The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
The problem with execution is that you need a system that decides and administers such things. And I don't trust any government, even Norway's, with the ability to decide who dies unless absolutely necessary. The necessity has not been proved in the least with using execution in the justice system.
Hoz on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
A 15-year-old camper named Elise said she heard gunshots, but then saw a police officer and thought she was safe. Then he started shooting people right before her eyes.
"I saw many dead people," said Elise, whose father, Vidar Myhre, didn't want her to disclose her last name. "He first shot people on the island. Afterward he started shooting people in the water."
Elise said she hid behind the same rock that the killer was standing on. "I could hear his breathing from the top of the rock," she said.
She said it was impossible to say how many minutes passed while she was waiting for him to stop.
At a hotel in the village of Sundvollen, where survivors of the shooting were taken, 21-year-old Dana Berzingi wore pants stained with blood. He said the fake police officer ordered people to come closer, then pulled weapons and ammunition from a bag and started shooting.
Several victims "had pretended as if they were dead to survive," Berzingi said. But after shooting the victims with one gun, the gunman shot them again in the head with a shotgun, he said.
"I lost several friends," said Berzingi, who used the cell phone of one of those friends to call police. (...)
That is horrific.
I feel for all those kids. I just can't believe...
Oh man, I am just...
Only love, empathy and support for you all in Norway right now. I am so sorry for what you are going through.
The problem with execution is that you need a system that decides and administers such things. And I don't trust any government, even Norway's, with the ability to decide who dies unless absolutely necessary. The necessity has not been proved in the least with using execution in the justice system.
That's why I like how the northern states are able to go above the technical maximum of life sentences through increasingly heinous crimes reducing the chances of being paroled.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Also accepting a death penalty allows for mistakes. You're basically saying 'yeah some innocent people will be murdered by the government but fuck it'.
Yeah...the benefits are nowhere near the costs. I mean at least life in prison means there's time to correct the mistake and the mistake isn't fatal.
I don't see what we gain by allowing somebody like this to live..
In Norway, they have gained a legal system that works in reducing crime.
A little better than some primal satisfaction, in my book.
I guess I don't see how imposing a maximum sentence of 21 years would lower crime in an area in any significant way. Feel free to prove me wrong though.
Murder per capita in the United States each year: Around 5.0 (and that's using the generous modern figures)
Murder per capita in Norway each year: Around 0.65 (and that's taking more years into account than the U.S. figure)
More than 5X more homicide each year while using perhaps the most draconian penal system in a modernized state.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
I don't see what we gain by allowing somebody like this to live..
In Norway, they have gained a legal system that works in reducing crime.
A little better than some primal satisfaction, in my book.
I guess I don't see how imposing a maximum sentence of 21 years would lower crime in an area in any significant way. Feel free to prove me wrong though.
Murder per capita in the United States each year: Around 5.0 (and that's using the generous modern figures)
Murder per capita in Norway each year: Around 0.65 (and that's taking more years into account than the U.S. figure)
More than 5X more homicide each year while using perhaps the most draconian penal system in a modernized state.
Compare the laws concerning bullets, the education system, and the welfare state.
Also accepting a death penalty allows for mistakes. You're basically saying 'yeah some innocent people will be murdered by the government but fuck it'.
Yeah...the benefits are nowhere near the costs. I mean at least life in prison means there's time to correct the mistake and the mistake isn't fatal.
Keep in mind, most people in this thread talking about this aren't actually in favor of the death penalty; we're in favor of the harshest possible hypothetical retribution for this monster, knowing we have no say in the matter.
Typically I'm strongly against the death penalty, in part for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.
Regardless of what one thinks should be done here, I think we can all agree this is an extremely tragic, very unique case.
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
Lucid on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I mean the worst punishment I can think of for this asshole would to make him a moral human being who has to suffer with guilt and shame everyday for what he did.
Also I happen to lean more towards the correctional side and not the punishment side of the prison system.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I've never understood why so many people are so focused on the penalty of something like this. No matter what happens, it's not going to fix this or make it better. Anyone who thinks that killing the man who killed their child is going to make losing their child better for the parents needs to think really hard about that. It doesn't. Revenge doesn't make things better.
And no one getting all morally outraged that there are those of us who don't think it's right to kill another in cold blood, even a man such as this, has said a single word or had a single fucking thought about what we should've done to prevent this. I would much rather that we not have to mourn 80 kids killed while trying to console the world with the empty act of executing the murderer. There is no making this better once it has happened. There should only be this never happened in the first place.
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
And no one getting all morally outraged that there are those of us who don't think it's right to kill another in cold blood, even a man such as this, has said a single word or had a single fucking thought about what we should've done to prevent this. I would much rather that we not have to mourn 80 kids killed while trying to console the world with the empty act of executing the murderer. There is no making this better once it has happened. There should only be this never happened in the first place.
Well, let's be honest, though: even if you do everything you can to reduce crime, there will still be an element of criminality. It's just the consequence of living in an imperfect world.
Some people just have no inner daemon that reprimands them for doing something obscene.
Expecting shooting sprees to never happen is not very realistic; I just hope that when they do happen, we use all that we've learned to deal with the aftermath in the most intelligent & sensitive way we can.
I mean the worst punishment I can think of for this asshole would to make him a moral human being who has to suffer with guilt and shame everyday for what he did.
Also I happen to lean more towards the correctional side and not the punishment side of the prison system.
I fully agree with this.
On the first point, yes, if that were possible, I'd definitely choose that over the death penalty.
On the second, I know I haven't come across this way in this discussion, but I'm normally heavily in favor of correctional over punishment. This is just such an extreme case that emotions are bound to run pretty high.
Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion for now, since I'm well aware that I'm not personally going to say anything constructive.
I know that, while we have our differences in opinion, we can all agree that this is a horrific tragedy, and that our thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims in this time of unimaginable agony and grief.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, let's be honest, though: even if you do everything you can to reduce crime, there will still be an element of criminality. It's just the consequence of living in an imperfect world.
Some people just have no inner daemon that reprimands them for doing something obscene.
Expecting shooting sprees to never happen is not very realistic; I just hope that when they do happen, we use all that we've learned to deal with the aftermath in the most intelligent & sensitive way we can.
It's also not realistic to expect a deterrent to have any effect on this. Whatever punishment we can think up, it wouldn't matter. So any punishment is moot in terms of prevention, which means killing this man has one purpose, and only one purpose: Vengeance.
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
I just don't think having the presence of the death penalty would alter a course of murderous events and the aftermath very much. They're not going to think to themselves that they've already killed some people but if I kill more on escaping they might catch me and kill me too.
I mean, some of the more infamous murderers actively knew they would be killed if caught and they practically flaunted their actions, Charles Starkweather being a good example. Murder represents almost complete takeover by the ego in an individual which is why it's such anathema to rational thought.
It's also not realistic to expect a deterrent to have any effect on this. Whatever punishment we can think up, it wouldn't matter. So any punishment is moot in terms of prevention, which means killing this man has one purpose, and only one purpose: Vengeance.
Nothing for me to argue with here.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
would some of you actually prefer the gunner to be dead (be it suicide or shot by the police) rather than alive and willing to talk?
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
I just don't think having the presence of the death penalty would alter a course of murderous events and the aftermath very much. They're not going to think to themselves that they've already killed some people but if I kill more on escaping they might catch me and kill me too.
I mean, some of the more infamous murderers actively knew they would be killed if caught and they practically flaunted their actions, Charles Starkweather being a good example. Murder represents almost complete takeover by the ego in an individual which is why it's such anathema to rational thought.
Who said anything about the death penalty? I'm talking about concurrent versus consecutive punishment and how the former means that there is no consequence to committing crimes less than or equal to a first crime in severity.
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I've never understood why so many people are so focused on the penalty of something like this. No matter what happens, it's not going to fix this or make it better. Anyone who thinks that killing the man who killed their child is going to make losing their child better for the parents needs to think really hard about that. It doesn't. Revenge doesn't make things better.
And no one getting all morally outraged that there are those of us who don't think it's right to kill another in cold blood, even a man such as this, has said a single word or had a single fucking thought about what we should've done to prevent this. I would much rather that we not have to mourn 80 kids killed while trying to console the world with the empty act of executing the murderer. There is no making this better once it has happened. There should only be this never happened in the first place.
I would think that the perpetrator eventually getting out of prison, only to be celebrated as a hero by his ideological cohorts could be said to make it worse.
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
I just don't think having the presence of the death penalty would alter a course of murderous events and the aftermath very much. They're not going to think to themselves that they've already killed some people but if I kill more on escaping they might catch me and kill me too.
I mean, some of the more infamous murderers actively knew they would be killed if caught and they practically flaunted their actions, Charles Starkweather being a good example. Murder represents almost complete takeover by the ego in an individual which is why it's such anathema to rational thought.
Who said anything about the death penalty? I'm talking about concurrent versus consecutive punishment and how the former means that there is no consequence to committing crimes less than or equal to a first crime in severity.
Again though, I don't believe consequence plays much of a role if any in the decision making process of a criminal mind. Replace death penalty with whatever scenario or outcome.
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
I would think that the perpetrator eventually getting out of prison, only to be celebrated as a hero by his ideological cohorts could be said to make it worse.
This is no more likely than him being celebrated as a martyr.
The big issue I can see with concurrent sentences and the resulting 21 year cap is that it removes all incentives to stop at one murder. Once he's been found out, the murderer might as well go "fuck it, why not?" and just find the rest of the people he has a grudge against. This is especially problematic if you want to keep cops alive, as there is no real reason not to fight back one the cops are after him for murder. They're after him, so the gig's up and he's already getting that 21 year sentence, so it's not like shooting them will lose him anything, and may very well gain him those 21 years if he's successful.
This is not likely to be what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer(or any kind, really).
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
Even in(or especially so) crimes of passion, the murderer is not really thinking about much in terms of consequence. It's like being in the zone, except in a sinister fashion.
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
I just don't think having the presence of the death penalty would alter a course of murderous events and the aftermath very much. They're not going to think to themselves that they've already killed some people but if I kill more on escaping they might catch me and kill me too.
I mean, some of the more infamous murderers actively knew they would be killed if caught and they practically flaunted their actions, Charles Starkweather being a good example. Murder represents almost complete takeover by the ego in an individual which is why it's such anathema to rational thought.
Who said anything about the death penalty? I'm talking about concurrent versus consecutive punishment and how the former means that there is no consequence to committing crimes less than or equal to a first crime in severity.
Again though, I don't believe consequence plays much of a role if any in the decision making process of a criminal mind. Replace death penalty with whatever scenario or outcome.
I would think that the perpetrator eventually getting out of prison, only to be celebrated as a hero by his ideological cohorts could be said to make it worse.
This an unlikely outlier though, and as such shouldn't really be taken into much consideration.
would some of you actually prefer the gunner to be dead (be it suicide or shot by the police) rather than alive and willing to talk?
What exactly does he have to say that we should hear?
We can learn from him what drove him to this. We can add to our knowledge of what to look for, how to prevent it, and how to treat people like him. Killing him gets nothing.
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I don't see what we gain by allowing somebody like this to live..
What do we gain by killing him?
primal satisfaction.
And bringing peace to victims and their families.
Did you lose someone in the attacks?
I know on this board bringing up religion can be a tricky proposition, but I had a pastor say this that I've always carried with me. You can't turn someone else's cheek for them. You can't forgive someone's transgressions when you weren't the one wronged. I honestly don't know what I think the just outcome here is. I like the suggestion of forcing this slime of a man to have a soul and develop the moral sense and guilt to realize what exactly he did. But that doesn't seem feasible.
I like the suggestion of forcing this slime of a man to have a soul and develop the moral sense and guilt to realize what exactly he did. But that doesn't seem feasible.
Why?
What about getting people in to a relatively sane state of mind seems unfeasible to you?
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This man is very very sick. He needs treatment, not punishment.
edit: Live press conference with the Prime Minister and Justice Minister here if you can understand Norwegian. Though there are occasional questions in English.
Posts
It's not so much about this case as the marginally unstable cases where a crime of passion leading to a case where the person could then commit as many crimes as he wants without (additional) consequences. Hell, how do you even discourage fleeing bail or escaping from prison in this system?
That is horrific.
I feel for all those kids. I just can't believe...
Oh man, I am just...
Only love, empathy and support for you all in Norway right now. I am so sorry for what you are going through.
Yeah...the benefits are nowhere near the costs. I mean at least life in prison means there's time to correct the mistake and the mistake isn't fatal.
Murder per capita in the United States each year: Around 5.0 (and that's using the generous modern figures)
Murder per capita in Norway each year: Around 0.65 (and that's taking more years into account than the U.S. figure)
More than 5X more homicide each year while using perhaps the most draconian penal system in a modernized state.
7 died at the bombing, 80 (so far) at the shooting
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Compare the laws concerning bullets, the education system, and the welfare state.
Keep in mind, most people in this thread talking about this aren't actually in favor of the death penalty; we're in favor of the harshest possible hypothetical retribution for this monster, knowing we have no say in the matter.
Typically I'm strongly against the death penalty, in part for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.
Regardless of what one thinks should be done here, I think we can all agree this is an extremely tragic, very unique case.
7 dead. At least 11 people with 'critical injuries', so I would assume that some of these people will end-up with life-long debilitating conditions.
Far fewer than 80, but by no means a figure to be shrugged-off.
I'm not sure how their penal system works, but that is pretty weird.
Also I happen to lean more towards the correctional side and not the punishment side of the prison system.
And no one getting all morally outraged that there are those of us who don't think it's right to kill another in cold blood, even a man such as this, has said a single word or had a single fucking thought about what we should've done to prevent this. I would much rather that we not have to mourn 80 kids killed while trying to console the world with the empty act of executing the murderer. There is no making this better once it has happened. There should only be this never happened in the first place.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I mean that the initial case was a crime of passion. Hijacking the plane in an attempt to escape is just figuring that you're already in trouble, so why not.
Well, let's be honest, though: even if you do everything you can to reduce crime, there will still be an element of criminality. It's just the consequence of living in an imperfect world.
Some people just have no inner daemon that reprimands them for doing something obscene.
Expecting shooting sprees to never happen is not very realistic; I just hope that when they do happen, we use all that we've learned to deal with the aftermath in the most intelligent & sensitive way we can.
I fully agree with this.
On the first point, yes, if that were possible, I'd definitely choose that over the death penalty.
On the second, I know I haven't come across this way in this discussion, but I'm normally heavily in favor of correctional over punishment. This is just such an extreme case that emotions are bound to run pretty high.
Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion for now, since I'm well aware that I'm not personally going to say anything constructive.
I know that, while we have our differences in opinion, we can all agree that this is a horrific tragedy, and that our thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims in this time of unimaginable agony and grief.
It's also not realistic to expect a deterrent to have any effect on this. Whatever punishment we can think up, it wouldn't matter. So any punishment is moot in terms of prevention, which means killing this man has one purpose, and only one purpose: Vengeance.
I mean, some of the more infamous murderers actively knew they would be killed if caught and they practically flaunted their actions, Charles Starkweather being a good example. Murder represents almost complete takeover by the ego in an individual which is why it's such anathema to rational thought.
Nothing for me to argue with here.
Who said anything about the death penalty? I'm talking about concurrent versus consecutive punishment and how the former means that there is no consequence to committing crimes less than or equal to a first crime in severity.
What exactly does he have to say that we should hear?
I would think that the perpetrator eventually getting out of prison, only to be celebrated as a hero by his ideological cohorts could be said to make it worse.
I'm pretty sure the families and friends of the dead would want to know his motive, for one
This is no more likely than him being celebrated as a martyr.
This an unlikely outlier though, and as such shouldn't really be taken into much consideration.
Did you lose someone in the attacks?
We can learn from him what drove him to this. We can add to our knowledge of what to look for, how to prevent it, and how to treat people like him. Killing him gets nothing.
I know on this board bringing up religion can be a tricky proposition, but I had a pastor say this that I've always carried with me. You can't turn someone else's cheek for them. You can't forgive someone's transgressions when you weren't the one wronged. I honestly don't know what I think the just outcome here is. I like the suggestion of forcing this slime of a man to have a soul and develop the moral sense and guilt to realize what exactly he did. But that doesn't seem feasible.
Why?
What about getting people in to a relatively sane state of mind seems unfeasible to you?
edit: Live press conference with the Prime Minister and Justice Minister here if you can understand Norwegian. Though there are occasional questions in English.