Utøya, Norge

[jetbaby]

I heard the most he will get is like 21 years? That is pretty messed up if there isn't some type of legality loop hole to go around that. Even though 21 years is bad in itself, compared to what he did he should get life or execution.

We'll leave it to the vikings to clarify, but to my understanding that is the maximum allowable sentence under their penal law. It breaks down to like a hundred days a kill or something was the number quoted [of course I didn't double check it because :effort:] on some news article or another. There is apparently the option to extend for five years if he is deemed a danger to society or something along those lines, but still, it's a pretty shit deal.

[SenisterDenister]

Nothing a lethal injection couldn't fix.

[Retlaw83]

I honestly don't understand how a rational human being can see a crime like this committed and not favor the death penalty as suitable punishment. I realize EU countries don't have the death penalty, but 21 years is fucking absurd.

[SenisterDenister]

My stance is the "if you kill someone we get to kill you back." People who don't like capital punishments see my stance as absolutely draconian, as I think a bullet would be a lot cheaper than injection, but the people that kill others should be well aware of what they're getting into when they commit the crime. If they feel remorse as their final days approach, good, but justice isn't served until they're wholly punished for their crimes.

That's just me, and I don't like arguing about it. Premeditated murders should always be answered with permanent removal of the criminal.

[Jeff]

a shame not all killa cases are near as clear-cut as this one isn't it, unless you don't mind the moral burden of permanently removing the wrong brutha occasionally

FREE ANDRÉ BREIVIK

[Retlaw83]

Killing people who aren't guilty is why I'm not pro death penalty in every case, but in something like this its clearly the appropriate punishment.

[Megatron]

no man he's not worth it. only when you shout and put your gun down and we both turn out backs then he jumps up from the ground and raises a hidden ankle pistol are you literally allowed to blast his ass to kingdom come.

[SenisterDenister]

I'm not saying kill everyone convicted of murder, but the death penalty is necessary.

[rad resistance]

Remember guy's he's a CHRISTIAN radical and "gods big book of bad ideas" is to blame for poisoning his mind into thinking every person of another religion most notably islam is a blight on humanity.

Also why do Norway's mass muderer's look like professional speed skaters?

[Stainless]

Because all of Norway look like professional speed skaters. No-one notices because no-one pays any attention to Norway

[Kashluk]

Two things:

A) Norway's currently under some legislatory changes that would make the highest punishment 30 years or so.

B) The 21 year limit is just a technicality, since you can endlessly extend the imprisonment for five years at a time. And if he is sentenced to be completely insane, then he'll be locked away for the rest of his life to a mental institution.

[Blargh]

Seems he's quite the fan of (not so) recent Australian cash-for-babby legislation as a halt-the-fecund-Muslim-menace measure. Ahahaha.

[St. Toxic]

The guy is an obvious plant for a Zionist conspiracy.

[Yonmanc]

My stance is the "if you kill someone we get to kill you back." People who don't like capital punishments see my stance as absolutely draconian, as I think a bullet would be a lot cheaper than injection, but the people that kill others should be well aware of what they're getting into when they commit the crime. If they feel remorse as their final days approach, good, but justice isn't served until they're wholly punished for their crimes.

That's just me, and I don't like arguing about it. Premeditated murders should always be answered with permanent removal of the criminal.

I don't see your stance as draconian. My problems with the death penalty lie with legitimacy:

1) Who legitimately has the right to take another life?

2) If the law is place, sure it get's rid of self-confessed killers, but what about people who are wrongly accused?

3) Also, from a moral stance, how is society as a whole expected to respect laws against taking another life when the Government they elect begin taking people's lives?

I guess it boils down to how much power you're willing to give your Government. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where we run the risk of a nutjob now and then, than live in one where the government can execute citizens.

Also, killing Anders wont bring his victims back, it just means one person's kill is state sanctioned, whilst the others is deemed criminal.

[Retlaw83]

1) Who legitimately has the right to take another life?

People who are killing murderers in line with organized law.

2) If the law is place, sure it get's rid of self-confessed killers, but what about people who are wrongly accused?

That's why you only use the death penalty in no-brainer cases like this.

3) Also, from a moral stance, how is society as a whole expected to respect laws against taking another life when the Government they elect begin taking people's lives?

The same way it would be illegal for me to lock you in a cell, but it's legal for the government to do under the right conditions.

Also, killing Anders wont bring his victims back, it just means one person's kill is state sanctioned, whilst the others is deemed criminal.

I don't know how to stop wackos from killing the first place. But the death penalty ensures they never get the chance again.

[Stalagmite]

My stance is the "if you kill someone we get to kill you back." People who don't like capital punishments see my stance as absolutely draconian, as I think a bullet would be a lot cheaper than injection, but the people that kill others should be well aware of what they're getting into when they commit the crime. If they feel remorse as their final days approach, good, but justice isn't served until they're wholly punished for their crimes.

That's just me, and I don't like arguing about it. Premeditated murders should always be answered with permanent removal of the criminal.

There's still younguns who think like this in America? I thought you guys were slacking up a little bit. Two wrongs don't make a right and bad parenting/guidance in a largely white patriarchal/bogan society usually results in "whackos killing wackos for killing other whackos". In short, it's best to avoid backwards shitstorms if you're mind is more in the progressive. My American visa will be put on hold if most people are as deluded/stupid as George W. Bush.

[Tofu Man]

I didn't say anything cause I just knew Manc was itching for his big entry, but that is a pretty violent predisposition this day and age, Dino. Ever thought that this particular individual could be an invaluable source for psych studies (particularly pertaining to how to prevent shit like this happening again) and that that'd be better for society than just attempting to erase him from existenz and risk creating some sort of martyr for fans of his pseudo-shenanigeist?

[Kashluk]

I agree with Yonmac and the others. Death penalty is irreversible. Finding contradicting evidence later on won't help the executed prisoner (who's now actually become a victim). In a free, democratic state I cannot see any situation or any circumstance where that said sovereign nation could/should kill its own citizens.

The whole martyrdom aspect is also something to consider. Not to mention the possibility of doing research, like Tofu Man suggested. Usually these kinds of loonies blow their own brains out in the end, so it's impossible to ask them "why?" Now we have the chance, perhaps a chance to prevent some events like this from happening as well.

[rad resistance]

Burn all bible's problem fucking solved.

[Yonmanc]

As for the martyrdom/hero aspect, I've already come across some jackass on Youtube calling him Breivik the Brave thinking he's some sort of hero. :facepalm: