If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Al Jazeera)   Sign you're in deep trouble #47: even your defense lawyer calls you criminally sane and says you should be sent to prison   (aljazeera.com) divider line 126
    More: Obvious, attorney-in-fact, environmental standards, acquittal, verdicts, prisons, Al Jazeera, Geir Lippestad  
•       •       •

10599 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2012 at 4:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 11:53:39 PM  

JacobDavidWatson: xtreme13: So many young innocent lives taken for what? I'm not one to judge, but he should have the same fate he gave to his victims. A bullet to the head.. let his god judge him.

Is he religious?


Most racial whack jobs are, right? I mean honestly he should of took a bullet on that island if he wanted to ever make it to Valhalla..
 
2012-06-23 03:14:08 AM  

BigRightRear: xtreme13: So many young innocent lives taken for what? I'm not one to judge, but he should have the same fate he gave to his victims. A bullet to the head.. let his god judge him.

The answer to the question is because of religion.


And racism. And political fundamentalism. I'm not religions biggest fan, but lets not cherry pick to suit an agenda.
 
2012-06-23 03:20:21 AM  

Discordulator: Ooh, another Brevik thread and with it another updating of my favorites list for ITGs.

Yellow. They're all yellow.


LOL! Yep.
 
2012-06-23 03:32:50 AM  

joness0154: The way I understand it:

If he is sane, he can only get the maximum prison sentence of 21 years.

If they declare him insane, they can hold him indefinitely.

So of course the defense lawyer is going to go for the "sane" defense.


Norwegian law allows for a dangerous offender's sentence to be renewed indefinitely. So while they do not have life Imprisonment as a sentence, they do technically have life imprisonment
 
2012-06-23 03:38:24 AM  
I love how most farkers here talk about playing judge, jury, and executioner, as if their moral code gives them that right.

Sounds familiar...
 
2012-06-23 03:43:47 AM  

Dansker: Eh, it's getting late in Denmark, and I can't keep up with the thread anymore. I'll check back tommorrow sometime and politely respond to y'all.
G'night and good cheer!


You sir, have won this thread. Thank you for your rational thoughts on this matter. Favorited.
 
2012-06-23 03:54:16 AM  

Somacandra: Discordulator: Ooh, another Brevik thread and with it another updating of my favorites list for ITGs.

Yes, if there is anyone who deserves to be treated with the depth of full humanity its a racist unrepentent mass murderer of children, right?


By the "depth of full humanity" do you mean unleashing your animal urges in violent retaliation?
 
2012-06-23 03:56:57 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: The My Little Pony Killer: [www.aljazeera.com image 300x198]

Ten posts and nobody has pointed out his hilariously tiny baby fist?

Small hands = small, well, you know...

No wonder he was a gun nut.


Does that make you feel better about the size of yours?
 
2012-06-23 05:36:04 AM  

xtreme13: JacobDavidWatson: xtreme13: So many young innocent lives taken for what? I'm not one to judge, but he should have the same fate he gave to his victims. A bullet to the head.. let his god judge him.

Is he religious?

Most racial whack jobs are, right? I mean honestly he should of took a bullet on that island if he wanted to ever make it to Valhalla..


He is not Asatru. He considers himself a Christian crusader. He's a baptized (at the age of 16, on his own initiative) and confirmed member of the Norwegian Lutheran Protestant church, which he thinks is too liberal.
 
2012-06-23 06:06:42 AM  

Somacandra: Discordulator: Ooh, another Brevik thread and with it another updating of my favorites list for ITGs.

Yes, if there is anyone who deserves to be treated with the depth of full humanity its a racist unrepentent mass murderer of children, right?


Justice is blind.
EVERYBODY is equal under the law.
EVERYBODY has the right to a fair trial.
NO farking exceptions, no retroactive punishment, no twisting of the law to appease a lynch mob.
And yes, if there is anything, that will test the strength of your moral convictions and the consistency of your ethics, it's when you have to apply them to people you detest.
This thread is a depressing display of lack of understanding of how important the objective application of rule of law is to liberal democracy. For shame.
 
2012-06-23 06:44:05 AM  
Dang it - I thought I was on the Sandusky thread.

And I even RTFA.
 
2012-06-23 06:50:02 AM  
He deserves a fair trial and if found guilty should be expunged from society as a whole. ZERO reason to house this man for any period of time beyond his trial and the end of all legal proceedings. You can call it barbaric all you want, it's better for the families of the people he killed so that they can move on with their mourning and get on with living, albeit without their loved ones.
 
2012-06-23 07:44:14 AM  

Dansker:
Justice is blind.
EVERYBODY is equal under the law.
EVERYBODY has the right to a fair trial.
NO farking exceptions, no retroactive punishment, no twisting of the law to appease a lynch mob.
And yes, if there is anything, that will test the strength of your moral convictions and the consistency of your ethics, it's when you have to apply them to people you detest.
This thread is a depressing display of lack of understanding of how important the objective application of rule of law is to liberal democracy. For shame.


If it helps, I think they were mostly trolling you. Norway's response to what happened has been nothing but admirable and uplifting.
 
2012-06-23 09:50:21 AM  

JungleBoogie:
Dansker: Countries that let their perfect governments have ultimate power and kill criminals, must be totally awesome. Let's see... it's places like Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, USA, Vietnam, Yemen... yep, you're in great company there. Norway should be more like that.

Interesting group - The US, China and Japan retain the death penalty. The world's first, second and third largest economies. Good to know.


Also on the list of countries, that haven't abolished the death sentence: The most opressive, despotic dictatorships, the worst human rights violators, a few dozen of the worst economies, and the absolute crappiest shiatholes on the planet.
Do you think either of us have proven anything now?

Additionally, here's a group that opposes the death penalty - capital murderers. Thanks but I'd rather not be associated with that group.

There's a group that kills people - murderers.

/stupid arguments repaid in kind



Barbecue Bob:
It's about preventative maintenance. I'm positive he will not commit crime when he's dead.

Killing him would be a crime.


JungleBoogie: Dansker: Killing him won't bring them back.

I don't think incarcerating him will bring back his victims either.


It will punish him in accordance with the law.

Exactly. Better to let him live and continue to write his manifestos and be a hero to those who think like him. And to let him suffer under that brutal Norwegian prison system.

Have you read his "manifesto"? Most of the substantive stuff is internet copypasta. He is not a good writer, and I doubt he'll be allowed to publish or have internet access.


Aikidogamer: Norway was foolish to take the death penalty off the books.


Yeah, their crime rates, recidivism and incarceration stats speak for themselves. It's a savage, bloody place.


JungleBoogie:
It is the defense who wishes to have Breivik not declared insane because it is their perception that his punishment will be lighter in that case.

No, it's because Breivik insists that he is sane, and he absolutely refuses to use insanity as a defence. This has been stated clearly. He's obsessed with how he is perceived, and he does not want to go down in history as a madman.

It is the prosecution who wishes to have Breivik declared insane so that they can what they believe will be a tougher sentence.

Or they actually trust the opinion of the psychiatric experts who examined and interviewed him for months, and who stand by their professional evaluation.

All that is necessary for Breivik to be released in 21 years or sooner would be for him to show good behavior - convince the rehabilitation-oriented justice system that he is no longer a threat to society. Not an unlikely outcome.

It would take more than just good behavior, and I don't know why you think they would be more likely to concider him safe than the psychiatric system would. They are not exclusively rehabilitation oriented, the public sense of justice is part their purview.

In order to be held longer than 21 years, the rehabilitation-oriented panel would have to determine that he is a continuing threat to society, according to their guidelines.

And why wouldn't they?

However, if he is declared insane, the prosecutors in the case believe this is the harsher sentence and because of the fuzziness of what exactly his mental illness might be, he would be likely to be held for much longer.

According to whom?



FabulousFreep: He deserves a fair trial and if found guilty should be expunged from society as a whole. ZERO reason to house this man for any period of time beyond his trial and the end of all legal proceedings.


The law is a reason. Courts and government are not above the law.

You can call it barbaric all you want, it's better for the families of the people he killed so that they can move on with their mourning and get on with living, albeit without their loved ones.

I can call what you're suggesting an unlawful killing, also known as murder. And I can't recall hearing about any of the victims' families asking for his death.
 
2012-06-23 09:53:43 AM  

spacelord321: Dansker: Eh, it's getting late in Denmark, and I can't keep up with the thread anymore. I'll check back tommorrow sometime and politely respond to y'all.
G'night and good cheer!

You sir, have won this thread. Thank you for your rational thoughts on this matter. Favorited.


*tips hat*


Beta Tested: If it helps, I think they were mostly trolling you. Norway's response to what happened has been nothing but admirable and uplifting.


Thanks, that does help a bit.
 
2012-06-23 10:08:06 AM  

fusillade762: There is no insanity clause.


No Sanity Clause either.
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-23 11:15:22 AM  

Dansker: JungleBoogie:
Dansker: Countries that let their perfect governments have ultimate power and kill criminals, must be totally awesome. Let's see... it's places like Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, USA, Vietnam, Yemen... yep, you're in great company there. Norway should be more like that.

Interesting group - The US, China and Japan retain the death penalty. The world's first, second and third largest economies. Good to know.

Also on the list of countries, that haven't abolished the death sentence: The most opressive, despotic dictatorships, the worst human rights violators, a few dozen of the worst economies, and the absolute crappiest shiatholes on the planet.
Do you think either of us have proven anything now?

Additionally, here's a group that opposes the death penalty - capital murderers. Thanks but I'd rather not be associated with that group.

There's a group that kills people - murderers.

/stupid arguments repaid in kind



Barbecue Bob:
It's about preventative maintenance. I'm positive he will not commit crime when he's dead.

Killing him would be a crime.


JungleBoogie: Dansker: Killing him won't bring them back.

I don't think incarcerating him will bring back his victims either.

It will punish him in accordance with the law.

Exactly. Better to let him live and continue to write his manifestos and be a hero to those who think like him. And to let him suffer under that brutal Norwegian prison system.

Have you read his "manifesto"? Most of the substantive stuff is internet copypasta. He is not a good writer, and I doubt he'll be allowed to publish or have internet access.


Aikidogamer: Norway was foolish to take the death penalty off the books.

Yeah, their crime rates, recidivism and incarceration stats speak for themselves. It's a savage, bloody place.


JungleBoogie:
It is the defense who wishes to have Breivik not declared insane because it is their perception that his punishment will be lighter in that case.

No, it's because Breivik insists that he is sane, and he absolutely refuses to use insanity as a defence. This has been stated clearly. He's obsessed with how he is perceived, and he does not want to go down in history as a madman.

It is the prosecution who wishes to have Breivik declared insane so that they can what they believe will be a tougher sentence.

Or they actually trust the opinion of the psychiatric experts who examined and interviewed him for months, and who stand by their professional evaluation.

All that is necessary for Breivik to be released in 21 years or sooner would be for him to show good behavior - convince the rehabilitation-oriented justice system that he is no longer a threat to society. Not an unlikely outcome.

It would take more than just good behavior, and I don't know why you think they would be more likely to concider him safe than the psychiatric system would. They are not exclusively rehabilitation oriented, the public sense of justice is part their purview.

In order to be held longer than 21 years, the rehabilitation-oriented panel would have to determine that he is a continuing threat to society, according to their guidelines.

And why wouldn't they?

However, if he is declared insane, the prosecutors in the case believe this is the harsher sentence and because of the fuzziness of what exactly his mental illness might be, he would be likely to be held for much longer.

According to whom?



FabulousFreep: He deserves a fair trial and if found guilty should be expunged from society as a whole. ZERO reason to house this man for any period of time beyond his trial and the end of all legal proceedings.

The law is a reason. Courts and government are not above the law.

You can call it barbaric all you want, it's better for the families of the people he killed so that they can move on with their mourning and get on with living, albeit without their loved ones.

I can call what you're suggesting an unlawful killing, also known as murder. And I can't recall hearing about any of the victims' families asking for his death.


Because there is nothing more to crime rates, recidivism and incarceration rates other than the ability for the state to put its worst offenders to death...

Right keep building that strawman.

Norway has ~5 million people. Norway also tends to codify their culture. They also tend to not imprison their drug users. There is a great many things Norway does that help in the above areas. Having a death penalty and ensuring a person who directly committed mass murder would not magically make Norway worse in those areas. Please try not to extrapolate things that were never meant to be extrapolated.

My original statement is not even an argument; it is an observation. Norway was foolish to take the death penalty off the books because it would have been just to use it in a case of mass murder.
 
2012-06-23 12:44:03 PM  

Aikidogamer: Because there is nothing more to crime rates, recidivism and incarceration rates other than the ability for the state to put its worst offenders to death...


You don't have to quote the whole farking thing, you know. Anyway, the Norwegian society is generally non-violent and peaceful. Abolishing capital punishment doesn't seem to have hurt them.

Right keep building that strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.

Having a death penalty and ensuring a person who directly committed mass murder would not magically make Norway worse in those areas.

I don't see how it would make them better, and you haven't shown that is has hurt them.

My original statement is not even an argument; it is an observation. Norway was foolish to take the death penalty off the books because it would have been just to use it in a case of mass murder.

So, it was foolish, because now they can't kill Breivik, something which Norwegians, inculding the victim's families and the party, whose headquarters he attacked, are not calling for. Your argument rests on the assumption that allowing your government to kill convicted prisoners is inherently a good thing for society.
It can be reduced to: Giving up executions is bad because then you can't execute people. For once, "begging the question" can be used correctly on Fark. Happy day!
 
2012-06-23 01:15:57 PM  

Dansker: Your argument rests on the assumption that allowing your government to kill convicted prisoners is inherently a good thing for society.


And yours rests on the assumption it is a bad thing for society. It seems we must agree to disagree. I am OK with this.

Dansker: Norwegians, inculding the victim's families and the party, whose headquarters he attacked, are not calling for.


As a society, they are conditioned to not see execution as a viable option. In essence, their government made the decision for them. I can understand not breaking a law to punish a law breaker. Original statement: It was foolish for Norway to take the death penalty off the books.

Dansker: Giving up executions is bad because then you can't execute people


Exactly. Having more options to deal with heinous murderers are better than having less. Execution can be done humanely, which is more than the offender usually does for their victims. Kill 77 on a premeditated, hate spawned, and calculated shooting spree? Then that person does not get to live anymore should be an option.

Dansker: You don't have to quote the whole farking thing, you know.


Yeah, I was on my mobile. The touch screen was not doing what I wanted so I said fark it and hit the reply button.

Dansker: Right keep building that strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.


A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You are taking my assertion that Norway was foolish for taking the death penalty off the books, and turning it into an assertion that countries that do execute people are better than those that do not. I have made no such assertion.
 
2012-06-23 04:59:20 PM  
If Breivik is found criminally insane, that would make me very happy indeed. Why? Because that is the very last thing he wants.

Finding him sane would give him an internal justification for the terrible acts he has committed. There are I am sure other radical right wingers in the Norwegian prison system who would love to have such a perversely iconic figure of their movement in their midst, which could be very dangerous if Breivik inspires them to act as he did when they are let out.

Executing him- Nutjobs of Breivik's kind are happy to be made martyrs of by execution, as this way they can also serve as an inspiration to other radical right wingers.

But finding him insane and locking him up would be wonderful.

I am reminded of a similar incident we had in Australia, with Martin Bryant and his Port Arthur Massacre, where he killed 35 people in cold blood at a Tasmanian tourist destination. When I heard that Bryant had attempted several times to commit suicide in prison and failed, I was over the moon. These repeated attempts showed that he was really feeling deep pain and profound anguish over a long period of time. This made me very happy as well. People like him should feel rotten every remaining day of their lives.

I just hope Breivik ends up in a situation where he feels some of that too.
 
2012-06-23 05:09:41 PM  

Aikidogamer: Dansker: Your argument rests on the assumption that allowing your government to kill convicted prisoners is inherently a good thing for society.

And yours rests on the assumption it is a bad thing for society.


No, on a series of basic principles, primarily that killing should always be treated as a last resort, only used when unavoidable and serving a beneficial purpose. Both Denmark and Norway are Christian countries, and even though I've abandonded religion, I was raised to believe that revenge is wrong, and that forgiveness is good. My view of the criminal system is that its main purpose must be to minimize the amount of crime in society, and I don't see solid evidence that capital punishment serves that purpose. My argument also rests on the fact that governments are imperfect and courts fallible, so the people under their authority would be ill-adviced to grant them ultimate power.

Dansker: Norwegians, inculding the victim's families and the party, whose headquarters he attacked, are not calling for.

As a society, they are conditioned to not see execution as a viable option.


By that logic, you are just conditioned to see it as a positive. That could explain why you're perfectly willing to accept your government holding this sort of power as a natural thing.


In essence, their government made the decision for them.

And people say governments never give up power... But my suprise at your disrespect for democratic decisions in an open society, with an extremely free press and honest public debate is barely noticeable.


Dansker: Giving up executions is bad because then you can't execute people

Exactly. Having more options to deal with heinous murderers are better than having less.Execution can be done humanely, which is more than the offender usually does for their victims.


Can I expect to see you advocate disfigurement, mutilation, amputation, rape and torture as tools for the penal system? They are options, and I'm sure it can all be done humanely.

Kill 77 on a premeditated, hate spawned, and calculated shooting spree? Then that person does not get to live anymore should be an option.

To serve what purpose?

Dansker: You don't have to quote the whole farking thing, you know.

Yeah, I was on my mobile. The touch screen was not doing what I wanted so I said fark it and hit the reply button.


Alright, snark retracted on that point. We've all been there.


You are taking my assertion that Norway was foolish for taking the death penalty off the books, and turning it into an assertion that countries that do execute people are better than those that do not. I have made no such assertion.

No. What I did was state MY opinion (in a roundabout, sarcastic way) that Norway is a peaceful country without a serious crime problem, and no obvious need to increase punishments or revive draconic measures. Because I think measures like that need, at the very least, extraordinarily good reasons, and a clear purpose. I'm not a fan of increasing government power on a whim, particularly not its power to kill its citizens.
This: "You are [...] turning it into an assertion that countries that do execute people are better than those that do not." is a strawman. Thank you for providing both a definition and an example.
 
2012-06-23 05:34:00 PM  

Dansker: Aikidogamer: Dansker: Your argument rests on the assumption that allowing your government to kill convicted prisoners is inherently a good thing for society.

And yours rests on the assumption it is a bad thing for society.

No, on a series of basic principles, primarily that killing should always be treated as a last resort, only used when unavoidable and serving a beneficial purpose. Both Denmark and Norway are Christian countries, and even though I've abandonded religion, I was raised to believe that revenge is wrong, and that forgiveness is good. My view of the criminal system is that its main purpose must be to minimize the amount of crime in society, and I don't see solid evidence that capital punishment serves that purpose. My argument also rests on the fact that governments are imperfect and courts fallible, so the people under their authority would be ill-adviced to grant them ultimate power.

Dansker: Norwegians, inculding the victim's families and the party, whose headquarters he attacked, are not calling for.

As a society, they are conditioned to not see execution as a viable option.

By that logic, you are just conditioned to see it as a positive. That could explain why you're perfectly willing to accept your government holding this sort of power as a natural thing.


In essence, their government made the decision for them.

And people say governments never give up power... But my suprise at your disrespect for democratic decisions in an open society, with an extremely free press and honest public debate is barely noticeable.


Dansker: Giving up executions is bad because then you can't execute people

Exactly. Having more options to deal with heinous murderers are better than having less.Execution can be done humanely, which is more than the offender usually does for their victims.

Can I expect to see you advocate disfigurement, mutilation, amputation, rape and torture as tools for the penal system? They are options, and I'm sure it can all be done humanely.

Kill 77 on a premeditated, hate spawned, and calculated shooting spree? Then that person does not get to live anymore should be an option.

To serve what purpose?

Dansker: You don't have to quote the whole farking thing, you know.

Yeah, I was on my mobile. The touch screen was not doing what I wanted so I said fark it and hit the reply button.

Alright, snark retracted on that point. We've all been there.


You are taking my assertion that Norway was foolish for taking the death penalty off the books, and turning it into an assertion that countries that do execute people are better than those that do not. I have made no such assertion.

No. What I did was state MY opinion (in a roundabout, sarcastic way) that Norway is a peaceful country without a serious crime problem, and no obvious need to increase punishments or revive draconic measures. Because I think measures like that need, at the very least, extraordinarily good reasons, and a clear purpose. I'm not a fan of increasing government power on a whim, particularly not its power to kill its citizens.
This: "You are [...] turning it into an assertion that countries that do execute people are better than those that do not." is a strawman. Thank you for providing both a definition and an example.


Well that is a nice, concise, explaination of your opinion. I think you are wrong, but that is your right. One day, you will grow up and realize people who disagree with you =\= people who are stupid. It can, but it is not always, or even usually true. In your snark your message got lost and it looked suspiciously like a straw man. Blame yourself for being called on it.

You are now resorting to the "no you are" argument. So now you look like a child who can't handle another's opinion.

/Mobile again, sorry.
 
2012-06-23 06:04:34 PM  
One day, you will grow up and realize people who disagree with you =\= people who are stupid.

Another strawman with veiled insults on top.
I accept that people have formed their opinions on facts and reason, and that they adhere to some form of basic principle, when they show it. I have asked which purpose you think killing convicted criminals serves, and aside from "making them dead", I have no insight to your thoughts on this. I don't even know if you think it has to serve any purpose at all.

/also mobile
 
2012-06-23 06:24:34 PM  

Dansker: I have asked which purpose you think killing convicted criminals serves, and aside from "making them dead", I have no insight to your thoughts on this.


Simple, if they are dead they are not longer consuming resources (as a tax payer I would have to pay) and they cannot harm anyone else. I figured the question was rhetorical, since the explanation seems self evident to me.

Dansker: Another strawman with veiled insults on top.


Stating my observations of your appearance of a child, is not stating you are such.
 
2012-06-24 04:03:01 AM  
Hey! I found your basic principles and moral foundation. They're right here under this small pile of dollar bills:-)
 
2012-06-24 04:54:02 AM  
But now that I know how to talk your language, do you know what saves money in the penal system?
Not keeping 0.75% of your population locked up, having a strong focus on rehabilitation, keeping recidivism low and doing your best to make sure convicts can lead law abiding, productive lives after they have served their sentence. One might even suggest it'd be foolish for a nation to do otherwise.
Prisons are not a big drain on Norwegian finances, and reintroducing the death penalty for the sake of a single man, is not going to significantly lower the budget.
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report