Why is Magnottas crime of a different magnitude? Sure, its high profile, but ultimately hes killed one person that we know of. The sensational aspect is the mailing body parts and that he videod it and put it on the internet, is that what makes him worth executing, cos Ive posted things on Utube myself...

Oh, and he started on animals allegedely, but thats almost par for the course for psychopaths.


Somehow I doubt the video aspect is even unique, we just dont know it.

Its just high profile, thats all.


I suspect that there are very few "nice" murders for the people involved.

While this might not matter with Mr. Breivik, the whole confession issue is the last thing that a death sentence should be founded on.

Capital punishment prevents the likes of Mr. Breivik from being able to do it ever again. I believe that is a provable fact. I do not see anything wrong with retribution. How is society better if Mr. Breivik is given time to contemplate his crimes or, to put it another way: are his victims any less dead if he does and he decides that what he did was wrong?

I don't believe I have said that it should

Thats why wrongful conviction wasnt one of my arguments against.

Agreed - Tim Evans "confessed" to murdering his wife and yet was proven innocent and posthumously pardoned - eventually.

Life in prison also prevents him doing it again.

"An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind"

Society is better because it is not condoning killing anyone. An absence of hypocrisy is a good thing.

I'd sincerely hope and assume that your Youtube postings are not Magnotta esq. We know he started on animals, a crime in itself.

Magnotta is cunning, narcissistic, necrophiliac with a hint of cannabalism thrown in. Are you suggesting that he should be allowed to reintegrate into society if he takes his medicine? assuming that he is found to be insane.

Not suggesting that there are "nice" murderers, but what about self defence for example?

So how would you convince the families of Mr. Breivik's victims that keeping him alive is beneficial to society, or to your conscience?

Only if the whole world commits murder. I tell you what, spend some time in the company of those that have been convicted of murdering/raping children (a couple of years would be sufficient) and then come back here and inform us of whether your position has changed.

How do you reconcile your position with that of you not wanting them in your community. Which community for them to be living in is appropriate and explain to me how you not wanting them in your community is not hypocritical?

I agree that killing Breivik would prevent him killing again. I just don't agree that society has the right to say killing is illegal and then to commit the same crime. It is hypocritical, one can always justify killing in the name of a greater good - politicians always do (and no I don't agree with them either).

His victims are not brought back by Brevik's death either, so that is a somewhat pointless argument.

IainK answer in post 187

Would self defence be considered murder?

I agree that Magnottas crimes are different from other murders for reasons other than high profile.
I think it is one thing for a family to mourn a lost relative when shot or other way that has a closure to the event. With Magnotta, the post death events must weigh on the family, the points you mentioned in earlier post the necrophilia, the cutting, the cannibalism. None of the things change that it is a death, but I think it must be harder for the families to come to terms with.

Arent you getting way ahead of yourself? Far as I know no one has said hes schizophrenic or psychotic yet, he hasnt even been assessed as far as I know. If he is, then Ill trust the judgment of Drs who have studied these conditions for years and years. Thats why they are experts after all, they dont just google this stuff...

Self defence is manslaugher, not murder isnt it? (IANAL)

So what has Magnotta done that makes him on a par with the mass murderers you were touting earlier? Thats the problem with this sliding scale of "He should be excecuted, but he shouldnt" thought. Its a very slippery slope and public outcry is the worst possible way to decide these things, as this thread has demonstrated, we as a society are a vengefull bloodthirsty lot.

It's not a pointless argument, it is his point of view.

Granted the victims will never be brought back but that is not the debate.