Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 21:23:47 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Anders Behring Breivik
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 12:00:57
Norway mass killer tests limits of lenient justice system

STAVANGER, Norway (AP) — Convicted mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik spends his days in a spacious three-room cell, playing video games, exercising, watching TV and taking university-level courses in mathematics and business.

Halfway through a 21-year sentence and seeking early release, Breivik, 42, is being treated in a way that might seem shocking to people outside of Norway, where he killed eight in an Oslo bombing in 2011, and then stalked and gunned down 69 people, mostly teens, at a summer camp.

But here — no matter how wicked the crime — convicts benefit from a criminal justice system that is designed to offer prisoners some of the comforts and opportunities of life on the outside.

Still, Breivik’s extreme case is testing the limits of Norway’s commitment to tolerance and rehabilitation.

“We have never had anyone in Norway who has been responsible for this level of violence before. And there has been debate here about whether part of the justice system should be changed for someone like him,” said Erik Kursetgjerde, who survived the slaughter on Utoya island as an 18 year old. However, he advises a slow approach that does not bend to Breivik’s desire to subvert the system.

During a three-day parole hearing this week that was broadcast to journalists, Breivik renounced violence, but also flashed a Nazi salute and espoused white supremacy, echoing ideas in a manifesto he released at the time of his killing spree. The outburst was familiar to Norwegians who had watched him deliver rambling diatribes during his partially televised criminal trial.

“Obviously this has been extremely trying for survivors, the bereaved and Norwegian society as a whole,” said Kristin Bergtora Sandvik, professor of law at the University of Oslo, adding that there is debate in Norway over whether parole regulations should be overhauled in a bid to prevent this type of grandstanding.

In 2016, Breivik successfully sued the Norwegian government for human rights abuses, complaining about his isolation from other prisoners, frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed during the early part of his incarceration. He also complained about the quality of the prison food, having to eat with plastic utensils and not being able to communicate with sympathizers.

While Breivik’s human rights case was ultimately overturned by a higher court, the episode showed just how far the Norwegian criminal justice system could bend in favor of prisoners’ rights and living conditions.

“His conditions according to Norwegian standards are excellent,” said his prison psychiatrist, Randi Rosenqvist. She testified at the parole hearing that Breivik is still a public threat.

Even after Breivik’s outbursts at this week’s parole hearing, Norwegian authorities show no sign of wavering from treating him like any other inmate at Skien prison.

“In a Nordic prison sentence, the main punishment is deprivation of liberty. All the Nordic countries have systems based on a lenient and humane criminal policy that starts from the mutual understanding that punishment should not be any stricter than necessary,” said Professor Johan Boucht from the University of Oslo Department of Public and International law, who has also worked in Sweden and Finland. “The second aspect is rehabilitation, and the principle that it is better in the long run to rehabilitate the inmate than create a factory for criminals.”

Up until about 50 years ago, Norway’s justice system focused on punishment. But in the late 1960s there was a backlash to the harsh conditions of prisons, leading to criminal justice reforms that emphasized kinder treatment and rehabilitation.

Norwegian sentencing and prison conditions are sharply at odds with other European countries such as France, where the worst criminals can face life imprisonment, with the possibility of an appeal only after 22 years.

Relatively few French defendants get the longest sentence, but among those facing it are Salah Abdeslam, who is the only surviving member of the Islamic State cell that attacked Paris in November 2015. Abdeslam has complained bitterly about his conditions in the Fleury-Mérogis prison, where he is under 24-hour surveillance in solitary confinement, the furniture is fixed to the floor of his tiny cell and he can exercise for just one hour daily.

Breivik’s comparatively lenient treatment inside prison does not mean he’ll get out anytime soon, or even in 2032, when his sentence ends.

While the maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years, the law was amended in 2002 so that, in rare cases, sentences can be extended indefinitely in five-year increments if someone is still considered a danger to the public.

Breivik’s lawyer, Øystein Storrvik, said in his closing arguments at the parole hearing that Breivik should be released to prove that he is reformed and no longer a threat to society, and that is not possible to prove while he is in total isolation.

But Breivik’s behavior during this week’s parole hearing was proof enough to some that he should never again see freedom.

Kristine Roeyneland, who leads a group for families of Breivik’s victims and survivors, said his comfortable prison conditions and ability to spread extremist views through publicized parole hearings are reprehensible.

Whatever the outcome of Breivik’s request for early parole, which will be decided by a three-judge panel in coming weeks, some take an enlightened view of the Norwegian government’s apparent commitment to treat him like any other prisoner.

“People might be afraid that he’s using the law as a stage,” said Sandvik, the law professor. “But you can also say that, you know, he is being used by the law. He’s a megaphone for the rule of law.”

http://apn...d56073c42dc2066640095d7e62b048

murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 12:01:17

Why is this guy still alive?

murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 12:04:14

"Convicted mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik spends his days in a spacious three-room cell, playing video games, exercising, watching TV and taking university-level courses in mathematics and business."

Free room and board in a spacious three room apartment and video games all day?

TheChildren just firmed up.

Paramount
Member
Fri Jan 21 14:53:02
So basically, when you are 18 you can just kill someone and go to jail where you will get a free education, free housing, free food, free gym, free games, free TV. By the time you have finished your education you are released and can start to look for a job.
Paramount
Member
Fri Jan 21 15:00:49
Is he allowed to play online games?

If he is, he may be able to communicate/chat with people outside of prison. But maybe that is allowed is Norway?

I wouldn’t be surprised if they serve him lobsters and salmon every day as not violate his human rights.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 21 15:05:34
Lol. And I thought san Francisco was bad.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 21 15:16:17
Para
When you are 18 you can kill someone to get free stuff you get for free anyway? Sort of makes the killing part a bit redundant.

He is not allowed to play online.

Hansen gets a soapbox for his rants. The Norwegian State gets a soapbox to showcase we are a nation of law. Seems a fair trade.

His next probation hearing is realistically in 4 years.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 21 15:24:16
"He is not allowed to play online."

Untrue. I played Call of Duty with him just last week.

The dude killed it. Went 77-0 :o
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 15:56:32

"Hansen gets a soapbox for his rants. The Norwegian State gets a soapbox to showcase we are a nation of law. Seems a fair trade."

The families of the people he killed and the survivors are financing his worthless life. Laws can be changed so that you can drop him off in the middle of the ocean with floaties and all the fish he can catch and eat. Still a nation of laws, but also justice.

Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 21 16:18:53
"The families of the people he killed"

The "people" he killed were a bunch of Labor Party acolytes attending a youth political indoctrination camp.

Barely people at all, really.
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 16:21:08

They probably wanted to do something heinous like give workers guaranteed jobs or something.

Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 21 16:26:56
Yeah, that is heinous. Guaranteed jobs, what the fuck is that economics-defying shit?
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 21 16:43:12
Ruggy
And that my friend, is why you are on terrorist watch lists.

Its not paranoia if the State is out to get you.
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 16:54:25

"Yeah, that is heinous. Guaranteed jobs, what the fuck is that economics-defying shit?"

Forcing people to labor for the basic necessities isn't enough. They need to live in terror of losing the privilege.

jergul
large member
Fri Jan 21 18:19:01
Murder
Nah, vengance is such a small part of any just legal system.

The families did get economic compensation from the State btw.
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 19:03:02

Killing him once would be a small part. He should be killed 77 times.

jergul
large member
Fri Jan 21 19:58:58
Why?
murder
Member
Fri Jan 21 20:16:59

Because he murdered 77 people.

jergul
large member
Fri Jan 21 20:23:26
He has already been tried and sentenced for that.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 21 21:39:42
"The dude killed it. Went 77-0 :o"

Lulz
Paramount
Member
Sat Jan 22 03:19:13
They should chop his penis in 77 slices and then feed it to him. Then put him (or her) on a suicide watch.
obaminated
Member
Sat Jan 22 03:29:32
This reminds me of how Goodfellas portrayed prison life for made men.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 03:47:40
Para
Who is this "they" you are talking about?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 06:18:51
"Nah, vengance is such a small part of any just legal system."

Your justice system is designed to deal with the criminals endemic to your ecology. Evident by all these questions of what to do with Breivik, an anomaly.

There is no rehabilitating what he is inflicted with. If he had killed a couple of police robbing a bank, maybe? But premeditating a massacre of children. No. No. There are so many lines that have been crossed in this case that death is the only justice. Your justice system simply lacks the necessary levels for anomalies like this and is designed for criminals endemic to your society. Not being able to properly deal with these anomalies is an injustice in and of itself.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 07:07:48
Nimi
Nice theory. Norway purposely modified its legal code after WWII specifically to remove vengance elements as a response to judicial excesses dealing with collaboration.

It is patently obvious that Hansen will be held in prison until the day he dies. Preferably without violating human rights protection from cruelty in so far as that is practically possible.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 07:42:16
No matter how redundant, thank you for the brief summary of Norwegian legal history, but it does not adress what I said.

"judicial excesses dealing with collaboration"

We can rationalize and understand the incentives and motivations behind collaborating with the enemy, like we can with the robber who kills someone, no matter how undignified and heinous the act. When these things are part of a national grievance after a war, reconciliation and rebuilding can make the bitter pill easier to swallow. Not the case here with a free radical that corrodes everything he touches. You have to appreciate the effects of capital punishment on our self-domestication.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 07:57:41
Nimi
How far down the list of best countries in the world do you have to go before you find one that has capital punishment?

19th century retributive justice is simply not appropriate for a post-modern society.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 08:00:14
Answer. Japan. Number 10
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 08:14:16
Did not adress what I said, but I am not that impressed with the ability to keep a social experiment intact for a few decades based on "nice theories" :) I view these things along a longer time axis and global context.

"retributive justice"

Rationally, it isn't about retribution, even though this social and emotional component may motivate it. They serve a purpose an removing the most dangerous gene bags from the pool.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 08:15:12
an=in*
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 08:23:51
The justice system is a mirror of the society we want to be. Right now, we want to be one of the best countries in the world. Perhaps that will change and we will make criteria for what crimes we feel are heinous and deserving of death.

Insulting the monarch perhaps. Or idoltary. Or treason. Whatever.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 22 08:35:35
Nimatzo:

" Not being able to properly deal with these anomalies is an injustice in and of itself."

Not really. You can't bespoke the system to cater for every anomaly.

Better to have to stick someone like Brevik in a room with a video game for the rest of their lives, than worry that you have executed someone wrongly; which is the inevitable consequences of giving the system powers to execute.

"They serve a purpose an removing the most dangerous gene bags from the pool."

So, what if they've already had kids? Also, I don't think someone in prison will get to father more children.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 09:09:43
Jergul
That is cute, but these kinds of crimes we are talking about are neither culturally nor historically contingent, they are universally a physical threat to the well being of people and will always be.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 09:19:21
"The justice system is a mirror of the society we want to be."

Actually, it is a reflective of the society you are in. And the actions you take in that context will decide where you will end up, regardless of what you want it to be. The sad reality is that these things are largely reactive and not proactive, because we really do not understand ourselves. Things just happen here and there and people think there is a grand design behind the outcome.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 09:29:12
Seb
"Not really. You can't bespoke the system to cater for every anomaly."

Only specific ones that have asymmetric effects. Say disasters, Breivik is a disaster that happens to have a human agent.

"So, what if they've already had kids? Also, I don't think someone in prison will get to father more children."

All the members in their family should be sterilized. I think this is permissible in the same context as selective abortions :)

The sad reality in the broader context is however that violent offenders indeed do have more children than "normies".
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 22 09:48:57
Nim:

"Only specific ones that have asymmetric effects. Say disasters, Breivik is a disaster that happens to have a human agent."

Who decides when we are dealing with a disaster?

We can't design justice systems and laws around these kinds of extreme events, we just add complexity and in that complexity new failure modes; and to top it all off we probably don't really need to. Nothing that can be done to Brevik would truly measure the crime; and nothing that can be done to Brevik would have deterred him.

I think genetics is a total red herring here.
We punish people for their actions, not their genetic predisposition.


Seb
Member
Sat Jan 22 09:49:53
The number of people wrongly executed and the injustice that represents would surely eclipse any marginal "justice" achieved by killing Brevick rather than incarcerating him, or incarcerating him less comfortably.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 10:40:13
"Who decides when we are dealing with a disaster?"

It's already obvious/decided, this is not a discussion worth having.

"We can't design justice systems and laws around these kinds of extreme events"

We already have, crimes are in the grand scheme of activities, extreme events. Violent crime even more extreme, etc. and so on. With or without capital punishment, the punishment scales with the magnitude and seriousness of the offense. I have no idea what you are one about, we are specifically talking about the punishment for the most extreme violent crimes. i.e if the punishment fits the crime.

"I think genetics is a total red herring here."

It isn't though, violence is an evolutionary adaption. It's a feature, the problem is that it isn't a bug free feature.

"We punish people for their actions"

We punish and reward behavior in these environments that we have created and all of them affect reproductive success and the trajectory of our evolution. The societies we live in today with the policies they have right now, we have yet to harvest the fruits of that labor.

"The number of people wrongly executed and the injustice that represents would surely eclipse any marginal "justice" achieved by killing Brevick"

I will take it one step further, I think there is something creepy about the state lawfully killing people, even a Breivik. I think lethal injection is perhaps the creepiest, because it has the tone of being a medical procedure. I feel it. Yet I also think capital punishment serves a purpose beyond satisfying vengeance, which I also do feel.

I can't think of a solution, but I see problems and then you may say well this solution isn't great, but it is the best we can do, otherwise innocent people may be killed. My problem with that is, maybe the best we can do isn't (evolutionary) good enough, and that not applying evolutionary thinking to our societies is done at our own peril. Yes I know, that is a bag with it's own historical luggage, but there is a baby and bathwater scenario here and throwing out this baby is the Darwin award among Darwin awards :D
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 22 10:55:05
"We can't design justice systems and laws around these kinds of extreme events"

Of course you can. Easily. A simple escalation clause.

"The number of people wrongly executed and the injustice that represents would surely eclipse any marginal "justice" achieved by killing Brevick rather than incarcerating him, or incarcerating him less comfortably."

Wrong. A properly functioning criminal justice system deters fuckloads of crime with harsh punishments. Death penalty is part of that.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 22 10:57:38
Would breivik have done this if he knew he would be killed? Possibly not. That right there in this one case has more expected life gain than 100s of years of possible norwegian death penalty mistakes.
murder
Member
Sat Jan 22 11:52:06

"The number of people wrongly executed and the injustice that represents would surely eclipse any marginal "justice" achieved by killing Brevick rather than incarcerating him, or incarcerating him less comfortably."

You can make it rare. Do you know very many people convicted of multiple acts of murder? You're talking about tiny tiny numbers. And the number of people wrongly convicted for multiple acts of murder would be insignificant.

If societies don't want the blood on their hands, they can simply outsource it. Hell they could auction them off for a hunt and raise a ton of money.

Seb
Member
Sat Jan 22 13:46:42
Nim:

"It's already obvious/decided, this is not a discussion worth having."

I am wary of making a criteria for sentencing someone to death to be "it will be obvious".

The scope for abuse is "obviously" very large.

"We already have, crimes are in the grand scheme of activities, extreme events."

Oh come on. Shoplifting is not as extreme an event as a spree killing of 70 children. Neither is a killing arising from domestic violence.

"It isn't though, violence is an evolutionary adaption."

And how is the relevant to the criminal justice system?

"Yet I also think capital punishment serves a purpose beyond satisfying vengeance, which I also do feel"

Which is?
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 22 13:54:11
Sam:

"Death penalty is part of that."

You forget that I come from a country with hundreds of years of records of criminal justice, which for various periods dolled out death sentences for petty crimes.

The statistics are not in your favour.

There is a limit to what harsh sentences can achieve, because people do not believe they will get caught and so heavily discount the sentence.

Meanwhile, you end up killing loads of people who later turn out to be innocent - for which there is no recompense - and if the deterrent factor of death penalties is minimal, their death is a crime committed by society and the state for no benefit whatsoever.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Brevik would have done that if he was to face the death penalty.

Murder:

"Do you know very many people convicted of multiple acts of murder?"

There are plenty of examples actually.

"You're talking about tiny tiny numbers."

So, how many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to have the satisfaction of those that are guilty being killed, as opposed to life long incarceration?

The marginal cost of incarcerating someone (as you say, we are talking tiny numbers) for life, versus the additional procedural costs of executions often make incarceration cheaper. And that's before you get to the idea that the families of wrongly executed individuals ought to be due pay-outs on the order of tens of millions.

"Hell they could auction them off for a hunt and raise a ton of money."

The blood would still be on societies hands if they did that. Society is responsible for the system and its outcomes.


murder
Member
Sat Jan 22 14:43:04

"So, how many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to have the satisfaction of those that are guilty being killed, as opposed to life long incarceration?"

Don't kill any innocent people. Just kill the guilty ones. Homicide cases that involve 4 or more victims have to be < .5% of all homicide cases. There simply aren't that many, and with the number of victims the chance of a wrongful conviction has to approach 0%.

The police can't get them all wrong.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 15:38:13
"The scope for abuse is "obviously" very large."

Not when we are talking about mass murder, or even murder of the first degree and there is no doubt about your guilt, there is no doubt in Breiviks case, forget beyond reasonable doubt.

It would be reasonable to put the bar for capital punishment higher to fit the consequences if the ruling is wrong. Yea it can be done with a clear conscious with regards to executing innocent people, in theory.

"Oh come on. Shoplifting is not as extreme an event as a spree killing of 70 children."

I ment extreme as in rare, why I framed it as "in the grand scheme of things". Anyway you are overthinking this with the "bespoke" stuff. We have a legal system and a penal code, what I am saying is at best about a fraction of that code.

"And how is the relevant to the criminal justice system?"

They have to take care of the maladaptive violent people.

"Which is?"

Reducing the expression of genes responsibly for maladaptive violence. We have spoke about this before right? A fraction of the population are responsible for the majority of of all violent offences. That is quite the asymmetry.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 16:45:10
Nimi
Ok, so you think the Norwegian justice system is irrevocably flawed because we jail for life someone who probably should have been put in a mental institution for life.

There is zero clamor here for judicial reform in light of his acts of terror.

From my perspective. Capital punishment has never been a part of my culture. Scores were killed in witchhunting processes in the 1700ds. A couple were killed in the 1850s for insurrection. Thats it.

I am familiar with the argument. I have argued that servility has been bred into populations that suffered 80 generations of feudalism.

My people transition directly from hunting-gathering and fisher-farmers to modern democracy.

Very undomesticated. Yet the language lacks a word for war. Funny that.

Capital punishment is not a solution. It is part of the problem.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 16:47:01
Oh, right. The Nazis executed or starved to death a few dozen too.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 19:09:43
I don't know who "your people" are in this, but Scandinavias are more my people, both in terms of their indeoeuropean heritage and the Abrahamic faith. With all due respect, the Sapmi are insignificant in as far as explaining scandnavian culture. Capital punishment was definitly a part of their culture:

"Between 1800 and 1866, 644 executions were carried out in Sweden, the second highest per-capita number in Europe after Spain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Sweden

Additionally prior to finding Jesus the Scandinavians litterally shipped out a lot of their savages to the rest of Europe to rape, pillage and ultimately settle there. Kinda like the Saudis have been doing exporting their Jihadis all over the world :)

"Very undomesticated. Yet the language lacks a word for war."

Which is explained by the fact that you live in a remote and isolated part of the world and you can you just pack up your stuff and rain deers and move if trouble is brewing on the horizon. I read a study on this some time ago examining this very stuff in different culture, can't find it now. Anyway I am (and I think you as well) more interested in how ideas can produce peace and prosperity now and planting the seeds for the future. We can't reproduce these flukes of evolutionary history that create exceptions to the human condition on this planet. If we can't fix the rest of the world, you are toast regardless of this peaceful transition to democracy that your ancestors did without ever needing a word for war, because the rest of the world did invent a word for it and the weapons and the ideologies and the will the kill and rape. Thanks to the wonder of technology nothing is really remote anymore, ideas spread like virus.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 19:44:23
Plus I can't really say that not having a word for war, served you any good once these Scandinavias came and appropriated your lands. Sorry guys we don't know what war is, so I guess do what you want. Things got pretty dark when they tried to drive your people into extinction.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 20:48:41
By your genetic theory, I should be purged as an example of someone who has not been genetically domesticated.

Sweden was a highly feudalised society. I am not surprised by the systematic use to promote servility.

In Norway, a non-feudal society, we have executed dozens in historical times. Perhaps because we do not feel that retten til hand og hals, liv og lem is something that anyone should have really.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 21:55:57
That is a *wild* reading of what I have said :D

You are associating "domestication" with sedentary agriculture, which has nothing to do with what I am saying about the domesticating aspects of capital punishment. You brought up "my people" and I explained that your people were an exception and evolved in circumstances that can be exported to reproduce the same results.

To go with the agricultural references, you have your dogs and then you have sheep. They are both domesticated, but very different in their capacity for violence.

We are still talking about ideas right? Your ideas can not be exported anywhere outside context of your people. In a world that still has wolves, these ideas that we should all be like sheep and get rid of the dogs are to put it bluntly self-purging.

What I am doing is trying to convince you to not do that. So the opposite of thinking you should be purged. If I thought that, then I would simply just agree with you and cheer you on. I have no idea how you would miss this. You think I am the problem, but I am just the messenger, you just don't like the message. But deep down inside you know it is true. You are too old, read too many books, seen too much.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 22 22:08:40
"Sweden was a highly feudalised society. I am not surprised by the systematic use to promote servility."

Feudalism was never implemented fully anywhere in Scandinavia and was largely a continental phenomena. Serfdom never existed in Sweden.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 22 22:25:38
Nimi
By domestication, I thought you meant selective breeding where capitol punishment was a key tool.

I don't actually have to reproduce my society, but rather indicate that with current birth rates in post modern societies, everyone will be where they should be within relatively few generations.

I also don't need to export my ideas. I have no idea if the Norwegian justice code would work in Iran, though I rather suspect it would be an improvement.

I am saying our code suits us in our endeavor to become what we want to be.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 23 04:54:43
Murder:

Well that's the point isn't it. We only ever convict guilty people. It's just sometimes later discover they weren't.

I don't think police can be relied upon.


Nim:

"and there is no doubt about your guilt"

As you say, the test for any conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. The reason it is phrased this way is because there is always room for doubt.

How about this then: the consequence of executing a person who is later found innocent should be the immediate death sentence with no appeal passed for jury and judge the convicted and sentenced, all members of parliament that approved the relevant law that the individual was sentenced under, and whoever had political accountability for the justice system serving at the time the sentence was passed.

If you truly believe that it is possible that this sentence could only ever be used if there's absolutely no doubt, then this should be no problem. Do you have that confidence in the system? I would suggest if you don't support such a safety check, you don't really have confidence in the system.

Personally I do not.

And I think it is also a really idea to create a second category of proof of guilt, as it creates uncertainty about the meaning of a conviction.

It suggests that it is ok to convict on anything less than certainty for lesser crimes. Beyond all reasonable doubt is intended to be a very very high bar.


"They have to take care of the maladaptive violent people"

There are lots of maladaptive people, why the violent ones? Should we not go after any maladaptive people that threaten society?

I suggest you have, in your mind, repurposed the criminal justice system to move away from focusing on individual crimes by individual people, to be a mechanism of selection and removal of undesirable characteristics. That's a fucking terrible idea.

You are talking about eugenics here. I don't think it's the states role to try and breed the master race.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 08:23:57
Jergul
No. I said "You have to appreciate the effects of capital punishment on our self-domestication." As in not underestimate it, and then you conflated your people, with scandinavians (we are still talking about Breivik and he is not Sami). The Sami influence on scandinavia both genetically and culturally is non existant.

"I am saying our code suits us in our endeavor to become what we want to be.

And I already addressed this. Now that we have established that "your people" who lack a word for war and the Scandinavians who (have a word for war) tried to drive them into extinction are totally different people. I think the problem is glaringly obvious from an evolutionary stand point and with the dog, sheep and wolf analogy.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 09:03:18
Seb
"As you say, the test for any conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. The reason it is phrased this way is because there is always room for doubt."

No there is not. In the case of Breivik there is none and there are cases like that. Beyond the overwhelming physical evidence, we are often talking criminals who are as unapologetic as they are incorrigable. The doubt that is there is unreasonable doubt, like are we living in the Matrix kind of doubt.

"And I think it is also a really idea to create a second category of proof of guilt, as it creates uncertainty about the meaning of a conviction."

I don't see the issue, we already have different standards of evidence for criminal justice and civil justice, this is just creating another higher standard for capital punishment, which I think rightfully should be the highest. In each instance the standard of evidence fits the consequences of the punishment in case you are later found to be innocent.

"There are lots of maladaptive people, why the violent ones? Should we not go after any maladaptive people that threaten society?"

We do go after them, but the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. The most valuable things are your life and health, without them you don't get very far. An eye for an eye.

"to be a mechanism of selection and removal of undesirable characteristics."

It always served that purpose and still is to some degree, but like many state institutions they have to not do their job properly because people have stupid ideas about the human condition and do not really understand how things work.

"I don't think it's the states role to try and breed the master race."

I am only talking about violence, you have desperately tried to insert other maladaptive traits, I have made the scope clear. Either you are arguing with bad faith or simply stupid.

In any case you are disqualified from getting more responses.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 23 10:00:32
Nimi
Assimilate, not drive to extinction. Viking was a vocation, not a race. Scandinavian is not an identity or race either. Even Swedes are not genetically distinct. Southern Swedes are more genetically related to Germans than to Northern Swedes.

Execution is a tool of oppression designed to compel obedience.

Its fine that you want to be obedient. But my system is not set up that way.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 11:18:13
"Assimilate, not drive to extinction"

Splitting hairs.

"Viking was a vocation, not a race"

Selection is not random.

"Its fine that you want to be obedient."

You are taking this too personal I think. And this stuff just does not rhyme well with the Jergul that adovacted selective abortions of males so the future could be full of (agreeable) women.

"But my system is not set up that way."

I heard you the first couple of times, you are just repeating the same thing with fewer and fewer words without addressing what I said in response.

Anyway clearly you are not interested and I am not the one to impose myself.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 23 13:41:38
Nim:

I don't think the state should have the power to kill unless it has no other recourse as a principle.

You say it requires unreasonable doubt that Anders Brevick could ever be innocent. Maybe. But I challenge you to encode that into a systemic set of rules and processes that couldn't be horrendously abused. And why? Because you want to remove his genes from the gene pool. You could do that by sterilisation (and if he's bred, you've missed the boat and are now stigmatising his innocent offspring and blood relatives).

There's nothing to be gained by execution here.


"I don't see the issue, we already have different standards of evidence for criminal justice and civil justice"

Well yes. Civil justice is fundamentally different from criminal justice; by you are creating a division within civil justice that, potentially, casts doubt in whether people convicted under one set of rules are less guilty than others. That's not a good idea.

"but the punishment should be proportionate to the crime."

Being maladaptive isn't a crime though. At least how you have described maladaptive to date. Maladaptive seems to be a potential cause of crime.

"It always served that purpose"

No it hasn't. It's been a way of protecting people from crime via deterrent. If it was about removing the element from society entirely, all sentences would be for life with possible parole only if rehabilitation could be proced beyond reasonable doubt.

It's never been able attempting remove "maladaptation" from society.

Often the "maladaptation" isn't necessarily maladaptation. In another thread you were talking about the important role that people with the capacity for violence might play as, e.g. soldiers.

"I am only talking about violence"
Yes, but that's only a policy choice, once you've accepted the principle that it is the states role to shape the intrinsic characteristics. Why not also go after those that lack empathy - they also tend to commit crimes. Why only violence - particularly when violence may also be channeled for positive roles in society?

The state taking a role in deciding what humanity should be always risks that society decides some part of it isn't human and can either be exploited or removed. We've been there and done that so many times I am frankly amazed you haven't learned the basic point here: the state serves the people, which means it must never get to subdivide who counts as people, or it will inevitably come to serve only a segment of society by excluding minorities from its definition of society.

It is one thing to sanction and restrict the liberties of people who commit definitive, provable actions that contravene laws and infringe the rights of others.

It is quite another to do so to people on the basis of their intrinsic qualities and attributes and identity.



Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 23 17:20:12
"I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Brevik would have done that if he was to face the death penalty."

Claiming to know the thoughts of another with absolute certainty is not logical.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 23 17:35:07
Nimi
Why do you think that a judicial code does not fall within the realm of self-determination at a national level?

Your argument is remarkably unconvincing.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 18:17:47
Is that really the conversation we are having, the right to self-determination? Come on.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 23 18:19:52
Sam:

"Claiming to know the thoughts of another with absolute certainty is not logical."

Indeed. Think about that for a fee minutes. The point may have gone over your head the first time.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 23 18:22:22
Nevertheless, I do not believe the death penalty actually deters people like brevik to any real degree; however I am certain it creates scope for miscarriages of justice far greater than any justice "deficit" created by life imprisonment Vs death.

The state should not kill if it is not necessary to protect lives and it has credible alternatives.

jergul
large member
Sun Jan 23 18:24:20
Nimi
That is always what we have been talking about.

Jergul: We have a justice system that suites us.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 23 18:24:46
Nim:

Also, reviewing your response, you seem to believe I'm accusing you of personally wanting to kill or remove people other than violent ones.

That's not what I've done, I've merely pointed out that once you select for one criteria, there's no particularly strong bar to selecting for others. Hence a line never to cross.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 18:33:37
Jergul
Do we really need summarize a conversation as old as a day? Just tell me what is confusing about it. Remember this is a politics forums, the topic is legal systems, different opinions about things and stuff. The right to make bad decisions is not the topic.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 23 18:41:10
Seb
”I've merely pointed out that once you select for one criteria”

The scope is (violent) crime. You are either trying too hard or too little. I don’t know and I can’t be bothered, already busy going nowhere with jergul.

Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 23 22:57:25
"Indeed. Think about that for a fee minutes."

I did. You claimed certainty. I claimed possibility. I'm right and you know it.

"however I am certain it creates scope for miscarriages of justice far greater than any justice "deficit" created by life imprisonment Vs death."

Given your track record you should be real wary of tossing around words like "certain". But i do see your point and will give you that it is possible the ideal criminal justice system avoids use of the death penalty.

I doubt that 0 death penalty is correct however.

Perhaps there should be a higher standard of probability than "reasonable doubt" for executions. Like in some cases we can say the accused is 99.99999% guilty. Fry em. Say in other cases they are only 98% likely, or whatever the number just passed "reasonable doubt" is. Perhaps that one gets relegated to life in prison
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 24 03:15:01
Nimatzo:

The scope is "should the state be allowed to kill". Arguing that the scope encompasses only the particular criteria where the state should be allowed to kill in order to dismiss any reasoned argument for the state never being allowed to kill isn't something that can be accepted in good faith. It is evasion and frankly rather silly.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 24 03:18:58
If one cannot convincingly explain why you can restrict killing only violent criminals (and why only certain expressions of violence count); then the assumption must be the the power would b inevitably be expanded over time.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 24 03:54:03
Sam:

"I did. You claimed certainty. I claimed possibility. I'm right and you know it."

Think harder about why I claimed certainty and the subject we are talking about and what I might have been trying to illustrate.

"Given your track record you should be real wary of tossing around words like "certain"."

Are there documented cases of people who have been sentenced to death who have been later acquitted? If something has happened, then clearly there is scope for miscarriage of justice.

"Perhaps there should be a higher standard of probability than "reasonable doubt" for executions"
How would you phrase this in such a way that does not dilute the intended threshold represented by "reasonable doubt".

For example: it is unreasonable to doubt that Anders Brevick has been induced to plead guilty, and it was all part of some cover-up for some other situation. It is of course, possible. Many ridiculous things are possible.

Beyond all reasonable doubt is not intended to mean a high balance of probability. If we are talking %ages, we are talking in a conceptual framework of balance of probabilities - not that such things can be so easily quantified.

I don't think trying to map the burden of proof to a statistical measure will get us very far.







williamthebastard
Member
Tue Jan 25 09:01:58
He's not allowed online and he's been furious that he's only been allowed to play Rayman 3 on a PS2 or something. That would be worse than a death sentence for TC
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 25 13:21:32
"Think harder about why I claimed certainty"

Stupidity?

"If something has happened, then clearly there is scope for miscarriage of justice."

That it happens is not at issue. For your claim of certainty to be non-retarded, you would need to prove it not only exists, but is much much larger in scope than the injustice of not having a death penalty. You of course cannot do the latter.


"How would you phrase this in such a way that does not dilute the intended threshold represented by "reasonable doubt"."

By using hard numbers instead of subjective bs lawyer talk.


"on't think trying to map the burden of proof to a statistical measure will get us very far."

Why not? If lawyers and bureaucrats were better at their jobs, they would think more like scientists and engineers.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 26 04:31:52
Sam:

"Stupidity?" I said think, not project.

"That it happens is not at issue."

It is not an issue that the state kills an innocent man? I mean great, can we send some police around to kill you? I feel it would be a great way to resolve this conversation given you assent to such measures.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 26 04:34:00
"By using hard numbers instead of subjective bs lawyer talk."

Hard numbers on a counterfactual is an interesting approach. Do you have some kind of mirror into alternative universes that you can integrate over?

"Why not? If lawyers and bureaucrats were better at their jobs, they would think more like scientists and engineers."

Hmm, a lot of scientists and engineers are overly reductionist and you can see many, many complex systems that go disastrously wrong because scientists and engineers did not anticipate - could not anticipate - every edge case.

You need more than one toolset for solving the problems of society.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 26 11:18:49
"It is not an issue that the state kills an innocent man?"

If you save 10 other innocents at the same time?
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 26 11:26:44
That is a well known moral dilemma Sammy.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 26 11:27:59
A train is on the loose. You control a switch. On its current course it will kill 10 people, if you throw the track switch, it kills only 1. What do you do?
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 26 11:39:01
Throw the switch duh. 10>1.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 26 11:51:11
Maybe.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 26 11:53:15
Here is another option. You can bomb the rail junctions leading to Austwitch, condemning thousands to starvation, but saving 10s of thousands from deportation and death.

What do you do? What moral complicity do you have for the choice you make?
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 26 12:10:37
Sam:

"If you save 10 other innocents at the same time?"

How does executing an innocent person save anyone in this context?

1. They are innocent, so no other lives are at risk.

2. Even arguing that if they *hadn't* been guilty, lives are saved by executing someone who is innocent but thought guilty may save more lives through deterrence opens up the interesting idea that when the state is unable to apprehend an individual and bring them to trial, then it is moral and ethical to frame someone and execute them in order to ensure that potential future killers are convinced that the state will always catch and kill them.



Seb
Member
Wed Jan 26 12:11:13
I mean, deterrent effect hinges on perception right? There is no need for the person being executed to actually be guilty to deter others. So long as it is believed by everyone else that they are.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 27 10:15:53
No seb. You need a justice system that is trusted as well as being harsh.

Tough but fair.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 27 10:28:48
Sam:

You literally just argued that it was fair if the system kills an innocent man provided it saves others.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 27 10:30:29
If it's fair to kill an innocent man by accident on the (unfounded) basis it saves 10 more through deterrence; why is it unfair to kill them deliberately on the same basis?
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 27 10:34:35
Does a fireman who has saved 10 lives get a free murder with the 10th?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 27 10:41:03
"You literally just argued that it was fair if the system kills an innocent man provided it saves others."

No. I said it has a net benefit if a couple accidently are executed out of a great many. Its not fair to them, but overall the justice system would still be viewed as fair. If you start doing the nonsense you propose and do that on purpose, it would leak out and your justice system would be viewed as unfair.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 27 14:37:21
"I said it has a net benefit

no, you didn't. You said it wasn't an issue for the justice system.

If, as you say, a justice system needs to be "tough but fair" and you don't consider killing the odd innocent person an issue (because it deters 10 other deaths), then clearly you must think it is fair.

If you thought is was unfair, that would be an issue; wouldn't it?
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 27 14:39:12
"the justice system would still be viewed as fair"

Indeed. So you think it is fair overall. So, why not then deliberately frame and execute people where a culprit cannot be found?

It would be unfair for the individual, but the justice system would still be viewed as fair.

" it would leak out"

Your objection is only that it would be found out?

I mean, it might be. But nobody could ever prove it.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 27 15:23:36
"You said it wasn't an issue for the justice system."

No, i said it wasnt an issue of contention in our previous posts.

Reading comprehension... i suggest you improve yours.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 27 15:25:59
"It would be unfair for the individual, but the justice system would still be viewed as fair."


No it wouldnt.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 28 08:30:33
Sam Adams:

You absolutely did not.

Seb: "It is not an issue that the state kills an innocent man?"

Sam: "If you save 10 other innocents at the same time?"

I can see you might be confused because we have used the word issue in two different contexts in two consecutive posts you initially saying something like "It is not at issue" (i.e. factually it is accepted we kill innocent people) and me asking whether that was "an issue"? (i.e. it was a major problem that we would kill innocent people).

But as you say, reading comprehension. It's clear what we both mean - or ought to be, unless you have a reading age of 6.

"No it wouldnt."

Exactly: because it would be killing innocent people, not the guilty ones. That's my point. See, even you don't agree with your assertion that a system that executes innocent people is unfair.




Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 28 09:31:01
Its about intent seb. A small amount of collateral damage is viewed as acceptable so long as it is accidental. Your nonsensical intentional killings would never be viewed as acceptable.

You have devolved to confused rantings yet again.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 28 11:51:16
"would never be viewed as acceptable."

So, just make sure they aren't viewed - collateral damage is acceptable, it's how that is perceived that's the issue: not the fact that ends so not justify means.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 28 22:53:44
Ends do justify the means, but your means just dont work.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share