Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:


All it says is that, no matter what horrible thing you do at worst we'll toss you in a nice comfortable facility where your every need is met and cared for for the rest of your life.

And yet Norway has less homicides per capita than the US (2.2 in 2011 for Norway compared to 4.7 in 2012 for the US). 2011 is also the year that Breivik's attack occurred, without that the Norwegian rate falls to 0.6.

So apparently having overcrowded prisons with crap facilities and which completely fail at any measurable rehabilitation programme, along with the possibility of the death penalty, is not a successful deterrent.

In that case I'll take Norways system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats because of their respective causes. Martyrdom is important to Tsarnaev's cause, not particularly to what Breivik's is. The people who would follow Brevik would actually be put off by death.

Either way, they deserve death.

So not only are you capable of psychoanalysing people who may not even exist, you are also capable of accurately determining exactly when someone deserves to die. That's some serious mind-powers

Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.

And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.

We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.

And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.

We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.

So what exactly are their philosophical views?

You implied that having better prisons with higher living standards would in some way encourage people to commit crime or not act as a deterrent to committing a crime. That is false.

And the death penalty, due to the large number of appeals it always faces, is no cheaper than life in prison and no more effective a deterrent.

Add in the possibility of executing an innocent man and, well...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.

And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.

We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.

So what exactly are their philosophical views?

You implied that having better prisons with higher living standards would in some way encourage people to commit crime or not act as a deterrent to committing a crime. That is false.

And the death penalty, due to the large number of appeals it always faces, is no cheaper than life in prison and no more effective a deterrent.

Add in the possibility of executing an innocent man and, well...

The death penalty doesn't have to be a deterrent. Its not always about deterring crime, its about punishing it justly.

And really, Brevik getting to live in a cushy prison is even less of a deterrent than executing him. Especially since he's got the not insignificant possibility of getting out. Life without parole would be better in that case.

Prison shouldn't be a nice place. Just for reasons of principle.

The ideal situation would be programs to reduce the root causes of crime(poverty and gang culture) while also making the punishments very steep. That way, you have less of the original cause pushing people into crime AND you have the deterrent of severe punishment.

Yes, there is the risk of executing an innocent person. But its so small that its well worth removing the offenders from society. Thats also why we have high burdens of proof.

On the one hand you speak of punishing crimes justly but then you speak of executing an innocent person as being acceptable as long as it doesn't happen too often.

By the way, peer-reviewed research puts the occurrence of unjust convictions on death row at around 4%, which is quite high when you're talking about the death penalty.

In the case of executing an innocent you have also failed justice twofold. You have killed an innocent person and allowed the real criminal to go free.

Given that very very rarely does someone get sentenced to death in the US, 4% is freakishly rare. Yes, its acceptable.

And the rate is going down with increased advancements in forensics. The declining rate of exonerations is proof of that, especially since every inmate has all the time in the world to appeal and have evidence reexamined.

Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.

Business as usual in the OT.

 d-usa wrote:
Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.

Business as usual in the OT.

Its the lesser of two evils.

You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Plus the fact he is still alive lets him stand as an inspiration for people who are sympathetic to his cause, and he hasn't been made an example of..

How did the horrifically bloodthirsty example that the Romans made out of Jesus work at deterring the people that are sympathetic to his cause?


The best thing to do with people like this is to lock them away from society for the rest of their natural life. There is always a chance he will repent and denounce his cause.

I mean, Charles Manson was trying to start a Race War. Plenty of potential followers for that cause. Since he has been imprisoned for the last 50 years or so, he has shown through various interviews to be a pathetic coward.

If he had been executed, we would not have this. The fact that he was able to infiltrate high society and instruct others to kill would have elevated him to a legend.

Living people rarely make good legends.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.

Business as usual in the OT.

Its the lesser of two evils.

You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.

Killing innocent people is murder, and at this point you are pro-murder simply because you refuse to accept any other possibility for punishing murders. By your own definition you are evil and should be executed yourself.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its the lesser of two evils.

You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.

You can sentence people to things other than death.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.

Business as usual in the OT.

Its the lesser of two evils.

You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.

Are you suffering from some kind of mental trauma affecting the left side of your brain? Not executing people does now "allow them to get away with murder". They're either locked away for life or they're rehabilitated and reintroduced to society as functioning citizens.

How do you even develop this kind of flawed logic? It's a complete Non Sequitur.

Rehabilitating someone and releasing them back into society is the opposite of punishing them. So yes, you have let someone get away with murder in that case.

And I don't appreciate you insulting my mental faculties.

RULE #1.

Seriously - if you cannot post without insulting someone - DO NOT POST.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rehabilitating someone and releasing them back into society is the opposite of punishing them. So yes, you have let someone get away with murder in that case.

And I don't appreciate you insulting my mental faculties.

They haven't gotten away with murder. They've spent years, possibly decades, in the care of physicians improving their mental state until they're assured they won't go murderhobo on the nearest person.

You really are living in a complete delusional fantasy if you think the death penalty does anything. It does not reduce crime rates- if anything it INCREASES the murder rate. Again, Nordic nations have banned the death penalty and are leagues ahead of America in all departments. They don't have an obscene crime rate or prisoner population. The law does not exist to be some pathetic revenge fantasy of yours. It exists to maintain order. I insult you because you clearly ignore facts to suit your own fictional realm that is not reality.

You say it increases murder, yet that entire graph shows a downward trend over time for every state, death penalty or not. Clearly its not tied to the death penalty.

Also, correlation =/= causation. How do you know that it isn't the other way around and that states with a high murder rate institute the death penalty as a reaction.

Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

States with the death penalty have already shown a willingness to be amoral and evil and have no problem with killing innocent people, maybe that's why more people on those states are fine with being evil and amoral?

Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.

Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

Oh I like this arguing technique.

It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.

Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.

I'm sure all the anti-death penalty states are working on that right now. It's not like there is a shortage of people like him out there in the system.

 djones520 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

Oh I like this arguing technique.

It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

Heh heh heh.

Can't a man ask an honest question without having his motives questioned?

 djones520 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

Oh I like this arguing technique.

It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

That would be true if aborting babies was legal. But it is not. Now, you can abort what will one day grow in to a baby, a mass of cells that has no thought, feelings, or emotions of its own. But that's just being picky, right?

 Da Boss wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

Oh I like this arguing technique.

It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

Heh heh heh.

Can't a man ask an honest question without having his motives questioned?

This is the internet good sir.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).

But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?

Oh I like this arguing technique.

It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

That would be true if aborting babies was legal. But it is not. Now, you can abort what will one day grow in to a baby, a mass of cells that has no thought, feelings, or emotions of its own. But that's just being picky, right?

Given that most abortions happen well after the development of nervous tissue, you are wrong about it having no thought.

But that shouldn't matter. Its still a human baby, no matter how small. And its innocent. Someone who participated in an act of mass murder isn't.

Topic or lock. Choose.

 djones520 wrote:
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

Really?

So in your mind liberals are just on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of fething and aborting babies? What an absurd position formed from the worst stereotypes of the left.

Liberals who are pro-choice, among whom I identify, do not eagerly seek out abortions, nor do we desire to see more abortions in the world. We simply desire for women to have the choice to choose such a procedure if it is necessary. Liberals also typically advocate for sexual education as well as reproductive rights, so that people can understand how the body functions and make more informed decisions which will (hopefully) prevent the need for abortions down the road. But given what you think of abortions, I bet you find sex education to just be a process of indoctrinating children into sexual deviancy, right? Instead, the highly successful abstinence only education is the way to go. Am I right? Or am I just making generalizations based on stereotypes from the fringes of the religious right? I hope that isn't the case, because I'd be a real douche for doing that.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.

Really?

So in your mind liberals are just on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of fething and aborting babies? What an absurd position formed from the worst stereotypes of the left.

Liberals who are pro-choice, among whom I identify, do not eagerly seek out abortions, nor do we desire to see more abortions in the world. We simply desire for women to have the choice to choose such a procedure if it is necessary. Liberals also typically advocate for sexual education as well as reproductive rights, so that people can understand how the body functions and make more informed decisions which will (hopefully) prevent the need for abortions down the road. But given what you think of abortions, I bet you find sex education to just be a process of indoctrinating children into sexual deviancy, right? Instead, the highly successful abstinence only education is the way to go. Am I right? Or am I just making generalizations based on stereotypes from the fringes of the religious right? I hope that isn't the case, because I'd be a real douche for doing that.

Clearly the context of the post was lost on you.

Guess it's time to welcome that lock.

The thread should have been locked when we had the mental disconnect between "murders are amoral and evil and should be killed" and "it's okay that innocent people get murdered by the state because it's not that many of them".

Just read that he got the death sentence.

I highly applaud the sentence, the sooner we get rid of that animal, the better.

Good job.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just read that he got the death sentence.

I highly applaud the sentence, the sooner we get rid of that animal, the better.

Good job.

Exalted my friend.

While I agree that in many situations it is the better choice to send him to prison to rehabilitate the criminal....in this case it is not. A mass murderer who is clearly beyond any doubt guilty of his actions and who has shown no remorse is deserving of a death sentence. His punishment is the removal of him and his genetic legacy from this earth, He hasn't earned the right to be rehabilitated and sent back out into the public,what he has earned is a death sentence.

Someone who willingly plants bombs behind 8 year old children and who will never be able to prove his innocence because of the sheer amount of evidence against him should be pushed to the front of the line and fast tracked to his death sentence.