If you kill someone, you practically took away his chance to life a full life. Given you cannot bring him back to life, there is really no other way to be responsible unless your chance is take away too. The difference between life and non life sentence is not a fundamental difference but simply scale, in my opinion.

Another thing is...punishment by law is just one form of punishment, in many way it is the more civil punishment too, even if law doesn't get to you, will your social circle accept you? If crime goes unpunished, you probably won't find a place in the society besides among other criminals, and psychologically you won't get over it.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

I'm not discussing what the correct time in prison is for any offence, I'm just pointing out the fact that if someone is wrongfully convicted then it's easier to attempt to redress this issue if you havn't killed them.

The basic problem with that idea is that it simply suggests the justice system is unreliable. If it can not credibly and reliably sentence people to death then can it reliably sentence anyone at all? If we have to leave out death sentence from the "toolbox" because we don't trust the justice system then isn't the logical conclusion from that that the justice system in itself is unreliable and is at least in need of serious makeover?

Basically you are saying the explanation for long sentences is: we believe without doubt that you are guilty. But we are not sure enough to sentence you to death so we just put you into prison for the rest of your life just in case something comes up". If the sentence is not reliable to sentence him to death then how can it be reliable enough at all?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

We jail people because we believe that their actions are not acceptable to us as a society, therefore if you commit unacceptable behaviour then society chooses that you should be incarcerated for a specific period as punishment.

But punishment is not the only aspect of prison (and death sentence):

The aspects are:
Retribution
Deterrence
Denunciation
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
Reparation

I don't think modern justice system should have any room for retribution for example. I also think rehabilitation and incapacitation are the most important ones.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

And society accepts that this will come at a cost, paid through taxes, to remove those that we believe guilty, after a trial, for a set period of time.

In the case of murder, what is an accepted period ?

Acceptable punishment is anything that guarantees that the chance of rehabilitation to be successful (=long enough) or that the person is incapacitated (he's ability is taken away). In the extreme case where rehabilitation is unsuccesfull and the chance for recidivism is high I see death sentence as one of the good tools to solve the situation. In my opinion it does not solve anything if you just throw someone into cell and throw away the key.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

If you kill someone, remove their life, then what is an acceptable punishment ?

Same as above if we assume the killing was done in such way it wasn't self defence for example.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

And, the point I'm actually trying to make, what is the difference between an individual committing murder, or a state committing murder.

Are states exempt from responsibility for their actions while individuals should be punished ?

Please discuss !

What's the difference between state commiting kidnapping or individual commiting kidnapping?

We have given this power to our justice system because it is necessary to have this kind of authority for a civilized society to survive and exist. Without justice system and ways to deal with crimes and criminals the society would be a far worse place to live.

Society is based on (among rights and duties) rules and punishments you get from breaking those rules. For that system to work we need someone or something to do the punishing part. If you are suggesting that we should not have such system because giving out punishments is wrong then what is it then when you have bad guys running around when you have chosen to do nothing about it? Is doing nothing the better option? Should we shut down our prisons and justice system because kidnapping people is wrong?

We have lots of bush and forest that people have unexplicably disappeared in.

Works well for us !

Naturally, I totally support the rule of law and completely disaprove of any unlawful actions.
Unlawful social responses are completely wrong and cannot be supported at all, ever, even if you want to.................

Quote from The Very End :

I mean that they are on cells without a sentence on them, as someone stated earlier, sorry for beeing unclear here.

I think life time prison is much more of a punishment, than what death penalty is. As stated before the biggest reason I'm against death penalty is that it is a primitive way of judging (eye for an eye attitute). Secondly is that a life in prison, no matter how you look on it, is utterly devestating. Never to be released, never to be a free man again.. That is true despair in my eyes. Also the person have to live with all his actions, which I think can be pretty horrible too for a person who is not completely nutcase.

Well apparently we have moved on from the middle ages, so why should we incarcerate people so they live in torture? Surely that is more inhumane than to just end their lives and be gone with the whole situation? Surely in the case of a murder we should give the families of the deceased more control in the situation.

Read up on Jamie Bulger story, but be warned, the semantics aren't very pretty, even reading that is horrifying but those guys eventually went free with new identities etc ironically one was found and convicted of having child porn and shit on his computer but that's just another part of the story.

That's why the death penalty shouldn't be overlooked. To me as an unattached party to that whole event I don't want to know those animals are still alive, we should show no mercy to those animals. The majority of people probably DO want the death penalty it's probably the only real way to insight enough fear into people to stop them doing this shit.


At the end of the day, we're talking about a killer, a guy that massacred a bunch of kids for some belligerent political reason. There's no way he can be integrated back into society in a realistic sense or a moral one. Why keep him incarcerated for his life time and give him the privilege of dying of old age like those children should have had the chance to do themselves, instead of killing him with lethal injection?

Quote from BlueFlame :

In a prison, you don't work, you don't even have to make your own food. [........]
Why should hard working honest people pay for a killer to live with a roof over his head and food on his table?

Quote from BlueFlame :

and get off with a cushy warm cell

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well apparently we have moved on from the middle ages, so why should we incarcerate people so they live in torture? Surely that is more inhumane than to just end their lives

No. You don't get to claim you're saving people from 'torture' while at the same time complaining that prison is some kind of holiday camp.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

No. You don't get to claim you're saving people from 'torture' while at the same time complaining that prison is some kind of holiday camp.

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm saying for those that seem to think death penalty is inhumane are the same people who say prison and life-time incarceration is living torture. As TVE pointed out previously it's an oxymoronic notion.



Like I said before, why should these killers be allowed to continue the one thing they've taken away from others?

Lifetime prison, should, only be used in utterly horrible cases (like this), since it is - as we discussed, an horrible way to live. No hope can crush a man, and I think we can agree that indirectly it's a way of torture.

Racer X Y got a point, rehabilitating people and educate them in prison is a big WIN for the society. Sure, it's some money spent on their education and jail time, but when he gets out the risk of drawbacks (that he ends up back in jail) is lesser, as he now has more options in his life with his education. Since he / she / whatever does not go back to jail it won't be a repeatable thing which costs the society more money. Instead the person will contribute to the society.

And I belive people can change. A kid who does a murder when he is 16, can be a changed man when he is is 40. Therfor I don't like the lifetime prison / death penalty on regular basis. Who are we do judge that people does not deserve a second chance?
Many times when there is a murder, there are some pretty nasty background stories to be told, sometimes the murderer even maybe is a victim himself.
Ahh, going off topic here, sorry!

Point is, death penalty is bad, lifetime prison is bad - but needed in extreme situations when you have people who does not want to change and which possess a danger to the society.

But why would you give him that oportunity? He took it away from someone else, he doesn't deserve to write books and shit, you can't forgive and forget that kind of things, sorry. At least it serves as a clear warning sign, "i wanted to kill that clerk but i might get a death penalty.. hm, probably not a good idea".
And what was in Breivik mind? "i might murder bunch of kids and plant some bombs, worst case scenario i'll live in one of our awesome prisons and write books and be online for 21 years.." You see the difference?

What opertunity? I stand my ground that he deserves lifetime prison.
What he does while he is inside is up to him. If he write books or what not, good for him, I won't care.

I don't think it would be any different if we limited all his possibilites to write and that, and it's clear that if he writes something which encourage acts of violence, it won't be allowed to be released. Everything he writes and do is monitored by the prison.

And what's in this mind? A lot of gibberish stuff which is food for a shrink.

Why was this ever brought up again.

Horrible disaster, Breikvik deserves nothing else than to rot up somewhere full of filth.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

At least it serves as a clear warning sign, "i wanted to kill that clerk but i might get a death penalty.. hm, probably not a good idea".

Well that obviously doesn't work as a deterrant, people still murder people in places where they have a death penalty.

In Texas, we have a saying. "some folks just need killing". And I believe in that.
But there have been cases where the person executed may have been innocent.
So I really can't support the death penalty for the most part.
Now this Norway Rat. It is well beyond a shadow of a doubt what he's done. You don't need any CSI teams gathering evidence to get the conviction on this defect. And what did he get? 22 years? Really? This guy was a one man Hezbollah. You don't give this guy 22 years. I know you Norwegians tend to be socially progressive types, but get a clue here. This guy needs a dirt nap in the worst way.
Does the Mexican Mafia operate in y'alls prison system too? If so, at least make him one of their cell mates.
Wow...22 years. It's amazing that sociopaths from over here haven't invaded you.... LOL The night stalker would be out of jail by now and back at it.
22 years. wow.

Again, 21 years + 10 years After that he still will be in prison, and the case will be evaluated each 5 years after that (at 36 years, 41 years, 46 years and so on), and from this evaluation the person can be released or kept in prison. I think it's safe to say that this guy is never going to get released.

I think people in the UK have been very impressed with the way the Norwegian court system dealt with Breivik. They tried him, they let him speak, they treated him like any other criminal, and then they locked him up like any other criminal. This is the best way - don't make him a special case, and certainly don't make him a martyr. He stood there in court each day doing his stupid salutes and made a mockery of himself, while everybody just looked at him like he was from another planet. Perfect.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

But why would you give him that oportunity? He took it away from someone else, he doesn't deserve to write books and shit, you can't forgive and forget that kind of things, sorry. At least it serves as a clear warning sign, "i wanted to kill that clerk but i might get a death penalty.. hm, probably not a good idea".
And what was in Breivik mind? "i might murder bunch of kids and plant some bombs, worst case scenario i'll live in one of our awesome prisons and write books and be online for 21 years.." You see the difference?

You should move to the U.S. and join the republicans.

Quote from The Very End :

Again, 21 years + 10 years After that he still will be in prison, and the case will be evaluated each 5 years after that (at 36 years, 41 years, 46 years and so on), and from this evaluation the person can be released or kept in prison. I think it's safe to say that this guy is never going to get released.

Sorry for double posting.
At least in theory.
They should've come up with something a little more. You'd be surprised what parole boards will let slide through. Sociopaths excell in manipulation. And for some reason, the better educated the person being manipulated, the easier it is to get away with. And y'all have a lot of highly educated people.
A lot of people that are so smart and so smug in their beliefs don't bother to double check them. Because they know better. And those types can get played like a deck of cards. I think it could be quite easy for this guy to "convince" the board that he's suitable to be unleashed on society again. Especially if it's made up of people that think anyone is able to be rehabilitated. They might think this sicko is the proof in their pudding. A shining example of what they believe.
Then you also have politically motivated bastards. They might put a spin on things to get this guy out of jail, just to make a political opponent look bad.
So don't be too sure that he's never getting out. In fact, he's got a pretty big door.