Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

He's never getting out of jail, so what's the problem?

[Glowcat]

He's never getting out of jail, so what's the problem?

Spending money on an irredeemable criminal's basic needs when that money could be going towards something more useful, like furthering education. From a utilitarian point of view there's little reason to not execute somebody when no question of innocence nor realistic chances of rehabilitation can be found.

[Leafsnail]

This is to do with Norway's maximum 21 years mandatory prison time not the death sentence, as far as I can tell.  Although

From a utilitarian point of view there's little reason to not execute somebody when no question of innocence nor realistic chances of rehabilitation can be found.

How's "The proceedings necessary to execute him may end up costing more than how much it would cost to incarcerate him" or "You're creating a martyr"?

[Hiiri]

He's never getting out of jail, so what's the problem?

Spending money on an irredeemable criminal's basic needs when that money could be going towards something more useful, like furthering education. From a utilitarian point of view there's little reason to not execute somebody when no question of innocence nor realistic chances of rehabilitation can be found.

First of all, haven't there been several calculations that an execution is often more expensive than a life in prison? (Some random study)
Second of all, from utilitarian point of view, wouldn't it be wise to start using slaves again?
Third of all, do you really want to live in a society that has the ability to kill it's own citizens?
And last, don't you see the hypocrisy of killing a killer?

There's just so much wrong with capital punishment.

[Glowcat]

If the cost in a process required to execute him is more than the costs of supporting him for the remainder of his life then obviously that would change things, but the reason of said costs is more important than their existence. Remember that we're talking about a clear-cut scenario where no question of guilt remains. If those costs are inflated due to appeals then they are caused by the particulars of the bureaucracy surrounding execution. I was speaking more hypothetically that it would be better to kill such people than let them drain away efforts which might actually improve the lives of others, although obviously due process changes the efficiency of each possibility.

I don't regard martyrship arguments seriously. Either he dies a martyr or lives a hero. Inspiration to others like him will come either way.

He's never getting out of jail, so what's the problem?

Spending money on an irredeemable criminal's basic needs when that money could be going towards something more useful, like furthering education. From a utilitarian point of view there's little reason to not execute somebody when no question of innocence nor realistic chances of rehabilitation can be found.

First of all, haven't there been several calculations that an execution is often more expensive than a life in prison? (Some random study)
Second of all, from utilitarian point of view, wouldn't it be wise to start using slaves again?
Third of all, do you really want to live in a society that has the ability to kill it's own citizens?
And last, don't you see the hypocrisy of killing a killer?

There's just so much wrong with capital punishment.

1. Addressed in response to Leafsnail.
2. You don't see a difference between removing somebody who will only be ostracized and kept in a hole because he cannot interact with society, and enslaving people (causing widespread suffering in itself)?
3. I don't support Capital Punishment as a general policy. If there wasn't a high probability of wrongfully executing people and such actions had prohibitions to ensure judicious use then I would.
4. No, because I don't oppose killing itself as some moral absolute, I oppose the purpose behind the killing and how it has disrupted the wellbeing and rights of others.

[Nadaka]

Capital punishment should be reserved for those who are unquestionably guilty and completely irredeemable.

There should never be a chance of sending an innocent man to his death.

A simple killer should never be sentenced to death. Only the pathologically violent killers such as serial killers, spree killers and mass murderers should face that fate.

Sometimes killing is the best justice that can be had.

There is no hypocrisy if the two above rules are followed.

Also, the appeals process can be streamlined to reduce both cost and the suffering of the condemned if there is absolute certainty of guilt.

The US needs execution reform, not banishment. But I can respect other countries not wanting the complication.

I am one of those really weird liberal progressives who support the death penalty and right to bear arms.

[Hiiri]

1. Addressed in response to Leafsnail.

2. You don't see a difference between removing somebody who will only be ostracized and kept in a hole because he cannot interact with society, and enslaving people (causing widespread suffering in itself)?

3. I don't support Capital Punishment as a general policy. If there wasn't a high probability of wrongfully executing people and such actions had prohibitions to ensure judicious use then I would.

4. No, because I don't oppose killing itself as some moral absolute, I oppose the purpose behind the killing and how it has disrupted the wellbeing and rights of others.

1. Exceptional cases, where you catch the person in act and could basically be able to execute the criminal on site without remorse and at a cost of a bullet, are so rare to have any real monetary effect on the world. I believe most cases require investigation, which can be flawed. Thus, the need of long processes to be 'absolutely sure'.

2. From an utilitarian point of view, no. Which is what I was pointing out; you should not use utilitarian point of view when talking about human lives. We're not, nor should be, just some cogs in the machine that are thrown away as soon as it's not useful anymore. Also known as human rights. Lack of human rights also causes widespread unhappiness. (Ps. Haven't you read 1984? )

3. Fair enough, except how can you ever know a person is absolutely guilty? Corruptness, after all, is not rare in this world. This is where zero tolerance comes in.

4. No, it's not a moral absolute, but it is barbaric and the world would be a better place if we stopped killing each other. (I know it's never going to stop. But we should try to minimize it.)


Edit: 5. Sorry if I derailed the discussion again.

[Glowcat]

1. Exceptional cases, where you catch the person in act and could basically be able to execute the criminal on site without remorse and at a cost of a bullet, are so rare to have any real monetary effect on the world. I believe most cases require investigation, which can be flawed. Thus, the need of long processes to be 'absolutely sure'.

2. From an utilitarian point of view, no. Which is what I was pointing out; you should not use utilitarian point of view when talking about human lives. We're not, nor should be, just some cogs in the machine that are thrown away as soon as it's not useful anymore. Also known as human rights. Lack of human rights also causes widespread unhappiness. (Ps. Haven't you read 1984? )

3. Fair enough, except how can you ever know a person is absolutely guilty? Corruptness, after all, is not rare in this world. This is where zero tolerance comes in.

4. No, it's not a moral absolute, but it is barbaric and the world would be a better place if we stopped killing each other. (I know it's never going to stop. But we should try to minimize it.)

1. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Of course such occurrences are rare, and Capital Punishment should likewise be something only used in extreme cases. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and dangerous.

2. Utilitarianism <-- Since you don't appear to have understood what I meant by utilitarian.

3. It helps when they've written Manifestos and gloat about their accomplishment.

You're right that corruption is the primary factor when considering Capital Punishment though. As in 1, I believe it should only be used in cases where the possibility of false charge is so unlikely as to require a full-blown conspiracy. I'm rather serious about it only being used in the most extreme of cases. Even then I feel it may be less open to abuse if execution was optional on the subject's part, with confirmation only being done alongside a sizable media presence that is made freely available to the public. If the person is informed that they can never be released into society again and chooses to end their life instead of suffering in a cell with no hope for the future, while we apparently keep them alive just so they can suffer longer, then they should have that path open to them. This reduces the potential benefit gained by executing those with no hope but provides yet another hurdle to overcome for potential misuse.

If a government is corrupt enough to ignore all that, then they probably already control the nation to an extent where any laws against Capital Punishment, or the presence of those who oppose it, are irrelevant.

4. If it's not a moral absolute then why are you arguing from that position? You just say that we shouldn't kill each other without paying attention to the circumstances behind the act. If killing is universally wrong then you're arguing that it is a moral absolute.

---------------------------

If this derail is getting too far away from the incident for the taste of readers then I'll stop at a request.

[Grakelin]

( I don't intend to ever learn his name, I don't want to remember who he is when the discussion ends )

Yes, I think history has shown us that forgetting the mistakes our species has made in the past has prevented them from happening again in the future.

[Trappin]

Beivik released a compilation of articles he [and possibly others] collected into a volume that form the basis of his belief system, it is not an original work [manifesto] which he authored - a distinction worth noting.

I won't try to sway others on the topic of crime and institutional punishment/reform or how the Norwegians system is constructed to deal with it but Breivik is fully aware of the flaws built into the system and will attempt to manipulate it for his own purposes. Breivik knows that Hitler spent time as a prisoner at Landsberg Castle and while there penned his autobiography Mien Kampf. Hitler later emerged from Landsberg with a new focus and energy and with the help of men like Gregor Strasser, reorganized the NSDAP into a working political system. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that Breivik believes he can - deluded and crazy as it may seem to us on the outside - recreate what happened in 1924? Anders own manifesto compilation journal entries suggest it.

Anders already fancies himself the modern version of Wagner's Siegfried - not a sequel to Hitlers failed thousand year Reich -  but a reboot.

[Dsarker]

Just throw him into solitary confinement for thirty years. Let him slowly go insane.

[Hiiri]

Anders Breivik be a bad man.

Spoiler: Off the topic reply to Glowcat (click to show/hide)

1. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Of course such occurrences are rare, and Capital Punishment should likewise be something only used in extreme cases. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and dangerous.

2. Utilitarianism <-- Since you don't appear to have understood what I meant by utilitarian.

3. It helps when they've written Manifestos and gloat about their accomplishment.

You're right that corruption is the primary factor when considering Capital Punishment though. As in 1, I believe it should only be used in cases where the possibility of false charge is so unlikely as to require a full-blown conspiracy. I'm rather serious about it only being used in the most extreme of cases. Even then I feel it may be less open to abuse if execution was optional on the subject's part, with confirmation only being done alongside a sizable media presence that is made freely available to the public. If the person is informed that they can never be released into society again and chooses to end their life instead of suffering in a cell with no hope for the future, while we apparently keep them alive just so they can suffer longer, then they should have that path open to them. This reduces the potential benefit gained by executing those with no hope but provides yet another hurdle to overcome for potential misuse.

If a government is corrupt enough to ignore all that, then they probably already control the nation to an extent where any laws against Capital Punishment, or the presence of those who oppose it, are irrelevant.

4. If it's not a moral absolute then why are you arguing from that position? You just say that we shouldn't kill each other without paying attention to the circumstances behind the act. If killing is universally wrong then you're arguing that it is a moral absolute.

---------------------------

If this derail is getting too far away from the incident for the taste of readers then I'll stop at a request.

1&3, feel free to ignore. Responding mostly for the sake of responding.

1. I'm not really arguing anything, beyond the study I linked earlier. Also, cutting costs most likely increase the chances of an innocent person getting executed.

2. Yes, I slightly misunderstood the term. But not too much, and I believe my argument stands...? Maybe I'm just being stupid then. I don't see how killing an unarmed prisoner increases maximum "good", as the link says. Threat of a death penalty clearly does not work.

3. Giving a prisoner an option of suicide I can agree with. Though it raises the question whether it's just an indirect execution and there's not much to choose for the prisoner, but that's irrelevant for now.

4. It's not universally wrong. I see nothing wrong with shooting a suicide bomber, for example, as there usually is no other option.

And yes, the circumstances behind the act are largely irrelevant, when it's beyond the point of "life in prison vs death penalty". It doesn't matter how many the person killed, or how brutally he did it. Only thing that matters is the future. Is this person going to cause more deaths in the near or far future? In this case, if he's locked up for the rest of his life, it's unlikely he'll ever cause another death.

In my view, killing is still generally wrong. It's not some universal value, it's only rational because it makes a better world for everyone. A prisoner sitting in a prison for a life is no threat to anyone, as such it's hypocritical to kill a killer.

[Jackrabbit]

Wow, twenty-one years maximum for killing that many people? That's a lot of time to work out a book and movie deal. Maybe he wasn't so irrational after all.

P.S. Draw and quarter the fucker you have a King what's the damned point if he can't order an execution of a convicted mass murderer!

The guy killed a lot of children. I give him five years before he gets shived, tops.

This, by the way.

If prisoners in Norway are anything like prisoners in the USA, then he's a dead man.

All three quotes here; Norway's not like the USA at all. None of the countries in that region are. What good would it do to kill him?

I'm not saying it'd do any good. I'm saying there are people in prisons who are comfortable with killing people and more than willing to kill people who kill children. I don't know if it's the same in Norway as in, say, the United States or Australia, but I don't see why it would be. Most people, I think, are hoping this guy suffers for what he did, and he's being put in an environment with people who don't care about causing suffering to others.

[Glowcat]

2. Yes, I slightly misunderstood the term. But not too much, and I believe my argument stands...? Maybe I'm just being stupid then. I don't see how killing an unarmed prisoner increases maximum "good", as the link says. Threat of a death penalty clearly does not work.

4. It's not universally wrong. I see nothing wrong with shooting a suicide bomber, for example, as there usually is no other option.

And yes, the circumstances behind the act are largely irrelevant, when it's beyond the point of "life in prison vs death penalty". It doesn't matter how many the person killed, or how brutally he did it. Only thing that matters is the future. Is this person going to cause more deaths in the near or far future? In this case, if he's locked up for the rest of his life, it's unlikely he'll ever cause another death.

In my view, killing is still generally wrong. It's not some universal value, it's only rational because it makes a better world for everyone. A prisoner sitting in a prison for a life is no threat to anyone, as such it's hypocritical to kill a killer.

If you recall, my initial argument was that the money spent on prisoners could be spent elsewhere for people who had a future. If the costs of appeal weren't so high it would benefit the greater good to execute people who'd never reintegrate anyway. It's of minor benefit given the rarity of cases where I find Capital Punishment acceptable, but properly used that money can improve the life of somebody who is suffering.

And if you accept that shooting a suicide bomber is the right thing to do then you've already proven that you don't believe not killing always makes the world a better place. You keep trying to claim hypocrisy based on your own values, but a killer isn't being killed because he or she is a killer, he or she is killed for being a murderer. Murderers have performed an act that violates the rights of others, creates fear among the rest of society, and causes great sorrow among surviving family members - lethal force is simply the vehicle for the true crime. Murderers have violated the agreement which keeps society together in the worst possible manner. Effectively, they have forfeited any rights they might have claimed in such an act. And in the case of the Oslo shooter we are talking about a person who methodically planned a mass shooting, murdering 76(?) others. He has absolutely no remorse and believes himself to be a hero. The ideology motivating him was itself corrupt and harmful to the world. Why invest anything into him when others are in desperate need? Instead of feeding Anders, feed children starving in Africa or something.

[Phmcw]

Long story short : to make murder a taboo. No matter the offence, you may not kill, exept in self defence. Period.
Yes that mean you turned down lover, yeah that mean you who have been fired, yeah that mean you, who have been humiliated.
No, even the state cannot take the life of a man for any reason exept self defence, and only if it is absolutely needed to save your life.