• 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by NTM (7379 posts) -

@A_Talking_Donkey: Yeah, it is, that's very much correct. I guess when I typed up there that comment, I wasn't exactly thinking about it. What I mean is, anyone that's going to do something, like murder, is not normal. Crap, it's time to go to bed.

#52 Posted by TruthTellah (9081 posts) -
@GS_Dan

@TruthTellah said:

@scalpel said:

"Got what he wanted"? You mean they should've declared him insane, despite evidence or lack thereof, just to spite him?

Definitely not. I believe the evidence is on the side of him legitimately being insane.

The guy's a nutjob, but he's sane. Insanity is a law term, not a medical one.

A guy who thinks the trial is being run by enemies of the Templars in an effort to keep down their new champion is sane? Multiple psychiatric witnesses testified that he was insane, but they appear to have put a greater burden of proof on proving insanity than accepting sanity. The man's a violent madman that should be in an institution away from other inmates.
#53 Posted by Silvergun (297 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

A guy who thinks the trial is being run by enemies of the Templars in an effort to keep down their new champion is sane?

Maybe they just figured he was a moron.

#54 Posted by BlackLagoon (1431 posts) -

@TruthTellah: There many divergent opinions among the various psychiatric witnesses. A number of them believed he was mentally disturbed, but not psychotic, and thus met the threshold for legal sanity.

#55 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

They should just slowly scrape layers of skin off of his body and throw him in a dark room full of fire ants.

#56 Posted by mbr2 (566 posts) -

ITT: Lots of irrational, ignorant, presumably Americans.

#57 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

Monster I love how people like to dehumanize these people simply put there isn't a person on the planet that's not capable of doing exactly what that guy did. We as a people would rather think that's not the case. Violence is in human nature it's not a mystery that needs to be solved . You have people who kill people for a living that we damn near worship and people who kill people that we demonize. Tell me what's really the difference between them?

Online
#58 Posted by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery. While it may or may not be possible for Breivik to be reformed, I think overall Norway's more modern system of rehabilitation, as opposed to the brute force method of "lock them in a building with lots of other criminals for x years and everything will work itself out, right?" is a more intelligent way to treat crime.

I believe Breivik didn't get close to achieving what he wanted though. He got not to be declared insane, that was important for him, but he wanted to be a martyr and a major political figure. He wanted to spark off a new political age where Islam was pushed out of Europe and Norway adopted selective breeding among others things, and he was obviously never going to get remotely close to doing that. I'm also reminded of what was mentioned when the Colorado shootings were discussed on these forums, that the media should stop making big stories out of these kinds of things. I know people are interested in murderers, but when you start to cover something too heavily you only risk further killings, because you show the future Breivik's that their actions really can have a great effect and that they can get their name known by millions if they do horrible things.

Moderator
#59 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery.

no no we're not that's the entire point of my last post. We are no better then this guy he's not some kind of monster he only did what comes natural for human beings.

Online
#60 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Demoskinos
@Brodehouse
@Demoskinos
@TaliciaDragonsong
I won't mind if this guy gets murdered in or outside prison, he deserves nothing less.
77 murders should be equal to being blown to bits.
Nah, that's too easy. Slow torture is where its at. A quick death would be way to merciful.
Torturing monsters only makes you a monster. Causing suffering does not alleviate suffering.
Bah. I dont buy into that. The guy caused tons of suffering and he deserves to suffer. It not about alleviating the pain of the people he hurt its about making him absolutely miserable until hr takes his last breath.
It's not about what you buy into. You've accomplished nothing but sating your own bloodlust. Removing a murderer from society, sometimes permanently with a bullet and an unmarked grave, that solves a problem. Making another human life miserable because it makes you happy does not solve a problem, it only makes you a complete psychotic.

I'm sure it's because you've never actually experienced anything close to it, but if you can hear the anguished screams of mortal agony and feel pleased, you need help as much as this guy. The "I hope he suffers" stuff seems like an easy opinion of someone who's never seen real, real suffering, because the physiological reaction to hearing a human in agony is to immediately want to make it stop. Whether the subject is innocent or guilty, your body should respond to stop, fix, end, leave; do whatever is necessary to not hear it anymore. It is absolutely not normal to hear that from anyone and enjoy it.

Keep in mind, I have no problem putting murderers and dangerous people in the ground. But you do it with the cold detachment of justice, not the ecstasy of a sadist.
#61 Posted by FilipHolm (667 posts) -

The man was not insane. And for him to get simple treatment would be an even worse outcome. He knew exactly what he was doing and why, out of pure hate. He deserves nothing else but to be locked up for the rest of his life.

#62 Posted by Renahzor (991 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99: So you believe what he's done is simply human nature, that his actions were not unthinkable, well outside social norms, and monstrously evil? That borders on sociopathic.

#63 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I want death sentence, think of the 152 parents knowing that their child is dead and this man is probably in jail reading a book.

#64 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@Renahzor: Tell me what do you think of the military is it only monstrous only when a single man kills a small number or people? is it just as monstrous when a large number of people kill 100s of 1000s of people.

Social norms seem to me to accept mass murder but only when you're getting paid for it. Certainly not unthinkable it happens every day more then 70 people die by violent means every day. So tell me a society that accepts the slaughter of Innocents in other countries but not in it's own is some how better then one guy that does the killing in his own country.

You can only pretend that you're better then this man because the blood isn't on your hands personally.

Online
#65 Posted by zombie2011 (4973 posts) -

21 years??

Norway make an exception, thats fucking ridiculous.

#66 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@zombie2011: That's one year longer then american prison sentences 20 to life does in fact mean you can get out in 20 years.

Online
#67 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@darkdragonmage99 Society does not accept the slaughter of innocents. There are entire extranational judicial process for war crimes and most modern militarists have their own judicial committee to make sure that abuses are not committed, and punished when they are.

Unless you're talking about rogue warlords around the world, in which case I think you'll have a hard time finding people who support them.
#68 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery.

no no we're not that's the entire point of my last post. We are no better then this guy he's not some kind of monster he only did what comes natural for human beings.

OK I think im going to report you, for the safety reasons of what ever country you live in.

So I'm some how more dangerous because I accepts that the guy is just a guy then all the crack jobs in here who want the guy to be skinned alive ? Do these people not prove my point rather well? People love to believe they are above violence but when it comes right down to hit they're not. We as a people revel in it man watch the news play some video games watch some movies tell me violence isn't just as much part of the human condition is anything else.

Online
#69 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery.

no no we're not that's the entire point of my last post. We are no better then this guy he's not some kind of monster he only did what comes natural for human beings.

OK I think im going to report you, for the safety reasons of what ever country you live in.

So I'm some how more dangerous because I accepts that the guy is just a guy then all the crack jobs in here who want the guy to be skinned alive ? Do these people not prove my point rather well? People love to believe they are above violence but when it comes right down to hit they're not. We as a people revel in it man watch the news play some video games watch some movies tell me violence isn't just as much part of the human condition is anything else.

No more because you think this behavior is normal...

#70 Edited by Fattony12000 (7416 posts) -

He won't walk as a free man upon the surface of the Earth ever again. The 21 years thing is a silly holdover from whenever Norway wrote down it's laws the last time, that's a thing that they should change.

Does anyone seriously think that they will let Norway's worst peacetime mass murderer have his freedom?

Cunt
#71 Posted by Dunchad (494 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery. While it may or may not be possible for Breivik to be reformed, I think overall Norway's more modern system of rehabilitation, as opposed to the brute force method of "lock them in a building with lots of other criminals for x years and everything will work itself out, right?" is a more intelligent way to treat crime.

You're probably right, but I think these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Maybe this guy could be "reformed" - but should we give him that chance? Isn't there a line where we should stop being so forgiving and just use punishment instead? Though that has the problem of figuring out the value of human life and suffering. But it just doesn't seem quite right to judge a criminal who kills dozens of people, on the same level as another criminal that kills one or two people. And when we're talking about kids, the loss of life seems even more tragic.

In these kinds of clear-cut situations when we know for certain that he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of and when the magnitude of the crime is so huge - death penalty seems like a much more 'just' way of dealing with it. I just don't think he deserves to be considered a human anymore. He voided that right with his actions and he shouldn't be treated as one. And we have no qualms about putting down dogs that bite people.

#72 Posted by TruthTellah (9081 posts) -

@BlackLagoon said:

@TruthTellah: There many divergent opinions among the various psychiatric witnesses. A number of them believed he was mentally disturbed, but not psychotic, and thus met the threshold for legal sanity.

Yeah. It was a tough case for the prosecutors. They were -convinced- he was legally insane. I still think the evidence is on that side, but I can understand how they might find him disturbed but legally sane to be responsible for his actions. Norwegian prisons are pretty nice, but perhaps they'll make special exception for him.

#73 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If I was a parent I would just shoot him in the head and go to prison for 3 months, if thats their punishment for taking a life.

#74 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: It isn't ? how many wars are going on right now ? How many people do you think got shot world wide while i was typing this post? ? How many virtual people got killed while I was typing this? how many murders happened oh last month? How exactly is something that happens so much not normal? I do believe people killing people is classed normal by 2 definition of the word normal that I know of.

Online
#75 Posted by haffy (673 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

If I was a parent I would just shoot him in the head and go to prison for 3 months, if thats their punishment for taking a life.

Why do you want him dead so much? Why does it really matter if he lives or dies?

#76 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2779 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99: As much as I hate to agree with you, I have to. It's a sad reality that there are people who crave harming and killing others in the same way normal people crave food and sex.

#77 Posted by Draxyle (1853 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery. While it may or may not be possible for Breivik to be reformed, I think overall Norway's more modern system of rehabilitation, as opposed to the brute force method of "lock them in a building with lots of other criminals for x years and everything will work itself out, right?" is a more intelligent way to treat crime.

I believe Breivik didn't get close to achieving what he wanted though. He got not to be declared insane, that was important for him, but he wanted to be a martyr and a major political figure. He wanted to spark off a new political age where Islam was pushed out of Europe and Norway adopted selective breeding among others things, and he was obviously never going to get remotely close to doing that. I'm also reminded of what was mentioned when the Colorado shootings were discussed on these forums, that the media should stop making big stories out of these kinds of things. I know people are interested in murderers, but when you start to cover something too heavily you only risk further killings, because you show the future Breivik's that their actions really can have a great effect and that they can get their name known by millions if they do horrible things.

I came in here to post this for the most part. I always hate when these stories come about and you get the flock of people with angry revenge in mind. That's exactly why the US prison system is screwed up, and it won't be fixed until we collectively realize that it only makes the problem worse.

Giving Breivik a nice cell to spend the rest of his life in will show him the humanity and civility that he rejected. Breivik's head might not be "fixable", but countless other criminals always have the chance to redeem themselves if we allow them to.

#78 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99: No it's not and if you can't see why I feel sorry for you.

#79 Posted by PolygonSlayer (426 posts) -

@Fattony12000: Why should it change when the system works quite well the way it is? It already has measures in place to make sure he won't be free as long as he is a threat to society, which seems is going to be a very, very long time. If anything is to be learnt from this, it has more to do with how PST and the Police handled this, both before and during the incident.

#80 Posted by Giantstalker (1652 posts) -

It would be really interesting to see how the Norwegian public would like Breivik's sentencing handled; it's their tax money, after all.

#81 Posted by Animasta (14691 posts) -

@Giantstalker said:

It would be really interesting to see how the Norwegian public would like Breivik's sentencing handled; it's their tax money, after all.

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/nationalnews/ci_21391202/jailing-breivik-is-praised-by-norwegians

I found this? I dunno if that's what you're looking for or not

#82 Posted by VierasTalo (780 posts) -

@Ghostiet said:

@Funkydupe said:

The way this type of sentence works basically means that the justice system can extend it for as long as he remains a threat, which means: He will rot in prison for life and we'll forget he exists.

He won't rot. He'll live like a king. This is his prison cell:

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kiosk/w-tym-luksusowym-wiezieniu-odbedzie-kare-breivik,5225232,0,fotoreportaz-maly.html#photo12635450

The link is in Polish, but it doesn't matter, just browse the photos. It's not a prison. It looks like a fucking recreational lodge for artists with writer's block. It's constructed and decorated to improve creativity, there are no bars in the windows, they can invite families for evenings, every room has a "21 TV, there's a beautiful view. It's the worse kind of place for such a sociopath like Breivik.

I don't advocate the death penalty at all, even in this case, but this is a prison for people that actually can be rehabilitated - for victims of the system, of living in the streets, for people who committed fraud, for Kevin Mitnicks, not for a sociopath.

I'm a bit weirded out by that article, as just days ago the Norwegian prison that holds this guy published these photos from his three cells and they look nothing like that: http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/Oslolainen+vankila+valmis+Breivikin+vastaanottamiseen/a1305594619006 (that one is in Finnish but just check the pictures).

In regards to the news, either he'll rot in prison for the rest of his days, or he is set free and someone shoots him. Either way, we'll never be bothered by him again. I'm not really that in to the death penalty and certainly don't wish it upon even this man, but he kind of put himself into a position where the only chance of survival is imprisonment.

#83 Posted by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99: I disagree with your statement that what Breivik did was a the result of "human nature". Perhaps murdering people could be considered "human nature" back when we were all cavemen living like little more than animals, but just by the simple fact that every person in the developed world today isn't wandering around killing people, we can tell murder obviously isn't in the nature of civilised humans. Extremely few people ever go setting off car bombs and laying waste to tens of people with assault rifles, what Breivik did stands out as wildly distant from normal behaviour, meaning whatever he did, he must have done due to something not inherent within the rest of us.

@Dunchad said:

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery. While it may or may not be possible for Breivik to be reformed, I think overall Norway's more modern system of rehabilitation, as opposed to the brute force method of "lock them in a building with lots of other criminals for x years and everything will work itself out, right?" is a more intelligent way to treat crime.

You're probably right, but I think these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Maybe this guy could be "reformed" - but should we give him that chance? Isn't there a line where we should stop being so forgiving and just use punishment instead? Though that has the problem of figuring out the value of human life and suffering. But it just doesn't seem quite right to judge a criminal who kills dozens of people, on the same level as another criminal that kills one or two people. And when we're talking about kids, the loss of life seems even more tragic.

In these kinds of clear-cut situations when we know for certain that he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of and when the magnitude of the crime is so huge - death penalty seems like a much more 'just' way of dealing with it. I just don't think he deserves to be considered a human anymore. He voided that right with his actions and he shouldn't be treated as one. And we have no qualms about putting down dogs that bite people.

The problem is, Breivik isn't a dog, either he largely thinks like a human, feels like a human, and acts like a human, making him human, or he's insane. If the former is true then if we kill him, we're killing a human being, and as much as we may not want it to be true, he didn't just magically stop thinking or feeling like a human when he did something greatly immoral. If he's insane then he can't be judged as a human being in control of his own actions. In fact you've said that this is a clear-cut situation but I don't think it is, he was legally declared sane but that still doesn't mean there wasn't significant evidence to the contrary and I think there's still ambiguity over Breivik's mental state.

I believe we should judge things on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not saying that someone who murders dozens has committed a crime equivalent to those who murdered one or two people, but even if Breivik is sane, I don't see why our principles go out of the window based on the number of people he murdered. We shouldn't become murderers, and if we know better ways to handle criminals that have a reasonable chance of being effective, I see no reason to revert back to more archaic methods. The best argument I've heard for why punishing this guy gains us anything is that if he's executed it costs the tax payer less money, but getting into attaching price tags to human lives is a whole other problematic territory.

Moderator
#84 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

@Gamer_152: I'm not sure how to say this so bare with me here I'll start with the analogy I guess. You would not claim a sex atticted is somehow less human then any other person would you? It's a basic human desire it calls to some people stronger then others. Some people take it to an extreme some don't but it's still just the basic human sex drive sure it's been taken to an unhealthy extreme but it's still completely natural and human.

I don't see the different when it comes to the human bloodlust we have millions of people fake killing people everyday call of duty anyone. We have action movies and snuff films we still have gladiatorial combat as entertainment for god sakes. Hell if you live in america we dam near worship trained killers "soldiers". You're claim seems to be we're grown out of this bloodlust I say that's clearly not the case. Just because Breivik took it to an extreme most don't doesn't make what he did any less human or any less the same drive. Everyone has it the question is the level of control or the outlet used.

Online
#85 Posted by Athadam (692 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't really care if Breivik got what he wanted or whether he's in a well-furnished prison, in these situations people always get focused on revenge, and the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about having a peaceful, functional society. Whatever we think people like Breivik "deserve", a very poor way to handle things would be striving to become murderers or torturers ourselves to fulfil our own sick fantasies, we're better than that kind of savagery. While it may or may not be possible for Breivik to be reformed, I think overall Norway's more modern system of rehabilitation, as opposed to the brute force method of "lock them in a building with lots of other criminals for x years and everything will work itself out, right?" is a more intelligent way to treat crime.

I believe Breivik didn't get close to achieving what he wanted though. He got not to be declared insane, that was important for him, but he wanted to be a martyr and a major political figure. He wanted to spark off a new political age where Islam was pushed out of Europe and Norway adopted selective breeding among others things, and he was obviously never going to get remotely close to doing that. I'm also reminded of what was mentioned when the Colorado shootings were discussed on these forums, that the media should stop making big stories out of these kinds of things. I know people are interested in murderers, but when you start to cover something too heavily you only risk further killings, because you show the future Breivik's that their actions really can have a great effect and that they can get their name known by millions if they do horrible things.

One of the best and well thought out view points I've seen on this issue. I totally agree.

#86 Edited by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

I'm glad we have an army of criminal justice experts here. This is a resource the GB staff should seek to make more use of.

#87 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@haffy said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

If I was a parent I would just shoot him in the head and go to prison for 3 months, if thats their punishment for taking a life.

Why do you want him dead so much? Why does it really matter if he lives or dies?

I summed it up before, the 154 parents who lost their kids to this madman will never see them again, yet this guy could spend the rest of his life reading books and eating food.

#88 Edited by Dunchad (494 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

The problem is, Breivik isn't a dog, either he largely thinks like a human, feels like a human, and acts like a human, making him human, or he's insane. If the former is true then if we kill him, we're killing a human being, and as much as we may not want it to be true, he didn't just magically stop thinking or feeling like a human when he did something greatly immoral. If he's insane then he can't be judged as a human being in control of his own actions. In fact you've said that this is a clear-cut situation but I don't think it is, he was legally declared sane but that still doesn't mean there wasn't significant evidence to the contrary and I think there's still ambiguity over Breivik's mental state.

I believe we should judge things on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not saying that someone who murders dozens has committed a crime equivalent to those who murdered one or two people, but even if Breivik is sane, I don't see why our principles go out of the window based on the number of people he murdered. We shouldn't become murderers, and if we know better ways to handle criminals that have a reasonable chance of being effective, I see no reason to revert back to more archaic methods. The best argument I've heard for why punishing this guy gains us anything is that if he's executed it costs the tax payer less money, but getting into attaching price tags to human lives is a whole other problematic territory.

But that argument assumes that people are either sane or insane. I think sane people are plenty capable of evil deeds, in which case what is lacking is not sanity, but humanity. And if someone is lacking humanity, I don't think they have the right to be treated as a human. Though I guess this could be debated and depends largely on the definition on 'insane'. Is a sane person capable of committing atrocities or do they stop being 'sane' once they cross that line? Are religious zealots sane? Are soldiers sane?

EDIT: But I'll agree with your sentiment of trying new ways to deal with criminals. I just don't see our current methods being worthwhile when it comes to individuals like Brevik. Perhaps once science and medicine advances further, we can figure out some way to reprogram these guys (Babylon 5 style mindwipe) and put them to work.

#89 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1975 posts) -

Killing him seems so final. Maybe letting him think on what he's done will prove to be fruitful at some point. Maybe he's tortured by his conscious for what he's done. I'd rather he live and be haunted by his deeds than be given the swift and painless death of a lethal injection.

#90 Posted by MarkWahlberg (4605 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

I'm glad we have an army of criminal justice experts here. This is a resource the GB staff should seek to make more use of.

All those hours of Pheonix Wright really come in handy.

#91 Edited by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Gamer_152: I'm not sure how to say this so bare with me here I'll start with the analogy I guess. You would not claim a sex atticted is somehow less human then any other person would you? It's a basic human desire it calls to some people stronger then others. Some people take it to an extreme some don't but it's still just the basic human sex drive sure it's been taken to an unhealthy extreme but it's still completely natural and human.

I don't see the different when it comes to the human bloodlust we have millions of people fake killing people everyday call of duty anyone. We have action movies and snuff films we still have gladiatorial combat as entertainment for god sakes. Hell if you live in america we dam near worship trained killers "soldiers". You're claim seems to be we're grown out of this bloodlust I say that's clearly not the case. Just because Breivik took it to an extreme most don't doesn't make what he did any less human or any less the same drive. Everyone has it the question is the level of control or the outlet used.

Lust is something that's shared by almost every single one of us, but while the strength of our sex drives may change from person to person, the very large majority of human beings have sexual desires which fit within a certain range of intensity. Sex addicts have a obsession with sexual acts that clearly goes far above and beyond that of the vast majority of people, and sexual addiction is often considered an obsession to the point where it's actively damaging to the person and/or the people around them. Because this kind of behaviour is clearly outside of the inherent shared behaviours of human beings, it can't be considered part of human nature.

Human nature or not though, that doesn't make this simple in the least, and there are answers here to look for. Problems like sex addiction or a strong propensity for violence the way a person has been brought up, has interacted with the world around them, problems with their neurochemistry, and/or the genes they've inherited, and as such is the concern of complex sociology, psychology, anthropology, and more. In fact it's often not just a case of an overdeveloped want for violence, but also a lack of empathy or control. Things like murder and sex addiction also obviously need to be prevented to stop people ruining their own lives and the lives of others, so even if all murders were just about an overdeveloped want for violence, this is definitely a mystery that needs solving.

I don't believe what Breivik specifically did was part of some overactive obsession with violence though, or at very least it wasn't just about that. He appeared to have a very strong political motive and may well be insane. And while I agree there can be some moral ambiguity involved with the people in the military and the way they're put to use, there is a big difference between Breivik and the average soldier. Breivik was a delusional man who killed dozens of kids and injured over 200 more people in the name of becoming highly recognised and spreading his incredibly damaging and xenophobic philosophy. Soldiers on the other hand aren't just guys who having an overwhelming sense to kill who have guns put in their hands, they are psychologically strengthened, put into a very different sociological situation, and have their victims dehumanised, so that they may self-sacrifice up to the point of giving their own lives, often out of some sense of duty to their country or because they believe it is the moral thing to do. When properly utilised they kill not to fulfil some kind of violent desire, but to secure the freedom and well-being of innocent people.

@Dunchad said:

@Gamer_152 said:

The problem is, Breivik isn't a dog, either he largely thinks like a human, feels like a human, and acts like a human, making him human, or he's insane. If the former is true then if we kill him, we're killing a human being, and as much as we may not want it to be true, he didn't just magically stop thinking or feeling like a human when he did something greatly immoral. If he's insane then he can't be judged as a human being in control of his own actions. In fact you've said that this is a clear-cut situation but I don't think it is, he was legally declared sane but that still doesn't mean there wasn't significant evidence to the contrary and I think there's still ambiguity over Breivik's mental state.

I believe we should judge things on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not saying that someone who murders dozens has committed a crime equivalent to those who murdered one or two people, but even if Breivik is sane, I don't see why our principles go out of the window based on the number of people he murdered. We shouldn't become murderers, and if we know better ways to handle criminals that have a reasonable chance of being effective, I see no reason to revert back to more archaic methods. The best argument I've heard for why punishing this guy gains us anything is that if he's executed it costs the tax payer less money, but getting into attaching price tags to human lives is a whole other problematic territory.

But that argument assumes that people are either sane or insane. I think sane people are plenty capable of evil deeds, in which case what is lacking is not sanity, but humanity. And if someone is lacking humanity, I don't think they have the right to be treated as a human. Though I guess this could be debated and depends largely on the definition on 'insane'. Is a sane person capable of committing atrocities or do they stop being 'sane' once they cross that line? Are religious zealots sane? Are soldiers sane?

EDIT: But I'll agree with your sentiment of trying new ways to deal with criminals. I just don't see our current methods being worthwhile when it comes to individuals like Brevik. Perhaps once science and medicine advances further, we can figure out some way to reprogram these guys (Babylon 5 style mindwipe) and put them to work.

I think we could start debating what makes a person human or the criteria by which we work out what makes someone insane, but the important things as I see them are that the person feels and thinks at least approximately like a human being. In that sense, whether you want to call them human or not, any punishment enacted on them would obviously be received as though it were administered to a human being, and so in my mind can be considered equal to administering it to a human.

Moderator
#92 Posted by TheHT (11262 posts) -

@PolygonSlayer: Ah. Still doesn't look all that bad.

@PolygonSlayer said:

@TaliciaDragonsong: There is a very good reason the use of the death penalty has been abolished by the majority of developed countries in the world.

What would that be?

#93 Posted by Animasta (14691 posts) -

@TheHT: an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind

(also the death penalty is just as expensive as life in prison for developed countries)

#94 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

Norway has never once had a prisoner spend the rest of their life in prison.

He will probably be the first, unless all the judges die in those 21 years and the replacements don't grasp the crime.

#95 Posted by TheHT (11262 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@TheHT: an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind

(also the death penalty is just as expensive as life in prison for developed countries)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world one-eyed and obedient.

Is that the 'very good reason' though? Money?

#96 Posted by yoshisaur (2723 posts) -

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

I won't mind if this guy gets murdered in or outside prison, he deserves nothing less. 77 murders should be equal to being blown to bits.

My sentiments exactly.

#97 Edited by jakob187 (21671 posts) -

Being someone that doesn't believe in the death penalty but instead believes in life imprisonment, I look at this sentence and say "good, keep him out of society forever". To people saying "I hope he gets murdered/raped/etc", you are proving to be no better than the murderer you are condemning. You just try to justify it by saying "he killed people, so we have a right to kill him". No one has a right to kill anyone ever in my own eyes.

Also, most people don't realize that it's actually cheaper in the long run to give someone life in prison than death row.

#98 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1030 posts) -

The cunt should be going to the chair not jail 

#99 Posted by Ramone (2966 posts) -

What kind of message does it send out to other monsters out there that you can do something as fucking horrific as kill 77 innocent people and then live in relative comfort with no fear of repercussions? Many criminals are redeemable but cunts like this should be put down so they can do no more harm to society.

#100 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

I always thought of Breivik as a man desperate to be remembered, I don't even think he cares about multiculturalism and all that nonsense. What he cares about is being remembered, tired of being some random guy nobody ever gave a fuck about.

And it seems he succeeded, he will go down in history next to Hitler and the likes, never ever forgotten, as unfortunate as it may be.