|
Post by trubble on Aug 25, 2012 18:30:24 GMT
.... and it's easier for us to think that there is something diseased or malfunctioning about them......... Yes. And who wants to think they could be like him but we all could be like him, given the right wrong circumstances. That doesn't mean I'm suggesing we should be too sympathetic or empathetic, just that we all have it in us to kill, and we all could follow a selfish egotistical narcissistic route if we chose to or if circumstances guided us that way. If I was religious I'd be tempted to say that he hasn't got Jesus in his heart, but as I'm not religious I could say he hasn't got goodness in his heart - he doesn't know it or he is denying it. Hans Christian Anderson wrote a tale called the Snow Queen - anyone here know it? fabulous story - and at the beginning a grand wizard invents a mirror that magnifies blemishes and ugliness. Well, the wizard's minions were playing with the mirror up in space and they shattered it - into smithereens. And each little smithereen of mirror contained the full power of the whole mirror. Then the tiny shards and splinters fell to earth and floated around in the atmosphere and some even landed on people. There was a little boy, a very sweet and kind one, but he had the misfortune to get a little splinter in his eye and, even worse, another splinter embedded itself in his heart, and from then on he changed and could only see bad in the world, and could only understand selfishness and greed and cruelty. And how it depressed him, he thought life wasn't worth anything. We could all be self-indulgent enough to start seeing the world through our own bitterness and disappointment, but we try hard not to get to that situation. I really think Breivik let himself go there.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Aug 25, 2012 18:41:32 GMT
I love Europe but simply can't comprehend their stance on the DP. Just my 2cents but... There's huge apprehension about condemning the wrong person, I think, and remember that that has happened in Europe's past. The ever-changing understanding of people and their motives, or of people and their limitations has meant that we don't want to discover in a couple of decades that we sanctioned an unjust killing of someone who we would view differently in a more evolved or educated state. & We want to keep a firm belief in the good of man. Every man. I think it comes from wanting to be at peace with ourselves and feeling we violate our own souls and integrity by "playing God" and deciding whether someone should live or die. I don't think I want the DP, but I could live with more whole life sentencing. As Sadie says, though, I can't be held responsible for anything I might think (rightly or wrongly) or do if it was my loved ones who had been hurt or killed.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Aug 25, 2012 18:44:58 GMT
No good answer here.......in jail he becomes some type of figure head for these idiot militant nationalists.......dead he becomes a martyr for them........ Better alive in that instance, I think. There's a chance he'll reveal even more of his weakness and failure, and he might even see the light and become a figure that campaigns against hatred and violence. (I'm not saying this is very likely but if he was dead then there'd be no chance at all). And Norway must be applauded for the way it has dealt with him, and limiting his ability to influence others and get off on his deeds. Norway should get the peace prize.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 25, 2012 19:34:19 GMT
I think punishing is just committing more abusive acts, more wrong, by justifying that it can be 'right' sometimes. But it shouldn't be. If abuse is wrong for people to do, then it's also wrong for them to do via their government.
It all goes back to two wrongs not making a right.
And we should be a little more evolved by now. When I hear calls for killing someone or caging them and letting them rot, I hear the middle ages.
I can't get on board with that.
I would lock this guy away from society so he can't hurt anyone anymore, but I'd make all the jails nice places. I wouldn't keep them awful and depriving as they are now, as "punishment", because it wouldn't be punishment. Just safety for the public, and an honest effort to provide a chance and some help for rehabilitation for people who have to go there. (on paper, it IS supposed to be that way)
It'd be stingy-hearted and erroneous to suggest we shouldn't pay the cost of that - because we know it costs as much to keep a man in jails as they presently are as it does to send someone to college, so we're already paying the cost...just: which way do you want to do it? Shall we lock people in places where they will become hardened criminals, to be released that way? Or shall we try to create LESS anti-social resentment in people, by letting them be a part of society, rather than pushing them away from it with "punishing" behavior towards them?
We had a post here about a month ago, an article which said Finland does it that way and as a result has markedly less crime than the US, which uses the "punishment" model. Remember that?
Anyway, as for Breivik, I wouldn't expect to rehabilitate someone who did as much as he did. Left to me, he'd be locked away for life, but just for our safety. He'd not be deprived in there, he'd have comfort and things to use, and then I could live with my conscience for not conjuring reasons to commit abusive behavior myself out of the ugly sense which is "revenge".
Would it be " a reward for his behavior"? No. But we just wouldn't abuse someone ourselves, because it's wrong.
Committing more wrong isn't going to turn the original wrong into a right.
And killing him won't undo anything he did. It will just make us killers too.
|
|
|
Post by chips on Aug 26, 2012 11:43:25 GMT
I'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT HANG THE BAST*RD VERY SLOWLY.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Aug 26, 2012 14:46:35 GMT
Chips, although I am not politically correct either unlike my wife I am firmly opposed to the death penalty.
I do however disagree with the court's verdict and believe that Breivik ought to have been held in a secure mental unit indefinitely.
What sane person acts as he did?
He belongs in a padded cell and not in a normal prison.
Most crime, however damaging, is not of itself irrational.
Breivik's actions were utterly incomprehensible to any sane mind.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Aug 26, 2012 15:02:51 GMT
I think punishing is just committing more abusive acts, more wrong, by justifying that it can be 'right' sometimes. But it shouldn't be. If abuse is wrong for people to do, then it's also wrong for them to do via their government. It all goes back to two wrongs not making a right. And we should be a little more evolved by now. When I hear calls for killing someone or caging them and letting them rot, I hear the middle ages. I can't get on board with that. I would lock this guy away from society so he can't hurt anyone anymore, but I'd make all the jails nice places. I wouldn't keep them awful and depriving as they are now, as "punishment", because it wouldn't be punishment. Just safety for the public, and an honest effort to provide a chance and some help for rehabilitation for people who have to go there. (on paper, it IS supposed to be that way) It'd be stingy-hearted and erroneous to suggest we shouldn't pay the cost of that - because we know it costs as much to keep a man in jails as they presently are as it does to send someone to college, so we're already paying the cost...just: which way do you want to do it? Shall we lock people in places where they will become hardened criminals, to be released that way? Or shall we try to create LESS anti-social resentment in people, by letting them be a part of society, rather than pushing them away from it with "punishing" behavior towards them? We had a post here about a month ago, an article which said Finland does it that way and as a result has markedly less crime than the US, which uses the "punishment" model. Remember that? Anyway, as for Breivik, I wouldn't expect to rehabilitate someone who did as much as he did. Left to me, he'd be locked away for life, but just for our safety. He'd not be deprived in there, he'd have comfort and things to use, and then I could live with my conscience for not conjuring reasons to commit abusive behavior myself out of the ugly sense which is "revenge". Would it be " a reward for his behavior"? No. But we just wouldn't abuse someone ourselves, because it's wrong. Committing more wrong isn't going to turn the original wrong into a right. And killing him won't undo anything he did. It will just make us killers too. Although I am firmly opposed to the death penalty it is perhaps on a rather different basis from your own, Hunny. I have come to know you as an intelligent and compassionate person and as someone whose viewpoints I respect. Nevertheless, I feel I need to take issue with your reasoning. Let me begin with the most obvious flaw in your argument; your conclusion. In the same way that so-called fry circus pros believe that all intentional killing must be punished by execution so too all arguments against the death penalty that rest upon the notion that executing a murderer makes 'us' (I assume you mean the state by that particular pronoun and as an anarchist I am firmly opposed to any attempt to identify me with that repressive institution!) killers too. Unless (and this objection applies equally to fry circus pros and to those antis who rest their case on the fallacy that executing a murderer is in any respect comparable with the original offence) you adopt a total 'pro-life' policy - condemning abortion, war, meat eating, perhaps even self-defence - then you immediately face the moral dilemma. Why is it acceptable for a police officer to shoot a criminal? Why is it acceptable for a pilot to bomb a target knowing that lives will be lost? Why is it morally acceptable to abort an unborn child? Now moral dilemmas in real life are complex and need to be dealt with on the basis of the situation. I believe that for instance the executions of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg made sense. For what it is worth their atrocities were on such a scale that they deserved extreme punishment. I would not have executed them myself but I understand exactly why it was felt essential that some SHOULD be executed. In the same way I entirely understand why people wish to execute the likes of Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Richard Ramirez and Christa Pike. Again I would not do so myself but I understand the anger and disgust at their appalling crimes. I do NOT believe that executing people like that makes those who do so morally equivalent to those whom they remove from this life. I entirely agree with you that the penal system is a disgrace, utterly misconceived and focused on a specious pretence to punish when in fact no such genuine effect occurs. Every time a case study of prisons has been done it has been shown consistently that so-called 'tough' regimes lead to a considerable increase in re-offending while so-called 'soft' ones lead to a dramatic fall in the rate of re-offending. I would of course go much further than even the most radical advocates of prison reform appear willing to do; I would release the majority of prisoners, decriminalise most of the offences currently on the statute book and send most 'criminals' to mental hospitals to be rehabilitated through psychiatric treatment. That is IMO where a man like Breivik belongs.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Aug 26, 2012 15:17:29 GMT
I'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT HANG THE BAST*RD VERY SLOWLY. To what end? What will this achieve? (I'm open to ideas).
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Aug 26, 2012 15:36:15 GMT
Sorry for lifting just one paragraph out of its context but...
Whether they deserved such punishment or not aside, surely the point of executing war criminals is to establish firmly in everyone's head that war is not a defence. It is never an excuse to commit murder. You can't just write your own new rules and expect the global society to respect them. You must respect the rules already in place & no crime will go unpunished.
Of course, the executed criminal doesn't learn this, the rest of us learn this.
Deterrence.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 26, 2012 18:31:51 GMT
Well, Mike, it seems we're in a lot of agreement here. I like anarchism. And I really liked what you said at the end there. I do think all killing is killing. We excuse it when we do it as being somehow noble or "justified", but hey, that's what Breivik was thinking. Why is it acceptable for a police officer to shoot a criminal? Why is it acceptable for a pilot to bomb a target knowing that lives will be lost? Why is it morally acceptable to abort an unborn child? On these three matters, I'd say: ~ It's not acceptable for a cop to shoot anyone (they could use tranquilizer guns). ~ It's not acceptable for a pilot to bomb anyone or any thing. I don't know how to end war, but I know we won't do it by not trying. I think we ought to try. But, yea, if I was a country that got invaded, it truly would be a dilemma about not bombing them back. I guess I'd do what to most is unthinkable and let them invade. We'd quickly have peace again (and, not to make a joke of this but: how could an invader be any worse of a leader than the republicans? We'd be ok! ;D It might even be better!!). Alright, I gest (kind of), but...yea, that truly is tricky because letting one's self get invaded is going to have bad consequences, because aggressive people tend to want to do bad things. It makes the pacifists not survivors (you can't change the world if you're dead, because you let the aggressives wipe you out and take the whole planet). No, see, it just doesn't work. But EVEN SO, I'd prefer not to engage in that which I find wrong. I'd rather die with my principles intact, than sacrifice what is most important to become what I find so detestably wrong. ...... mm...yea, I guess the invader would kill me, and have all my stuff. (This is truly dubious because I don't believe in an afterlife, or any eternal reward for saintly behavior. So I'd just die pointlessly wouldn't I? Maybe this is why people fight.) Well, I wish I lived a million years from now when we may be a race that abhors violence, because I'm ready for that. What we have is awful, and I am ever disappointed about the world.. ~ As for abortion, I'm not all that sure an undeveloped fetus is actually a person yet. I don't know that that really counts as killing anyone. And I've always suspected the argument about abortion has more to do with politicians creating a debate for their political motives, and less to do with people having wanted to be in a flap about it for decades. I also think it has more to do with attempts to take women's power from them, than it does about politicians having actual tears of concern over fetuses.
|
|
|
Post by chips on Aug 26, 2012 21:33:16 GMT
I'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT HANG THE BAST*RD VERY SLOWLY. To what end? Think not of those who died, Think of the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers and the huge rents in their hearts. Think of the pain of losing one of your own in such a terrifying way. Think of what they lost.... future grandchildren, nieces and nephews and in some cases their family dynasties becoming extinct. Think then of the life now imposed on those families, not a day will pass for the rest of their lives without thinking of this deed. Your compassion for Breivik is misplaced. The families need to have justice for their loved ones. They need for Breivik to know the horror that he is going to die. Now search your own souls - How many of you would have not released the trap if one of the victims had been your family?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Aug 27, 2012 7:44:39 GMT
In short: Are you sure that they need him to die? I'm not. world.time.com/2012/08/27/why-norway-is-satisfied-with-breiviks-sentence/Bjorn Magnus Ihler, another Utoya survivor, says: “That’s how it should work. That’s staying true to our principles and the best evidence that he hasn’t changed society.”
Mustafa Rashid, father of Bano, the first of the July 22 victims to be buried, and Kjell Fredrik Lie, father of Elisabeth, who was buried last, have both said they would waste no energy hating or even thinking about the terrorist.
In essence, though, Norwegians feel proud that their society is fundamentally unchanged. The scenes of jubilation inside the court attest to the victims’ belief in the country’s liberal justice. And as far as justice can ever be done for a crime this heinous, this is probably it. A plurality of Norwegians wanted Breivik punished for his crimes. But, more than that, in the end they just wanted him gone. The man who stained the rocks and trees of Utoya with the blood of the country’s brightest young people will almost certainly never be free again. At the end of this exhausting trial, that is enough for most. I have no compassion for Breivik. If the worst of tortures were to happen to him I would feel no compassion for him. Any compassion you might be perceiving is compassion for society, not Breivik. My thoughts are that dealing with Breivik in a mature and measured manner is better for our own (collective and individual) souls than hanging him would be. I felt no compassion for Saddam Hussein when he was hanged. I had some doubts about the decision to kill, some worry that it would place him in the martyr position, and some grave misgivings about the choice by some people to watch the process. But I can respect that some people targeted by Hussein felt "closure", and can envision that that might be the case for other victims & survivors across the globe. The need does not appear to be universal though. Some victims & survivors don't demand a death sentence, never mind a lingering death. further links: www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-murder-trial.html& m.thelocal.no/page/view/live-blog-breivik-verdict 1.15pm: John Hestnes, who represents a support group for survivors and victims' families, echoed the reactions of many in Norway today in welcoming the court's decision.
"This man is a danger to society. Now I'm quite sure we'll never see him again," he said.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 27, 2012 15:41:23 GMT
I have no compassion for Breivik. If the worst of tortures were to happen to him I would feel no compassion for him. Any compassion you might be perceiving is compassion for society, not Breivik. My thoughts are that dealing with Breivik in a mature and measured manner is better for our own (collective and individual) souls than hanging him would be. Ditto. Yes. Well put. If I were to let someone's actions drive me to want to kill, he would surely have harmed me. Killing is hideous. I don't want to become that which I deplore.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 30, 2012 11:18:35 GMT
I'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT HANG THE BAST*RD VERY SLOWLY. To what end? Think not of those who died, Think of the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers and the huge rents in their hearts. Think of the pain of losing one of your own in such a terrifying way. Think of what they lost.... future grandchildren, nieces and nephews and in some cases their family dynasties becoming extinct. Think then of the life now imposed on those families, not a day will pass for the rest of their lives without thinking of this deed. Your compassion for Breivik is misplaced. The families need to have justice for their loved ones. They need for Breivik to know the horror that he is going to die. Now search your own souls - How many of you would have not released the trap if one of the victims had been your family? EVERY rational person would be clamoring for the opportunity to release the trap
|
|