As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Terrorism General: A Developing Thread 1Sep Typologies: Revolutionary Anarchist

1234568

Posts

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I suspect the disagreement here is that some of us believe the prison system is meant to rehabilitate people while others just want it to hurt them.

    I'll go ahead and say I disagree with the latter and find their opinion unfortunate.

  • Options
    DunderDunder Registered User regular
    All the articles also seem to be designed to maximise the outrage, as if the crime itself isn't horrible enough - they all refer to the victim as a "boy, under 15 years of age" and the perpetrators are all described as teenagers, two of which are 16 and 17.
    I'm unfamiliar, is up to 15 some sort of legal age bracket in Sweden or is it just a way for tabloids to insinuate the victim is younger than he actually is?

    15 is the age of consent in Sweden. Unless recently changed of course.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these more political threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    Quid on
  • Options
    ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    I think they should have longer sentences but I don't think they should be deported

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Prohass wrote: »
    I think they should have longer sentences but I don't think they should be deported

    Personally I agree. But that's totally based off my own intuition which I admit could be wrong. I'm betting they wouldn't, but if Sweden's prison system said one or more were okay to release back in to society I would trust them over my gut feeling.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Dunder wrote: »
    All the articles also seem to be designed to maximise the outrage, as if the crime itself isn't horrible enough - they all refer to the victim as a "boy, under 15 years of age" and the perpetrators are all described as teenagers, two of which are 16 and 17.
    I'm unfamiliar, is up to 15 some sort of legal age bracket in Sweden or is it just a way for tabloids to insinuate the victim is younger than he actually is?

    15 is the age of consent in Sweden. Unless recently changed of course.

    18 is the age of majority in Sweden

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:

    Edit:
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?
    Noone was sentenced to 18 months. All of them got 15 or less.
    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    Panda4You on
  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:

    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    Good thing these "kids" aren't in "for life" then? :wink:

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    You use smileys weird

    Does anyone here live in Sweden? Cause I'm sure the US sentences minors differently

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?
    A year and a half? Really? That's a goddamn slap on the wrist. And I certainly advocate for them getting kicked out. Out of the kindness of their hearts the Swedes took these things into their country and they repaid their kindness by filming themselves gang-raping a child. They had their chance, and they blew it. Why should the Swedes allow them to stay?

    Honestly, some of you guys are just trashing Sweden's justice system. Which may be a reasonable criticism, but isn't a justification for saying they should be deported. Like, this is their justice system. If you don't like it, you should .... change their immigration policy, what huh? Raging that their justice system is too lenient to criminals and so therefore deport them is :question::question::question:

    hippofant on
  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    You use smileys weird

    Does anyone here live in Sweden? Cause I'm sure the US sentences minors differently
    Having these things happening on a somewhat monthly basis makes me unfortunately blasé about them.

  • Options
    OldSlackerOldSlacker Registered User regular
    Dunder wrote: »
    All the articles also seem to be designed to maximise the outrage, as if the crime itself isn't horrible enough - they all refer to the victim as a "boy, under 15 years of age" and the perpetrators are all described as teenagers, two of which are 16 and 17.
    I'm unfamiliar, is up to 15 some sort of legal age bracket in Sweden or is it just a way for tabloids to insinuate the victim is younger than he actually is?

    15 is the age of consent in Sweden. Unless recently changed of course.

    I see.
    Ugh.
    Still on the side of trying to rehabilitate them, though.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    It never pays to get hot-headed about horrible crimes

    It's part of being human, but it's an illogical self destructive part

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    Good thing these "kids" aren't in "for life" then? :wink:

    Yes it is a good thing Sweden's system of law is centered on rehabilitation instead of a desire to hurt people.

    Also you seem to be intent on ignoring that you're making up claims.

    Quid on
  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    Good thing these "kids" aren't in "for life" then? :wink:

    Good thing that doesn't matter one iota to whether or not they can have their sentences extended as per the law.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    jdarksunjdarksun Struggler VARegistered User regular
    I read up on recidivism in Sweden. It's about 43% for men, overall.

    Then I read a few studies and journals about recidivism for sexual offenses, which were lower in Sweden for non-Europeans than Europeans.

    Then I read a Scottish study that included data from several western sources, indicating recidivism for sexual offenses was about 30% - recidivism for non-sexual crimes (not including murder) was higher, while sexual crimes was lower (and murder was lowest of all).

    None of which has anything at all to do with terrorism, but the research only took me 30 goddamn minutes and the data was quite compelling.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    The people talking about campus culture are talking about people who never even get prosecuted, or who get let off with time served at best. About police officers who joke around with criminals while calling rape victims whores.

    Not about deporting people to war zones.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    Good thing these "kids" aren't in "for life" then? :wink:
    Yes it is a good thing Sweden's system of law is centered on rehabilitation instead of a desire to hurt people.

    Also you seem to be intent on ignoring that you're making up claims.
    I wasn't aware this one, unrelated and 30+ year-old, case you've dug up sets the basis for swedish prison sentences (all of which are irrelevant since these guys aren't going to prison)?

    Time-set sentences aren't prolonged. As I said, these guys will be free within a year. Serving the full time in Sweden doesn't happen without severe misconduct on the inmate's part... and as already mentioned these people aren't inmates. :wink:

  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    The people talking about campus culture are talking about people who never even get prosecuted, or who get let off with time served at best. About police officers who joke around with criminals while calling rape victims whores.

    Not about deporting people to war zones.

    I remember those threads, I remember pretty harsh arguments about what the punishment for rape should be. And I don't disagree! My arguments there were mostly due process. But it's strange to see such vehemence on one hand and such leniency and lack of caring on the other. The way Quid's talking about this you'd think they robbed a goddamn liquor store.

  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    The people talking about campus culture are talking about people who never even get prosecuted, or who get let off with time served at best. About police officers who joke around with criminals while calling rape victims whores.

    Not about deporting people to war zones.

    I remember those threads, I remember pretty harsh arguments about what the punishment for rape should be. And I don't disagree! My arguments there were mostly due process. But it's strange to see such vehemence on one hand and such leniency and lack of caring on the other. The way Quid's talking about this you'd think they robbed a goddamn liquor store.

    You mean in a calm, logical way? Are we reverse-tone-policing now, because someone isn't GRR :mad: ANGRY enough about bad stuff, therefore they are wrong and should be expelled or discounted from the discussion?
    1. Sweden has a rehabilitative philosophy to their justice system that results in relatively short prison sentences for criminals, at least on paper.
    2. Sweden has a policy against deporting people to countries where they'll face capital punishment.

    What the fuck does #1 have to do with #2?

    And furthermore, what the fuck does any of this have to do with terrorism?! This is completely GST territory.

    hippofant on
  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    The people talking about campus culture are talking about people who never even get prosecuted, or who get let off with time served at best. About police officers who joke around with criminals while calling rape victims whores.

    Not about deporting people to war zones.

    I remember those threads, I remember pretty harsh arguments about what the punishment for rape should be. And I don't disagree! My arguments there were mostly due process. But it's strange to see such vehemence on one hand and such leniency and lack of caring on the other. The way Quid's talking about this you'd think they robbed a goddamn liquor store.

    You mean in a calm, logical way? Are we reverse-tone-policing now, because someone isn't GRR :mad: ANGRY enough about bad stuff, therefore they are wrong and should be expelled or discounted from the discussion?
    1. Sweden has a rehabilitative philosophy to their justice system that results in relatively short prison sentences for criminals, at least on paper.
    2. Sweden has a policy against deporting people to countries where they'll face capital punishment.

    What the fuck does #1 have to do with #2?

    And furthermore, what the fuck does any of this have to do with terrorism?! This is completely GST territory.

    Eh probably is. I came here for terrorism and stumbled into people arguing about child rapists, I was quite surprised myself. But if Sweden really can't deport them than that's Sweden's fault for over generous policies.

    But it definitely makes me appreciate the argument for strict immigration policies, do not want that same situation repeated.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    You're shifting the topic. You said people here would say the things you claim. Now it's people somewhere else you can't specify. I want to say I'm surprised that you can't make specific claims but it's become kind of mundane.

    No one said they should be immune from their crimes besides you. Once again making up facts. Going to prison to be rehabilitated isn't consequence free. That you would rather hurt them than rehabilitate them is a separate matter.

    The severity of the crime should not affect our dedication to our ideals. At least as far as I'm concerned. If you want to abandon them as soon as someone does X then, well, okay. But I disagree.
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    Good thing these "kids" aren't in "for life" then? :wink:
    Yes it is a good thing Sweden's system of law is centered on rehabilitation instead of a desire to hurt people.

    Also you seem to be intent on ignoring that you're making up claims.
    I wasn't aware this one, unrelated and 30+ year-old, case you've dug up sets the basis for swedish prison sentences (all of which are irrelevant since these guys aren't going to prison)?

    Time-set sentences aren't prolonged. As I said, these guys will be free within a year. Serving the full time in Sweden doesn't happen without severe misconduct on the inmate's part... and as already mentioned these people aren't inmates. :wink:

    You made the claim that this never happened. That is wrong. You were wrong. Either intentionally or out of ignorance.

    Time-set sentences are prolonged and other times they aren't. Depending on what the government decides. I don't see how your personal feelings should affect that.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    hippofant wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

    "Some of you guys" sure does come up a lot in these threads. Shame none of the people saying it can actually cite these instances where people think sending convicts to war zones is a better idea than rehabilitation.

    The rest of your post conflates rights with privileges. Once they're in the country either they have the right to a due process or they don't. If you don't I'd be interested to know your reasoning assuming it's not just screw them.

    If you could kindly bold the part where I say anything about flouting due process that would be great. Thanks.

    Getting returned to a fucked up country sucks, but I'll wager they should have considered that before raping some kid in the country that so graciously took them in.

    And yeah, I'm not going to look for and through two-year old threads on my phone, and it's why I didn't call anyone out by name. I hope those who remember making strong arguments on rape and the punishments thereof consider why they are suddenly fine with this.

    Due process includes the punishment. Either punishment should include sending people to war zones or they shouldn't. I contend they shouldn't. You seem to believe they should so long as the people are from those places. Which is pretty messed up.

    And if you can't back up your claims then kindly keep them to yourself. Cause I'm getting incredibly annoyed with this feelings equals facts deal going on lately.

    You can be as annoyed with your feelings and facts conundrum as you want, I don't care. I have zero doubts that if his happened in the States on a college campus the reaction would be more along the lines of "rape culture and lenient sentencing" then this merciful, understanding bent.

    Also yes, I think they shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their crime. Really it's just a question of how merciful you're feeling. By all rights they should be expelled from the country back to where they came from for violating the terms of their stay. They should have thought about that before doing what they did.

    It's not ideal that they be sent back to a ducked up country but what they did is also far from ideal and I question any country that attaches no limits or terms to the stay of refugees or immigrants.

    The people talking about campus culture are talking about people who never even get prosecuted, or who get let off with time served at best. About police officers who joke around with criminals while calling rape victims whores.

    Not about deporting people to war zones.

    I remember those threads, I remember pretty harsh arguments about what the punishment for rape should be. And I don't disagree! My arguments there were mostly due process. But it's strange to see such vehemence on one hand and such leniency and lack of caring on the other. The way Quid's talking about this you'd think they robbed a goddamn liquor store.

    You mean in a calm, logical way? Are we reverse-tone-policing now, because someone isn't GRR :mad: ANGRY enough about bad stuff, therefore they are wrong and should be expelled or discounted from the discussion?
    1. Sweden has a rehabilitative philosophy to their justice system that results in relatively short prison sentences for criminals, at least on paper.
    2. Sweden has a policy against deporting people to countries where they'll face capital punishment.

    What the fuck does #1 have to do with #2?

    And furthermore, what the fuck does any of this have to do with terrorism?! This is completely GST territory.

    Eh probably is. I came here for terrorism and stumbled into people arguing about child rapists, I was quite surprised myself. But if Sweden really can't deport them than that's Sweden's fault for over generous policies.

    But it definitely makes me appreciate the argument for strict immigration policies, do not want that same situation repeated.

    That you think cruel and unusual punishment is a good philosophy is your own fault. It definitely makes me appreciate the constitution and those who support it. I would highly recommend checking it out some time. It's a pretty good document.

    Quid on
  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?
    Because raping a child is one of the most horrific and morally abhorrent acts one human being can do to another. It separates you from the rest of mankind, forever. And Sweden's giving them roughly the same prison time as stealing a tv.

    I don't get you guys. Every time some godawful violent rape happens here in the States you're rightfully clamoring to throw the book at the rapist and how unjust the ridiculously short sentence is, but when the perpetrators are "migrants" you look the other way.


    Edit- ethics? Justice? Where's the justice for that poor little kid?

    1) Each country defines their own rules. The Scandinavian countries typically believe that punitive punishment via long prison terms is counterproductive and believe in rehabilitation over punishment. I personally agree
    2) From 1, they believe that it is unethical to deport someone they believe will be subject to inhumane extrajudicial treatment, even if they have to spend resources
    3) Unlike a US sentence where it's longer to be "tough on crime" and be punitive; and as mentioned by another poster above there is a rehabilitation component in these types of sentences where it can be more of a mental health sentence with a timed component. They could be in there for 5 years, 10, 20, or 2
    4) Most are minors. The US executes minors. The rest of the world considers that to be horrible, plus the death sentence is outright banned throughout Europe

  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?
    A year and a half? Really? That's a goddamn slap on the wrist. And I certainly advocate for them getting kicked out. Out of the kindness of their hearts the Swedes took these things into their country and they repaid their kindness by filming themselves gang-raping a child. They had their chance, and they blew it. Why should the Swedes allow them to stay?

    Because, unlike you, I still see these people as, well, people.

    Edit: And I assume the Swedish justice system does, as well.

    Veevee on
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Prohass wrote: »
    I think they should have longer sentences but I don't think they should be deported

    idk the context here but I think in general if you commit a crime in a foreign country the least you should have done to you is be thrown out. If you committed rape, you should serve the max then be discarded with no regard for what happens to you when the plane touches down in your home country.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Sweden can do what it wants. It's probably a good thing that the refugees went to Europe instead of here.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    If this has become a bunch of hot takes on the Swedish justice system, I would suggest statistics on crime suggest they have a better idea of what to do then the US.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    If this has become a bunch of hot takes on the Swedish justice system, I would suggest statistics on crime suggest they have a better idea of what to do then the US.

    hard to compare because the population is so dramatically homogeneous.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    If this has become a bunch of hot takes on the Swedish justice system, I would suggest statistics on crime suggest they have a better idea of what to do then the US.

    hard to compare because the population is so dramatically homogeneous.

    Nah. The US has plenty of regions with homogeneous populations and this assumes that is itself even a major factor.

    In the end, all these silly arguments rely on the idea that what the US thinks works would be better. In the face of like every fact we know about the US justice system.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Sweden can do what it wants. It's probably a good thing that the refugees went to Europe instead of here.
    You simply go for where the going is good.
    http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en

    And I got curious about how come @Quid were so obsessed with this one unrelated life sentence case... Turns out
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    ...it's not me making shit up. :wink:
    https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livstids_fängelse_i_Sverige
    Google translate mishap? Since the only praxis mention of "21 years" is that people below that age can't be sentenced to life?
    Norway seems to have some sort of 21-years-with-possibility-of-extension system for max sentencing though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment It's easy to mix up these Scandinavian countrysides. :)

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Sweden can do what it wants. It's probably a good thing that the refugees went to Europe instead of here.
    You simply go for where the going is good.
    http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en

    And I got curious about how come @Quid were so obsessed with this one unrelated life sentence case... Turns out
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    ...it's not me making shit up. :wink:
    https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livstids_fängelse_i_Sverige
    Google translate mishap? Since the only praxis mention of "21 years" is that people below that age can't be sentenced to life?
    Norway seems to have some sort of 21-years-with-possibility-of-extension system for max sentencing though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment It's easy to mix up these Scandinavian countrysides. :)

    Your article doesn't change anything I have said. Extended sentences happen. You were wrong to claim otherwise.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    spool32 wrote: »
    Prohass wrote: »
    I think they should have longer sentences but I don't think they should be deported

    idk the context here but I think in general if you commit a crime in a foreign country the least you should have done to you is be thrown out. If you committed rape, you should serve the max then be discarded with no regard for what happens to you when the plane touches down in your home country.

    Why do you think the government shouldn't care about people? Cause that's what you're saying when you state the government should do X with no regard for what happens.

    If they committed rape they should be detained and rehabilitated until they are reformed. I don't understand this desire to heap extra cruel punishment on top of this.

    Quid on
  • Options
    101101 Registered User regular
    In general yeah, I think people on visa's who commit a crime (of X severity, define that as the country sees fit) should be deported.
    You're a guest in the country, and the country isn't obligated to pay for or deal with your rebilitiation/incarceration if they dont want to.

    Obviusly where these guys would go back to complicates matters - you can't just ship people off to a warzone. The exception here is '...as long as the country you're sending them back to isn't likely to kill them'


    The sentence itself is nuts though, a couple of years for raping a child come on now.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Sweden can do what it wants. It's probably a good thing that the refugees went to Europe instead of here.
    You simply go for where the going is good.
    http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en

    And I got curious about how come @Quid were so obsessed with this one unrelated life sentence case... Turns out
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:
    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?
    Extend sentences? That has never happened. :D Swedish standard is rather to let people out after 2/3 sentence served, for good behavior.
    These guys will be out on the street in a year, or less. And they know it. You can't put children in prison, after all. :wink:
    The bolded is demonstrably false.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Axmyr

    A life sentence in Sweden can't extend past 21 years. Leif served 34 after multiple extensions. Gotta say that making things up doesn't make for a convincing argument.
    ...it's not me making shit up. :wink:
    https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livstids_fängelse_i_Sverige
    Google translate mishap? Since the only praxis mention of "21 years" is that people below that age can't be sentenced to life?
    Norway seems to have some sort of 21-years-with-possibility-of-extension system for max sentencing though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment It's easy to mix up these Scandinavian countrysides. :)
    Your article doesn't change anything I have said. Extended sentences happen. You were wrong to claim otherwise.
    Not without further aggravation, they don't. :) Which is what you started out claiming, only citing "further need for rehabilitation"?
    There is nothing in swedish law saying a "life sentence" can't stretch beyond 21 years (though earlier praxis have been to release "lifers" after a median of 21 served), which is what you've been going on and on about.

    But. I still don't know what life imprisonment has to do with a bunch of violent child rapists, whom in all likelihood are adults, serving 15 months or less... in correctional facilities for children?
    Send these fucks back, they'll fit right in. If Afghanistan doesn't suit them maybe they shouldn't have gangraped and assaulted a minor for over an hour? Just a minor misunderstanding of social norms, I'm sure.
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Prohass wrote: »
    I think they should have longer sentences but I don't think they should be deported

    idk the context here but I think in general if you commit a crime in a foreign country the least you should have done to you is be thrown out. If you committed rape, you should serve the max then be discarded with no regard for what happens to you when the plane touches down in your home country.
    Why do you think the government shouldn't care about people? Cause that's what you're saying when you state the government should do X with no regard for what happens.

    If they committed rape they should be detained and rehabilitated until they are reformed. I don't understand this desire to heap extra cruel punishment on top of this.
    Ah, the old "open borders for all!" argument?
    These are not swedish citizens. They are afghani rapists. And should thus perhaps be Aghanistan's problem?

    Though the reality is that they're all here for life, the government paying every expense they might have for the next decade or so, making the point moot anyhow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Options
    OldSlackerOldSlacker Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.
    Panda4You wrote: »
    I still don't know what life imprisonment has to do with a bunch of violent child rapists, whom in all likelihood are adults, serving 15 months or less... in correctional facilities for children?
    You really ought to stop this goosery since the youngest of them are 16 and 17 years old.

    Panda4You wrote: »
    Though the reality is that they're all here for life, the government paying every expense they might have for the next decade or so, making the point moot anyhow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    This is also total bullshit and, combined with your ridiculous usage of smileys, leads me to suspect you are simply trolling at this point.

This discussion has been closed.