of pure evil" since they were once victims themselves. Some of the kids you so warmly wish to protect will become the next generation of pedophiles. It's out of their control that they're sexually interested in children. Anyone of us could've been if we were put through what they were. The only reasonable thing to do is to try to rehabilitate them.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:46 pm**

^ you cannot argue with JR about pedophilia. he has an irrational fear of it. i don't know why, but i have a few guesses.

Maugena wrote:
patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

so in your eyes, immoral = insane?

why don't you give us your definition of "insane", because it's clearly wrong.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:01 am**

john9blue wrote:^ you cannot argue with JR about pedophilia. he has an irrational fear of it. i don't know why, but i have a few guesses.

Maugena wrote:
patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

so in your eyes, immoral = insane?

why don't you give us your definition of "insane", because it's clearly wrong.

I'll shoot the question back at you... Are you implying that it's sane to kill people?

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:11 pm**

Maugena wrote:
john9blue wrote:^ you cannot argue with JR about pedophilia. he has an irrational fear of it. i don't know why, but i have a few guesses.

Maugena wrote:
patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

so in your eyes, immoral = insane?

why don't you give us your definition of "insane", because it's clearly wrong.

I'll shoot the question back at you... Are you implying that it's sane to kill people?

i'm implying that it's POSSIBLE to murder someone while sane. you claimed that any murder that wasn't a mercy killing must have been done while insane.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:19 pm**

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:28 pm**

"I wouldn't say he deserved to die," said Ralph DelVecchio, 46, who was abused by Geoghan as a child. "He was in jail - that's where I believed he should be."

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:09 am**

john9blue wrote:
Maugena wrote:
john9blue wrote:^ you cannot argue with JR about pedophilia. he has an irrational fear of it. i don't know why, but i have a few guesses.

Maugena wrote:
patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

so in your eyes, immoral = insane?

why don't you give us your definition of "insane", because it's clearly wrong.

I'll shoot the question back at you... Are you implying that it's sane to kill people?

i'm implying that it's POSSIBLE to murder someone while sane. you claimed that any murder that wasn't a mercy killing must have been done while insane.

I think it's a little different to kill someone for example in self defense than to plot a mass killing for years and going around snipering teenagers on a youth camp. He was not sane by any means John.

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:14 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Maugena wrote:
john9blue wrote:^ you cannot argue with JR about pedophilia. he has an irrational fear of it. i don't know why, but i have a few guesses.

Maugena wrote:
patches70 wrote:I'm curious, why would you have preferred that he be labeled as insane?

In general, in regards to the law, one must be sane to be held responsible for their actions. An insane person cannot be held accountable for their actions, because, well, they are insane and can't help it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone ending anyone else's life for just about any reason other than a mercy killing is pretty much insane.

so in your eyes, immoral = insane?

why don't you give us your definition of "insane", because it's clearly wrong.

I'll shoot the question back at you... Are you implying that it's sane to kill people?

i'm implying that it's POSSIBLE to murder someone while sane. you claimed that any murder that wasn't a mercy killing must have been done while insane.

I think it's a little different to kill someone for example in self defense than to plot a mass killing for years and going around snipering teenagers on a youth camp. He was not sane by any means John.

what if someone did this to the hitler youth decades ago, in an effort to stall the rise of hitler? would they be "insane"? this guy views the ideology that these kids are being indoctrinated with as extremely dangerous

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:13 am**

john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
I think it's a little different to kill someone for example in self defense than to plot a mass killing for years and going around snipering teenagers on a youth camp. He was not sane by any means John.

what if someone did this to the hitler youth decades ago, in an effort to stall the rise of hitler? would they be "insane"? this guy views the ideology that these kids are being indoctrinated with as extremely dangerous

So in your mind that would be okay?
I'm disappointed!

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:34 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
I think it's a little different to kill someone for example in self defense than to plot a mass killing for years and going around snipering teenagers on a youth camp. He was not sane by any means John.

what if someone did this to the hitler youth decades ago, in an effort to stall the rise of hitler? would they be "insane"? this guy views the ideology that these kids are being indoctrinated with as extremely dangerous

So in your mind that would be okay?
I'm disappointed!

come on dude. i'm not saying that all murder is okay. i'm saying that it's possible to believe that murder is okay without being insane. your definition of "insane" seems to be "whatever goes against society's mores at the time", which is a really shitty definition. do you think cannibalism is insane?

Conquer Club

Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

Re: Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder