Norway- Murder 77=21yrs, People do that much time for dope here.

[tod evans]

(CNN) -- Norwegian prosecutors have asked that alleged mass killer Anders Breivik be transferred to a psychiatric institutions because they believe he is mentally ill, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office told CNN.
If that does not happen, prosecutors will ask for 21 years of prison for Breivik.
Norway's Breivik gives chilling account of gun massacre
Breivik claims killing was 'necessary' Prosecution concerned with Breivik sanity
Breivik is on trial on charges of voluntary homicide and committing acts of terror in the July 22, 2011, attacks. He has admitted carrying out an attack on a youth camp on Utoya Island that killed 69 people and a bombing in Oslo that killed eight.
He boasts of being an ultranationalist who killed his victims to fight multiculturalism in Norway.
Last month, Breivik promised that he would not appeal if a court finds him sane and guilty.

[farreri]

Norway has the ideal prison system. One of the lowest, if not the lowest recidivism rate in the world. Almost the opposite of the "Greatest Country on Earth!"

[Kelly.]

prisoners can be held after the 21 year sentence (which is the max sentence in norway) if he is deemed a danger to society.

normays prisons also focus on rehabilitation not punishment like the US system.

i cant get to this link from work (firewalled), but i believe this link will have more info on it: http://www.vice.com/vice-news/norwegian-prisons

[Todd]

I'm gonna wager they will not "rehabilitate" Anders.

[liberdom]

I find it funny when people suddenly want death penalty when they heard of this guy, or George Zimmerman, meaning they never imagined somebody could be so cold blooded as to deserve death.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I remember watching a documentary about a a guy that murdered someone in the U.S. and fled to France to escape possible capital punishment. I think he lived there for several years and they interviewed French citizens asking whether he should be extradited to the U.S. and one guy said, "well he only killed one person...so no." Europeans are a strange lot.

[Sam I am]

I respect Norway's Prison system. It's geared toward preventing crime from happening.

Unlike the United States. The US Prison system is geared toward revenge.

[liberdom]

I respect Norway's Prison system. It's geared toward preventing crime from happening.

Unlike the United States. The US Prison system is geared toward revenge.

actually no, US prison system is not geared toward revenge, otherwise death penalty would be enforced more.

While there is a difference between treating a prisoner nicely vs treating them poorly, there's no doubt that executing a prisoner will prevent crime more than whatever you do to treat him. So if revenge and prevention were the priority, never letting them out would be ideal. US prison systems' problems are not limited to encouraging repeat offenses either.

[liberdom]

I remember watching a documentary about a a guy that murdered someone in the U.S. and fled to France to escape possible capital punishment. I think he lived there for several years and they interviewed French citizens asking whether he should be extradited to the U.S. and one guy said, "well he only killed one person...so no." Europeans are a strange lot.

yeah, what's the big deal with killing one person?

[dillo]

I'm gonna wager they will not "rehabilitate" Anders.

I would venture to say that you could rehabilitate anyone after 21 years

[dannno]

actually no, US prison system is not geared toward revenge, otherwise death penalty would be enforced more.

While there is a difference between treating a prisoner nicely vs treating them poorly, there's no doubt that executing a prisoner will prevent crime more than whatever you do to treat him. So if revenge and prevention were the priority, never letting them out would be ideal. US prison systems' problems are not limited to encouraging repeat offenses either.


"[T]here is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand -- for example, professional executioners -- intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed."

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983

[liberdom]

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983

which would not be an argument unless I started out by saying DP is either justified or necessary for deterrance. It isn't, and I don't care about deterrence. What we all know as fact is that DP prevents the same person from committing crimes again, guaranteed.

This is obviously a double standard anyway, nobody measures whether 10 years vs 30 years has a deterring effect, or prison time vs fine has a deterring effect. But somehow DP has to answer whether it has a deterring effect, and nobody would say "if there is zero deterrence, we should abolish punishment".

[liberdom]

I would venture to say that you could rehabilitate anyone after 21 years

if by rehab you mean disable, then yes, you can, and you could. Whether it is legal and moral is another story.

This is another thing I find incredilbly hypocritical. We're all about "preventing" crimes, and we're all about "not wasting tax payer dollars", so why don't we consider the obvious option? Mayhem. If a person is disabled, he cannot commit 90% of the violent crimes we are afraid of, his buddies can try to retaliate, but that would be no more the case in today's world, no worse. Disabling a person makes him unable to commit crimes of our concern, and puts the burden of his life on himself, and others who want to keep him alive, if anybody. It's also reversible because the state can compensate him by paying for assistance or artificial limbs, much more reversible than either prison time or death.

But no, we're too "humane" that we rather waste money keeping a person alive, costing taxpayers, and letting him free to commit crimes later, while risking violence being in prison to himself and other inmates.

[Zippyjuan]

Mayhem. If a person is disabled, he cannot commit 90% of the violent crimes we are afraid of, his buddies can try to retaliate, but that would be no more the case in today's world, no worse. Disabling a person makes him unable to commit crimes of our concern, and puts the burden of his life on himself, and others who want to keep him alive, if anybody. It's also reversible because the state can compensate him by paying for assistance or artificial limbs, much more reversible than either prison time or death.
Are you arguing for say cutting the hand off thiefs or legs off a killer? What if they were later shown to be innocent? Yeah- that would be a step up from having a death penalty (not by much). Now you have the state maiming people. Something in the Constitution I believe refers to "cruel and unusual punishment".


Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8

Cutting off your hand is not exactly reversable. You can perhaps get a prosthesis for a leg or foot but you will still not be made whole as you were before you became victim of the state. Catch and release is the only one which can for the most part be completely reversable (you still can't give back time lost or lives changed during the incarceration).

[Southron]

I'm not against the death penalty, but only when there are two witnesses to the murder.

Of course Norway is free to set whatever punishment it want but I don't see much justice in 21 years.

[BlackTerrel]

dude should be killed. Norway gets to make the call - but if my tax dollars were paying for his food and housing I'd be pissed.

[talkingpointes]

actually no, US prison system is not geared toward revenge, otherwise death penalty would be enforced more.

While there is a difference between treating a prisoner nicely vs treating them poorly, there's no doubt that executing a prisoner will prevent crime more than whatever you do to treat him. So if revenge and prevention were the priority, never letting them out would be ideal. US prison systems' problems are not limited to encouraging repeat offenses either.

Prison in the US is purely revenge, societal revenge more like masked as justice. I take it you have never been to a prison. You realize the rape is not a joke, although it's used as one quite often in passing.

[talkingpointes]

This guy should be held indefinitely in a mental institution. Not the ideal solution, but given the resources. I personally believe ending one more life in this situation won't help. Call me crazy.

[liberdom]

Are you arguing for say cutting the hand off thiefs or legs off a killer? What if they were later shown to be innocent? Yeah- that would be a step up from having a death penalty (not by much). Now you have the state maiming people. Something in the Constitution I believe refers to "cruel and unusual punishment".


Isn't cruel and unusual subjective? And also, I already answered the "what if", we compensate them with either money or prosthetic limbs. Something you can't compensate if a person was placed in prison or dead (has anybody been paid for being wrongly imprisoned?)



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8

Cutting off your hand is not exactly reversable. You can perhaps get a prosthesis for a leg or foot but you will still not be made whole as you were before you became victim of the state.


Beats being dead, and in some cases, prison violence, prison rape. Not to mention the saved tax dollars.



Catch and release is the only one which can for the most part be completely reversable (you still can't give back time lost or lives changed during the incarceration).

Exactly, which is why compensable mayhem is better.

[liberdom]

This guy should be held indefinitely in a mental institution. Not the ideal solution, but given the resources. I personally believe ending one more life in this situation won't help. Call me crazy.

How is keeping him alive helping anybody? What is the benefit of keeping him alive in a mental institution? To give people work to do? To remind us how weak and tolerant we are to murderers?

[liberdom]

Prison in the US is purely revenge, societal revenge more like masked as justice. I take it you have never been to a prison. You realize the rape is not a joke, although it's used as one quite often in passing.

We can be much more consistently vengeful, is why point. We can execute more people, save more money, if revenge were the sole goal. But it isn't, which is why Charlie Manson is still alive and death penalty gets automatic appeal.

[talkingpointes]

We can be much more consistently vengeful, is why point. We can execute more people, save more money, if revenge were the sole goal. But it isn't, which is why Charlie Manson is still alive and death penalty gets automatic appeal.

Because we don't need a society that murders to show that murdering is wrong. I think people can be rehabilitated. Maybe not this man, but certainly others. Running a rape cage that does nothing more than create a training arena for gangs is not a good choice. Having a bunch of criminals sitting around fucking each other or beating each others brains out, will only work to make matters worse and non-violent criminals -- violent.

[liberdom]

Because we don't need a society that murders to show that murdering is wrong.


I can do better than that. We don't need a society that shows murder is wrong, we just need a society that gives murderers what they deserve.



I think people can be rehabilitated.


Keep thinking that.



Maybe not this man, but certainly others. Running a rape cage that does nothing more than create a training arena for gangs is not a good choice.


That's why I'm against running rape cages. I proposed mayhem and death penalty as money saving alternatives, prevents future crimes too (I don't care about deterrence, not one bit, so if it helps, good, if not, don't care).



Having a bunch of criminals sitting around fucking each other or beating each others brains out, will only work to make matters worse and non-violent criminals -- violent.

Agreed.

[Revolution9]

yeah, what's the big deal with killing one person?

Seriously..ya killed one ya killed them all.

Rev9

[liberdom]

Seriously..ya killed one ya killed them all.

Rev9

http://i.imgur.com/gruFW.jpg