[JollyGreenAtheist]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Oxygen would be saved, CO2 emissions would decrease, food will be saved as he won't have to be fed, water will be saved as he won't have to drink or wash if he is dead.

It would cost much more to overturn the masses of legal framework to execute him that it costs to keep him alive.

Most importantly, justice will be achieved.

I do not regard that as justice - I regard that has reactionary revenge. Killing him won't bring back the people he killed, nor will it benefit their families in any way. Certainly if I were to die, I would not want my death to spark further death. I cannot speak on their behalf, but I doubt I am completely alone.

You would not be saying the same thing, if he slayed your mum or dad, brother or sister son or daughter or all of them so stop taking the moral high ground and stop being a goody two shoes.

This remains to be seen. Fortunately, my parents are alive and I have no siblings , so there is no real way of telling. However, it perturbs me that policy decisions should be based off periods of extreme emotional pressure and sensitivity. Bereavements do not bring out the best in people, and the legal system cannot assume the role of "loved one" to everyone that was murdered - it would result in disproportionate sentences and inconsistency with legal precedents.

[qua]

(Original post by jaadau121)
You would not be saying the same thing, if he slayed your mum or dad, brother or sister son or daughter or all of them so stop taking the moral high ground and stop being a goody two shoes.

That's why we have judges deciding over the fate of the accused, and not the victims or their relatives.

[thetobbit]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Well Britain and America seem to think that killing 110 000 Iraqis and 80 000 Afghanistani's in response to 9/11 is 'justified', so why not apply the same logic to Breivik?

Oh, I forgot, Breivik isn't a Muslim, otherwise people like you would be bitch-screaming and calling him a 'terrorist' and asking for hs death.

Good point, murder is only murder if it's not government-sponsored.

[manchesterunited15]

Can we just leave in a dark cell on his own with 1 meal a day?

[jaadau121]

(Original post by A.J10)
Britain and America don't think that. You definitely can't argue that the public in the UK thinks that, and even if the government had ulterior motives other than the supposed WMDs, they wouldn't be "Lets go kill us some foreigners!".

You say that if Breivik was a Muslim, we'd be baying for his death. A lot of people are, in case you haven't noticed. The people who are saying he shouldn't be killed tend to be the same who say Abdelbaset al-Megrahi shouldn't be deported.

Well actions speak louder than words, the British public couldn't care any less about Britain's war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and that was revealed in 2005, because if the British people were so against the two wars whatever possessed them to give Tony 'ratface' Blair a third term hmmmmm?

[A.J10]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Well actions speak louder than words, the British public couldn't care any less about Britain's war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and that was revealed in 2005, because if the British people were so against the two wars whatever possessed them to give Tony 'ratface' Blair a third term hmmmmm?

They did not give Tony Blair a third term, they gave the Labour party a third term. There is a distinct difference. By that point we were committed anyway, and so it would not have mattered who had won any elections.

I get the distinct impression that your mind is set on this matter already.

Also, you've completely missed the point of my post. I said that the UK public doesn't deem the deaths of all those in the middle east due to our intervention justified as retaliation to 9/11 and the london bombings. That it was necessary to take action against threats to national security is another matter entirely.

[A.J10]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
It would cost much more to overturn the masses of legal framework to execute him that it costs to keep him alive.

I do not regard that as justice - I regard that has reactionary revenge. Killing him won't bring back the people he killed, nor will it benefit their families in any way. Certainly if I were to die, I would not want my death to spark further death. I cannot speak on their behalf, but I doubt I am completely alone.


This remains to be seen. Fortunately, my parents are alive and I have no siblings , so there is no real way of telling. However, it perturbs me that policy decisions should be based off periods of extreme emotional pressure and sensitivity. Bereavements do not bring out the best in people, and the legal system cannot assume the role of "loved one" to everyone that was murdered - it would result in disproportionate sentences and inconsistency with legal precedents.

I love this post. It encapsulates exactly how I feel in these matters. Justice and revenge are two different things.

[jaadau121]

(Original post by A.J10)
They did not give Tony Blair a third term, they gave the Labour party a third term. There is a distinct difference. By that point we were committed anyway, and so it would not have mattered who had won any elections.

I get the distinct impression that your mind is set on this matter already.

The Labour party sanctioned the wars because they were in government and had the overwhelming majority, so despite a back bench revolt the motion went in Labours favour, it is delusional to state anything other than that the British people agrreed with Tony Blair's decision and a decision supported by his Labour pals.

The British were so appeased the gave this very party with the same people in the top positions a third term.

It wasn't just Blair who went to war it was an overwhelming Labour majority government backed by an overwhelming British population who went to war.

[jaadau121]

If punishment was based on revenge crime rates would decrease becasue revenge is merciless and people would see it more of a deterrence.

But justice is like sitting on the fence, not having the nerve to set the criminal free nor having the nerve to actually properly punish him or her.

[james22]

(Original post by jaadau121)
If punishment was based on revenge crime rates would decrease becasue revenge is merciless and people would see it more of a deterrence.

But justice is like sitting on the fence, not having the nerve to set the criminal free nor having the nerve to actually properly punish him or her.

Then how come the USA, with its very harsh sentences, has a much higher crime rate than Norway, with its far more linient sentences based more on rehabilitation that revenge?

[SaharaDesert]

(Original post by james22)
Then how come the USA, with its very harsh sentences, has a much higher crime rate than Norway, with its far more linient sentences based more on rehabilitation that revenge?

I hear people say this a lot
Do you have stats for this?

[jaadau121]

(Original post by james22)
Then how come the USA, with its very harsh sentences, has a much higher crime rate than Norway, with its far more linient sentences based more on rehabilitation that revenge?

Are you going to back up these claims with credible evidence?

[A.J10]

(Original post by jaadau121)
The Labour party sanctioned the wars because they were in government and had the overwhelming majority, so despite a back bench revolt the motion went in Labours favour, it is delusional to state anything other than that the British people agrreed with Tony Blair's decision and a decision supported by his Labour pals.

The British were so appeased the gave this very party with the same people in the top positions a third term.

It wasn't just Blair who went to war it was an overwhelming Labour majority government backed by an overwhelming British population who went to war.

We voted for the labour party, and they did something unpopular. Now, we can't say that particular decision was backed by the British public as they did not vote on it.

You seem very focused on "Labour did this, Labour did that", however most of the people who had input on this (the military people and the intelligence people) are the same regardless of who's in power. The top guy might be different, but all those who brief him are the same. Saying "Labour did this" makes it sound like the Lib Dems or Tories wouldn't have done it, which you can't be sure of.

As for voting them in again, well, I've been over it maybe not being Labour's fault. Additionally there are other factors to be considered. Add these two together and you'll realise that it wasn't at the forefront of everyones mind that the most important factor in an election was which party was in power when 9/11 occurred. And, as I've previously said, what's done is done, and once we were over there we had to stay over there for a time regardless of who was voted in.

Due to these things you can't say the British public supported the war because they voted in Labour again. We have a representative democracy, so our leaders sometimes make decisions we don't agree with.

I've already stated the difference between Blair and Labour by the way, I don't need you to repeat it.

[james22]

(Original post by SaharaDesert)
I hear people say this a lot
Do you have stats for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

I can only find the stats for homicide rate, but it's still very clear cut. Norway has 0.68 per 100,000 and the USA has 4.8 per 100,000.

[james22]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Are you going to back up these claims with credible evidence?

As above, I will try to find the stats for general crimes but that may be difficult as they have different laws. However I'm sure you can see that there is a big difference, by a factor of 7.

[A.J10]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Are you going to back up these claims with credible evidence?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarce..._United_States [I know, but it's better than listing all the hundreds of individual references]
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...afe/?mobile=nc

Not the best sources, but I just did a wuick google search because I'm lazy and not actually too invested in this.

[qua]

(Original post by jaadau121)
If punishment was based on revenge crime rates would decrease becasue revenge is merciless and people would see it more of a deterrence.

You have no proof for that. It might just as well result in creating false martyrs - if Breivik gets killed for (in his eyes) "standing up for his beliefs", a lot of racist weirdos will put him on a pedestal.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by jaadau121)
True

When Muslims kill non Muslims ====terrorism
When Muslims kill western soldiers======terrorism
When Muslim countries spend on defence/military and don't lick western bums=====terrorist regimes
When non Muslims carry out massacres ala Breivik===They are [B]'insane[B/]'

When America kills Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan including children every day===collateral damage

When American soldiers are caught on tape targeting civilians or are caught mass murdering civilians====collateral damage or they were suffering from PTSD

When America funded the mujahedeen terrorists to carry out terrorist attacks on soviets====lets pretend that didn't happen

When America targeted 150 000 civilians each in Nagasaki and Hiroshima====lets forget that

When America committed war crimes by sexual degradation and rape, torture and deliberate targeting of civilians in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam=====lets not mention that

Actually those Muslim gunmen in India the other year were called gunmen, not terrorists.

[jaadau121]

(Original post by qua)
You have no proof for that. It might just as well result in creating false martyrs - if Breivik gets killed for (in his eyes) "standing up to his beliefs", a lot of racist weirdos will put him on a pedestal.

So were you saying the same thing about Saddam's or Gaddafi's 'killing'? I highly doubt it.

Must say your choice of vocab ie killing is nothing short of hilarious. I think should be stabbed 69 time on live television for the world to see, would be a great deterrence.

[SaharaDesert]

(Original post by james22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

I can only find the stats for homicide rate, but it's still very clear cut. Norway has 0.68 per 100,000 and the USA has 4.8 per 100,000.

Thanks, that's interesting.
Oman, UAE and Qatar, all which have harsher punishments have lower homicide rates than Norway, according to some other stats I have seen, like this.