Anders Behring Breivik is sane and gets 21yrs

[scspkr99]

Capo we know you don't believe rehabilitation is lovely in theory because of the conclusions you draw regarding it. You can't suggest that he'll either be killed or kill himself to definitively dismiss the concept of rehabilitation.

Whether this individual can or can't be once we accept that rehabilitation is possible in some cases and desirable in all we should look to create the conditions to maximise it's chances. Given that it's impossible to be rehabilitated when dead not killing the individual is the best place to start.

See I'm comfortable with the line being drawn at not killing people, where do you want it drawn? 77 people? 7? 2?

[Marzz]

Doesn' t he get +30 years for humanitarian charges?

[noam]

i'm being called incoherent because of one typo, come on
a little pretentious to act like you have no idea what i meant
i'm not stupid for disagreeing, i'm being practical
and again, you're equating unequal things
a penal system which "kills people for committing crimes?"
not the same as a penal system that kills people for senselessly merc'ing 75 other people
take out the trash
fuck outa here.
gimme a break.

they're exactly the same things in the eyes of the law

be it he killed one or seventy one people its still a murder charge

since when did 'practicality' have anything to do with 'justice' that you were so nobly holding up in your first post

you're chatting bollocks

your whole argument was basically a massive knee-jerk reaction to how many people he's killed, and had absolutely nothing at all to do with a) justice or b) bringing down any of the arguments i've made or dubford made in this thread

i could probably summarise your premise with 'but... C'MOOOON?!?!'

im not going to repeat myself any more though

[noam]

rehabilitation sounds lovely in theory but imo is the same as a death sentence anyway, because someone would kill him as soon as he got into the general public. And if he truly was rehabilitated and saw what he had done then he would kill himself from remorse, as any decent person would do. You wouldn't be able to take the guilt.

not sure if thats meant to be a serious argument or not?

[capo ultra]

rehabilitation sounds lovely in theory but imo is the same as a death sentence anyway, because someone would kill him as soon as he got into the general public. And if he truly was rehabilitated and saw what he had done then he would kill himself from remorse, as any decent person would do. You wouldn't be able to take the guilt.

not sure if thats meant to be a serious argument or not?

It's not an argument just an observation.

Wasn't going to go back but you can't be serious about your idea that mistakes might be made as an argument against the death penalty. Totally ludicrous. You can say we shouldn't have the death penalty on nobility grounds, which I actually believe, but saying 'what if an innocent man was killed' is an argument for a tighter justice system not an argument against the punishments dealt out.

You can't suggest that he'll either be killed or kill himself to definitively dismiss the concept of rehabilitation.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything, I'm just contemplating the actual reality of this particular situation. Come on get real can you imagine this guy happily wandering around town in 20 years or whatever with no guilt and no one dead set on killing him? Didn't think so

I'm not actually for the death penalty for this guy it's just there is a big divide between nicely proposed hypothetical CONCEPTS and the actual execution (excuse the pun) of said rhetoric in THIS real situation.
------------------

Anyway he's not getting rehabilitated is he. There is no chance of that. He's going to stay in jail forever so lets move on:



Life in solitary imprisonment

or just kill him.

which is more noble?

[scspkr99]

Why is it about noble?

You are dismissing the idea of his rehabilitation. It's not about whether he will it's about providing the circumstances where he can, if he's dead he can't. It also doesn't necessarily hold that rehabilitating him means releasing him. And you still don't want to consider if there's a line where it is.

[capo ultra]

I draw the line at capital punishment?

I am dismissing the idea of his rehabilitation, and you aren't providing an argument in which he would

[Marzz]

Why is it about nobility?

You are dismissing the idea of his rehabilitation. It's not about whether he will it's about providing the circumstances where he can, if he's dead he can't. It also doesn't necessarily hold that rehabilitating him means releasing him. And you still don't want to consider if there's a line where it is.

[capo ultra]

Why is it not all about nobility?

[capo ultra]

why should the choice be rehabilitate him or kill him? In most cases neither happens

[capo ultra]

It also doesn't necessarily hold that rehabilitating him means releasing him.

you're moving the goalposts now. This is what I am replying to:

they should attempt to ingratiate him in the general population and rehabilitate him.

this is never going to happen. It sounds lovely but it is never going to happen. I agree with the concept but it is not happening.

Again, he would be murdered instantly.

[noam]

rehabilitation sounds lovely in theory but imo is the same as a death sentence anyway, because someone would kill him as soon as he got into the general public. And if he truly was rehabilitated and saw what he had done then he would kill himself from remorse, as any decent person would do. You wouldn't be able to take the guilt.

not sure if thats meant to be a serious argument or not?

It's not an argument just an observation.

Wasn't going to go back but you can't be serious about your idea that mistakes might be made as an argument against the death penalty. Totally ludicrous. You can say we shouldn't have the death penalty on nobility grounds, which I actually believe, but saying 'what if an innocent man was killed' is an argument for a tighter justice system not an argument against the punishments dealt out.

its an argument for both.

argument/observation whatever, you cant make an observation about something which hasn't happened yet so you're making an assumption, then you're asserting that any good minded person would kill themselves

well i put it to you that a good minded person instead of wasting a potential 30-40 years of helping other people by killing themselves after they're rehabilitated, that in fact they'd devote the last years of their to trying to stop the spread of the very same thoughts that led them to massacre. they'd do all they possibly can to prevent it happening again, to teach, to provide, to show the world what mistakes lead to those actions.

he's useless dead and if he's locked up and not rehabilitated at least he's locked up, but if there's any possible chance at least SOME bit of good for any other person can come from him being alive then thats enough.

You can't suggest that he'll either be killed or kill himself to definitively dismiss the concept of rehabilitation.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything, I'm just contemplating the actual reality of this particular situation. Come on get real can you imagine this guy happily wandering around town in 20 years or whatever with no guilt and no one dead set on killing him? Didn't think so
[/quote]

you're asserting claims that are supposedly 'realistic' about something which hasn't happened yet, and using your own hypothetical to justify his own murder...

if he get released in 30 years and he's a changed man and he gets murdered instantly, fine, but its not an argument to just kill him now

''hey guys, i mean... im just gona save you a lot of time and hassle here *BANG* so errrr... yeh i mean it was probably just gona happen anyway,

they should attempt to ingratiate him in the general population and rehabilitate him.

this is never going to happen. It sounds lovely but it is never going to happen. I agree with the concept but it is not happening.

Again, he would be murdered instantly.[/quote]

i've already said that refers to prison pop, solitary confinement is barbaric for anyone who doesn't pose a serious threat to the safety of other prisoners

so if they deem it that he's too dangerous fine, but solitary confinement indefinitely forever is just barbarous and cruel if you're even going to attempt to save a mind it needs other people

and 'murdered instantly' i think you're underestimating the Norwegian public...

plus he'd obviously be assigned a new identity

[scspkr99]

It also doesn't necessarily hold that rehabilitating him means releasing him.

you're moving the goalposts now. This is what I am replying to:

Nah I said doesn't necessarily. Anyway I think there's still the possibility that he can be rehabilitated into general prison population from solitary so it stands regardless.

[capo ultra]

the point that I am making is this:

If you rehab this guy and change his way of thinking and release him to the general population, you are giving him a death sentence.

If you can't comprehend this statement then I can't help you.

If you disagree with this statement, then I admire your naivety.

[noam]

no you're not lol

there's fucking shit loads of murderers/paedophiles/racists released all the time who dont get killed, because the majority of the population aren't animals who can murder people

he'll have a new name, live in a place where no one knows him from jack and the likelihood is he'll never be found unless he's sold out

if people who turn against colombian drug cartels can survive under new identities im sure he could, after all its a bit different when, with respect you have a multi-billion dollar criminal organisation with links into international police agencies after you...

regardless of all of that, you aren't going to sentence someone to death because they're not massively liked in the public eye and releasing them would see them potentially hurt.. because thats. a. fucking. dumb. argument. LOL.

[lloydnoise]

he won't get out, a "preventive detention" clause will see to that. can you imagine the uproar in 21 years if he did?

Noam - I'm generally in agreement with rehabilitation over prison for a majority of offenders but there are and should always be exceptions.
Brevik didn't do what he did out of necessity, he was flexing an idealogical will. His crimes come from a deep belief that he will probably never let go of, and his conduct in court underlines his own position; no remorse, he is a martyr. No matter the length of time and the methods used, short of brainwashing the guy (as someone said earlier) you aren't EVER going to change him or his behaviour.

Rehabilitation works in some cases, in others it won't do a thing. IMO Brevik should simply be locked away forever, simple as that. Let him know that the world doesn't want him and thinks he's fundamentally wrong in his beliefs and in his actions.

[noam]

yeh i mean im not arguing that its 100% that he'll ever renounce his views honestly

i've not said that at all

but the way the sentencing has been, is at least allowing the opportunity for it, its not a closed door in effect

i also there's a difference here between psychotic behaviour which he clearly displayed and 'insane' behaviour

plenty of psychopaths in prison as opposed to mental hospitals... 'sane' doesn't necessarily mean he's just some regular guy

i think it takes a certain amount of disconnection from actual reality to commit 77 murders, a lot of them children... if he's been declared 'sane' im guessing its because he was simply of sound enough mind to concoct and enact his plan, not that he's just some regular guy off the street who one day decided he was going to murder people cos he doesn't like Islam

[hugh]

I'm sorry but do people in this thread actually think this guy deserves anything other than a ninja star to the eyes?
There's no way you can rehab somebody like this. He doesn't even fucking deserve it. He has NO respect for people's right to life, no remorse, no empathy, NOTHING.

He's a fucking tnuc and he should burn in hell.
His face when he was having his sentence given....that little fucking smirk. I'm sorry but if that didn't boil your fucking blood then you are probably more fucking detached from humanity than he is.

He actually seriously reminds me of the Joker. Some men just want to watch the world burn. People like that should be submerged and drowned in a bath of fire ants.

[hugh]

yeh i mean im not arguing that its 100% that he'll ever renounce his views honestly

i've not said that at all

but the way the sentencing has been, is at least allowing the opportunity for it, its not a closed door in effect

i also there's a difference here between psychotic behaviour which he clearly displayed and 'insane' behaviour

plenty of psychopaths in prison as opposed to mental hospitals... 'sane' doesn't necessarily mean he's just some regular guy

i think it takes a certain amount of disconnection from actual reality to commit 77 murders, a lot of them children... if he's been declared 'sane' im guessing its because he was simply of sound enough mind to concoct and enact his plan, not that he's just some regular guy off the street who one day decided he was going to murder people cos he doesn't like Islam

honestly noam, who actually gives a fuck what he renounces or what the fuck he does? I really can't see where you are coming from here.

[hugh]

It disgusts me that this has even dwindled in a discussion of moral ambivalence?
All this talk of rehabbing and "leaving the door open" is nothing but ego-stroking bullshit. This discussion of virtuosity is just so far fucking detached from the reality here, and does nothing but try to feed others the impression that you are wise and worldly. Get real.