Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: DLPB_ on 2016-04-20 16:56:44
-
If anything sums up where ultra Left thinking gets you, Norway is the poster boy. I have literally never heard anything as dumb as this in my whole life. A man who executed 77 people (mostly children) wins his claim that he is being deprived of his "human rights", while being clothed and fed in a cushy cell. Supposedly, rehabilitating a monster (there isn't a chance of that happening - and it wouldn't matter anyway, since his crime deserves no absolution) is more important to Norway than justice.
Just read this nonsense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575
Hmm, maybe if you had given him the rope, he wouldn't be deliberately playing your pathetic justice system like a fiddle.
Also note: BBC uses the quote of one survivor that agrees with its Left position. I am willing to bet the majority do not share their sentiment. But, who cares, right?
Bjorn Ihler, a survivor of Breivik's massacre of young activists on Utoya, tweeted that the judgement in Breivik's favour showed Norway had a "working court system, respecting human rights even under extreme conditions".
No, it means you are a dumbo - and Breivik is laughing at you.
-
I guess the question you have to ask is is one person gaming the system worth the trade-off of potentially thousands of others being cheated by an unfair one?
-
I guess the question you have to ask is is one person gaming the system worth the trade-off of potentially thousands of others being cheated by an unfair one?
There is a difference between applying Human Rights to innocent people and to killers and serious criminals. It's easy to make sure the law doesn't confuse this - but Norway have. A mass murderer deserves only execution.
-
There is a difference between applying Human Rights to innocent people and to killers and serious criminals. It's easy to make sure the law doesn't confuse this - but Norway have. A mass murderer deserves only execution.
I understand your sentiment, but in order for the system to be fair at all you have to extend all rights to any and all incarcerated. He should be allowed the chance to face his accusers just like rapists and petty thieves.
-
Yup, this is completely ridiculous. In the "idealistic" Scandinavia the very thought of a "punishment" consisting of anything but a cozy confinement in a hotel-like prison is frowned upon as "barbaric violence". It is all about being non-confrontational and "not hurting anyone", regardless of what the accused did. This simply sends out the message that you're free to do any crime you want. As long as you pass through the interrogation by the police and courts, and avoid the newspapers and any other people not unconditionally bound to you, you'll get at the very least a nice warm cell and food that you did not deserve at all, at the expense of the taxpayers. I've also read of Breivik complaining about being given a PS2 rather than a PS3 to play with!!!
IIRC, Sweden prohibited parents to even give a mild slap to their children (let alone any other form of physical punishment) as early as 1979, and I did read about an Italian father being fined for slapping his child there. Norway might be similar.
-
I understand your sentiment, but in order for the system to be fair at all you have to extend all rights to any and all incarcerated. He should be allowed the chance to face his accusers just like rapists and petty thieves.
You certainly do not need to extend it to mass murderers, or murderers of any kind. Human rights end when you take another life through first degree murder - or at least they should. It should be the death penalty - the ultimate penalty. And no-one is going to suggest that Breivik is innocent. Tolerating evil criminals like this isn't enlightened.
What this man is doing is testing the flawed and naive liberal system and showing it up to be the ass it is. We do NOT need to extend human rights to all - Japan wouldn't - and even America wouldn't (sadly, he'd be on death row with endless appeals instead).
Also, this guy is winning a court case that his human rights are being breached because he has the same meal twice a day. He's doing this to add insult to injury. Just drag him out and noose him.
@Tarts The fact this lunatic could go around an island for 2 hours popping off one teen a minute should tell you how pathetic Norway is.
-
He's doing this to add insult to injury.
So much that, you just have to look at the arrogant face and disgusting expression he's kept all along to know that.
-
He did a Nazi salute on day 1 of this case. The very fact this thread is here means he is winning - because everyone is talking about someone who should not be here - and then people are posting responses to him. The next would-be killer will think "What do I have to lose?" - when weighing up the "punishment" and the found fame it brings them (and a lot of killers of this type do it for the notoriety. Because they want to be someone. That's why John Lennon is dead.)
Norway are simply giving a green light to murderers. It's disgusting.
-
He's winning because of YOU! :P
-
He's winning because of YOU! :P
He wouldn't be winning a raffle if I had my way, because he'd be choked to death. He's currently beating the system, though - because 77 people are dead, and he's playing computer games and keeping himself in the media. And god forbid that he should ever escape or kill someone while in Jail because that will be two wrongs making yet another wrong. The language of the Left.
-
I wonder what the violent crime rate is for Scandinavian countries compared to the US and UK
-
I am not sure - but it's not really relevant. The variables are enormous and make comparing countries' crime rates impossible. Japan has a low crime rate and also has the death penalty. To give you an idea of why that argument doesn't work at all - think about China. It's population is around 1.3 billion. There is absolutely no way a country with that population density could have a Norway model. Totally different situation. Also, I am hearing Norway doesn't imprison people like we do - It's so soft that some criminals escape prison altogether. That makes the crime figures look better than they are.
What is relevant is justice - and it hasn't been done. It wouldn't matter if the crime rate were near 0 - If your country is allowing a mass murderer to play video games and laugh at the law, then it's not a fit justice system.
Evolution teaches us many lessons - and the main one is that weakness is exploited. The strong and fit survive, and the weak fall by the wayside. This ridiculous system has likely been exploited by bad people numerous times; it's just that it took a mass murderer to show it up for the sham it really is. If you're this weak on the worst of society, the worst of society will grow.
-
The thing about an effective justice system is the rules need to be the same for absolutely everyone. If that becomes a problem, then it's the system itself that needs to change. But what they absolutely should not do is build a system, and then make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. If you make exceptions to rules about how criminals are treated, even if it's because one criminal clearly deserves something more than another, it undermines the whole concept of having a system in the first place.
Imagine applying this same logic to game design. Every enemy has either armor or a shield. Armored enemies can only be damaged by ranged attacks (let's say arrows), and shielded enemies can only be damaged by melee attacks (swords). If, after a few hours of game, you introduce an armored enemy who can only be damaged by melee attacks and justify it because "his name is Archer Destroyer, off course arrows can't beat him", even if that justification seems reasonable, it completely eliminates the entire purpose of having a consistent system up to this point.
Now I know this isn't a perfect analogy, and I'm not saying this guy deserved anything but a death penalty in actual human terms. Hell, I'm largely against the death penalty, but I've always felt there should be exceptions for people with a high chance of repeating their crimes. But such exceptions need to be defined in the legal system for whatever country they're in. If you don't define such allowances, but then grant them anyway, it sends the message to the people that the courts can do whatever they want, and the laws don't matter. For the rulemakers not to be bound by their own rules, and able to make any decision they want unchecked like that, no matter how right that decision may be, is borderline despotic behavior and a very bad path to start down.
tl;dr - If he is getting legally-guaranteed rights that he should not get, the solution is to change the law, not ignore it.
-
I agree there shouldn't be exceptions - that's certainly not what I am asking for. There should be no exception needed - first degree murder should mean the rope. Mass murder / serial killing certainly should. Those types of crimes should merit the ultimate punishment. Norway's laws don't work on that basis - and in my view, they're utterly bonkers. So, yeah - law change needed. I guarantee in time that they will be - but how many nasty killers will have laughed at the law up until then?
It comes down fundamentally to whether you believe a killer deserves a second chance. I don't - for a myriad of reasons. A mass killer - certainly not.
-
So what about a father who catches a pedophile raping or attempting to rape his child, and in a fit of rage murders the pedophile? That's first degree murder. Should he also "get the rope", or should an exception be made?
-
So what about a father who catches a pedophile raping or attempting to rape his child, and in a fit of rage murders the pedophile? That's first degree murder. Should he also "get the rope", or should an exception be made?
That isn't first degree murder by the laws of UK (our equivalent) - first degree murder is the pre-planning of the murder. A fit of rage in the case you present does not fulfil that criteria. I don't think it does in the US, either? If not, what I am talking about above is premeditated murder.
First Degree Murder: Definition
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.
-
So what about a father who catches a pedophile raping or attempting to rape his child, and in a fit of rage murders the pedophile? That's first degree murder. Should he also "get the rope", or should an exception be made?
In most US states this would be considered self-defense even though you are not the victim.
A non-criminal homicide ruling, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, exists under United States law. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The victim must reasonably believe, under the totality of the circumstances that the assailant intended to commit a serious crime. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would not be considered justifiable.
That's from wikipedia so take it how you will.
-
True. But lethal force? It probably varies state to state
-
If you can't pay your rent in Norway: Break the law in a fun way that merits a forced hotel visit for a minor time, and a guaranteed job offer and apartment when you get out.
I'm exaggerating a bit. :P
When it comes to Breivik, it was just like the justice system didn't know how to handle it. My biggest gripe with the whole ordeal (besides the killings) is that we, the tax payers, pays for his time...
-
Yeah, that's another thing that annoys me. If you are law abiding, you are just left to get on with it - poor or not. But, if you're a criminal, you're treated as the victim and given special needs. It's a backward philosophy. While I believe in trying rehabilitation (for a first offence) for people who have done much lesser crimes - this evil bastard and 1st degree murderers don't deserve a second chance - let alone a kind of preferential treatment.
-
Yeah, that's another thing that annoys me. If you are law abiding, you are just left to get on with it - poor or not. But, if you're a criminal, you're treated as the victim and given special needs. It's a backward philosophy.
There was a US comedian named Red Skelton who made several jokes about this. One in particular sketch he did he plays a homeless man who confesses to another homeless man that he steals from restaurants specifically to go to jail where they're given a place to sleep and given three meals a day. It's ironic that the government treats its criminals better than it treats its homeless.
The idea behind jail is it's a place you want to stay out of, not one that you can get pampered in. Enough people made enough stink about the living conditions that most minimum security facilities have been made better than some two star motels.
-
There was a US comedian named Red Skelton who made several jokes about this. One in particular sketch he did he plays a homeless man who confesses to another homeless man that he steals from restaurants specifically to go to jail where they're given a place to sleep and given three meals a day. It's ironic that the government treats its criminals better than it treats its homeless.
The idea behind jail is it's a place you want to stay out of, not one that you can get pampered in. Enough people made enough stink about the living conditions that most minimum security facilities have been made better than some two star motels.
In the end; this leaves me to wonder if this all means we need to treat prisoners worse; or treat everyone else better.