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.
(1) Slippery slope? It doesn't apply. Clear-cut cases are what I'm discussing here. The cases involve a person who murders several people as part of a political goal.
(2) The subsidy is from the State and put into the production of nice prisons. That's a subsidy; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. What are the consequences? Well, mass murderers are given extensive capital to spread their message while enjoying a relatively nice standard of living. If the subsidy results in these unintended consequences, then I'll continue arguing that this is a subsidy to mass murderers.
"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'."
As already mentioned a couple of times, I'm only talking about mass murderers. I still don't find your support of subsidies to mass murderers to be more civil than lashes and/or execution in the furtherance of justice on behalf of the victims' loved ones.
(3) Certain rights of the perpetrator aren't upheld after the perpetrator violates the rights of others.
Negative Externalities: As already mentioned, I'm assuming that saxi's A through E list is true (it could be apocryphal). Maybe Breivik gets 21 years in solitary confinement, and that might be satisfactory for both of our positions.
Breivik's CV: It's strong. He's committed to furthering the stated goals of radical right-wing groups. That's some serious street cred there. You're right in that he is ideologically isolated---but only among radical right-wing groups that only talk-the-talk, thus diminishing their respect in the eyes of those who do wish to see true change. Within certain "ideology markets," Breivik's a winner, a source of inspiration, and a great way to disseminate knowledge of the new means for bypassing Norwegian security in order to implement far right-wing goals. My position is that mass murderers lose their rights for failing to play by the rules of the game. It's practically Chamberlain to argue otherwise.
I don't see why it's more civil to provide mass murderers a nice 20+ year standard of living for violating the rights of others in such a despicable manner. Support of state subsidies to the production of such lovely facilities for mass murderers is not civil--it's absurd. Nor is it civil to allow a mass murderer to retain his free speech rights after already violating the negative rights to life of 70+ people--and of course, after having a fair trial and all that jazz. Rights of such violators aren't to be upheld for failure to abide by the rule of law.
They don't play by the rules and expecting them to do so (in the name of civility) is just wishful thinking and being impractical/too idealistic.
