What I'd like to do to Anders Behring Breivik

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

TheHansa

Original post by Eldedu

"electric fence in the water" ?

Is this possible?

wouldn't want to be the man installing it

"You put the on switch in the water as well?!?" :dunce:

Reply 61

muddywaters51

Original post by TheHansa

Disabled folk are innocent, the state has a duty of care.

You were speaking as if the low reoffending rates (if 20% is a low reofending rate these days) justified their sort of prison system and I merely pointed out that Saudi can get amazing results much more cheaply.

Torturing him is pointless but there's no logical reason to deny him the death penalty, he made fun of the courts because even he admits he won't get what he rightfully deserves. the opinions of the people generally reflect the media if the media wanted to bring the death penalty back they could turn peoples opinions round in 2 years max. The act of executing a person is not very expensive at all.

What about the other murderers and violent criminals? If youre going to kill Breivik because he is waste of money to keep in prison why dont you kill the rest of them?

I was giving a reason for why their prisons are "nicer" than other prisons around the world. They believe that the system they have is the most effective and they put a focus on rehabilitation. My opinion on it is kind of irrelevant. The Norweigans have voted for this system so its obviously something they are willing to spend (or waste) money on.

Yes there is a logical reason to deny him the death penalty. The death penalty is not currently part of the Norweigan justice system. It was not part of the Norweigan justice system when Breivek commited his crimes. So it would be illegal to kill him and if you did kill him then why not kill all of the other murderers in Norwiegan prisons. The Norweigans would have at some point voted aganst this forming part of the justice system. If this incident causes the Norweigans to change the law and introduce capital punishment into their justice system for any future cases then ok, but it wouldnt really be right to kill him now. You dont just make things up as you go along and kill whoever you like.

Do you realise that by killing him you will only create more controversy and give him more attention? Spreading his message is the only potential threat he currently poses. The less attention he gets the better, he will probably be turned into some kind of martyr if he is killed.

I dont know what point youre trying to make with your comment about the media. Its not really based on any facts and I dont really get what youre trying to say. Even if in "2 years" capital punishment was part of their justice system it doesnt mean you then look at all previous cases and apply that law to them.

Yeah the act of execution is not that expensive. Paying for the drugs, the bullet or the sword is not expensive. What is expensive is the process preceeding this and the appeals and everything that goes on behind the scenes. The only western country that I know of that uses the death penalty is the USA. In the USA it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to lock them up for life.

Saudi Arabia is not exactly a shining example of how things should be done. Maybe they have a cheaper system which is also effective (I dont know too much about their reoffending rates or costs) but as far as I know their executions are done by decapitation with a sword and it can also be a fairly lengthy (therefore costly) process. I dont think many in Europe would approve of this method. Things like homosexuality, socery and withcraft are considered crimes there as well.

Reply 62

TheHansa

Original post by muddywaters51

Yes there is a logical reason to deny him the death penalty. The death penalty is not currently part of the Norweigan justice system. It was not part of the Norweigan justice system when Breivek commited his crimes. So it would be illegal to kill him and if you did kill him then why not kill all of the other murderers in Norwiegan prisons. The Norweigans would have at some point voted aganst this forming part of the justice system. If this incident causes the Norweigans to change the law and introduce capital punishment into their justice system for any future cases then ok, but it wouldnt really be right to kill him now. You dont just make things up as you go along and kill whoever you like.

That's a moral argument, the only logical moral arguments are religious.

Original post by muddywaters51

Do you realise that by killing him you will only create more controversy and give him more attention? Spreading his message is the only potential threat he currently poses. The less attention he gets the better, he will probably be turned into some kind of martyr if he is killed.

For about a week like with Kony

Original post by muddywaters51

I dont know what point youre trying to make with your comment about the media. Its not really based on any facts and I dont really get what youre trying to say. Even if in "2 years" capital punishment was part of their justice system it doesnt mean you then look at all previous cases and apply that law to them.

I've already addressed.

Original post by muddywaters51

Saudi Arabia is not exactly a shining example of how things should be done. Maybe they have a cheaper system which is also effective (I dont know too much about their reoffending rates or costs) but as far as I know their executions are done by decapitation with a sword and it can also be a fairly lengthy (therefore costly) process. I dont think many in Europe would approve of this method. Things like homosexuality, socery and withcraft are considered crimes there as well.

I wouldn't opt for the beheading method but this proves my point that a choice is not made it's the media. I'm pro gay rights and disagree with them there, but the low crimes rates show the merits of a punishment/deterent orientated system

Reply 63

muddywaters51

Original post by TheHansa

They believe In the UK the media generally favours the death penalty, they focus on crimes individuals have done to individuals "this man brutally raped a ppregnant women before killing here" type headlines and the population now supports the death penalty, the electorate hasn't made a choice its conditioning.

That's a moral argument, the only logical moral arguments are religious.

For about a week like with Kony

I wouldn't opt for the beheading method but this proves my point that a choice is not made it's the media. I'm pro gay rights and disagree with them there, but the low crimes rates show the merits of a punishment/deterent orientated system

- Im really not getting the point youre trying to make about the media. That the media have some influence over some peoples opinions?

- "An opinion poll taken after the 2011 Norway attacks showed that the opposition to the death penalty remained firmly entrenched, with 16 percent supporting and 68 percent opposed". My point is that it is for Norway to decide what they do to him and how they run their justice system.

- The only threat the Breivik poses now to the general public is that his message is spread. If you turn him into a martyr you will give him so much more attention. It is going to be a pretty big deal if they decide kill him. Norway abolished capital punishment in 1979 and the last execution that was performed during peace time happened in the late 1800's. This isnt going to be something that blows over within a week especially within Norway.

- Can you please explain to me why it is logical to kill him?

Is it because he has admitted to murdering? Does this mean anyone who admits to or has admitted to murder must be killed?

Is it because he will be convicted of murder? Does this mean anyone who is or has been convicted of murder should be killed?

Is it because you think execution in Norway will be cheaper than imprisoning him? Should everyone who is a drain on society be killed? Should they kill all the prisoners then because they are guilty + a waste of money?

Maybe Im missing something. Do you think all murderers deserve the death penalty? Should Norway kill all the murders it currently holds in its prisons?

- You keep using Saudi Arabia as an example of how capital punishment is effective. What about other countries that use the death penatly. DRC, China, USA, Somalia, both Sudans, Thailand, Belarus. These places are riddled with crime especially compared with Norway. China executes thousands per year but still has around twice (depending on year, sometimes more) the homocide rate of Norway.

Anyway I did some research on Saudi Arabia and found that their crime rates are quite low but still slightly higher than Norway. It generally thought that far less crimes are reported due to a less efficient police force and that a lot of crimes are resolved outside of the countries justice system.

- You still dont seem to be adressing my point about cost. Capital punishment is more often than not an expensive process. Sure the act of execution is not going to be huge sums of money but the process leading up to the event is very often very costly especially if it is done in a fair and "humane" way.