Dick Dasterdly

If the legal system reflected a fair cross section of peoples opinions the problem would be quickly and permanently solved.

Lion in Winter

But it doesn't, for the reason that opinions change, as do social and political values and powers. Do you really want your justice system to be subject to the whims of whoever happens to hold power or sway at that moment? I don't. Historically, that has never turned out very well.

fionamw

Yep.

Much though we might internally hanker after this, WANTING TO ACHIEVE another death - think about the phrase - makes us as bad as the killer. I've never seen it that way before and part of me still feels if people know the consequences of their actions well they have to learn to live (or die) with them. But Norway doesn't (?) have the death penalty and we're in no position to alter their government's legislation on socialising those who might otherwise be in solitary; so......

fatbrit

Even if we were to accept accept this flawed argument, it would seem the good people of Norway don't want the death penalty anyway. So that's a double fail on this one, I'm afraid.

http://translate.google.com/translat...197%2F&act=url

rugbymatt

I'd imagine there is, from certain corners of the Auld Empire, a burning desire to string this guy up and maybe, just maybe they should, maybe he deserves it, I know he wants it, but in a civilised country is that really the answer? Has it worked in America? Does it work anywhere? Does the death penalty stop drug traffickers in Asia?

My take on the story is that Norway is right doing what it does, the way it treats its population is reflected then in the way the people act towards their society, it is an act of compassion where compassion shouldn't be shown and as such it shows a degree of humanity where often, none can be seen, especially in this horrific case. I watched the Survivors program and was touched by the humanity the survivors showed, it was a hard concept for a Brit to grasp.

Dick Dasterdly

Norway is a wealthy county which can well afford to take a holier than thou attitude with any number of mass murderers.

As lawlessness and lack of respect for the law continue to increase in many poorer countries, along with increasing availability of weapons and increasing numbers of nutters willing to use them, at what point does society and lawmakers say enough is enough, especially in increasingly destitute countries where many ppl.are living hand to mouth, even starving and old folk are dieing of hypothermia because they can't afford to keep themselves warm ?

Are they expected to continue subsidising the lifestyle and horrendously expensive care of mass murderers, whilst increasingly paying the price and suffering themselves ?

To give just one simple example, it could soon get to the stage, though it may well already have done so, whereby downright evil ppl. being kept locked away for life, have much better access to medical facilities and treatment than decent law abiding citizens who are expected to pay for their keep.

Is this also morally right ?

rugbymatt

So who do we kill? Do we kill someone if they have killed more than one person? If they have killed more that 5? Do we kill them twice if they have killed more than 20?

You are never going to stamp out this sort of thing, thousands of years ago there would have been a war to hide this sort of twisted behaviour but the spotlight is on mankind now in such a way that it is held up for all to see and it falls on society to do the right thing, not so much for the criminal but for society in general. As others have said there can be no place in Justice for revenge and killing someone for killing people is revenge, morally right or wrong, its revenge and where does that end? Do we start flogging people for stealing? How about cutting their right hand off? How about giving pea do's to the baying mob to tear to pieces? That worked out well once before didn't it? They kicked the shit out of a paediatrics doctor!

Dick Dasterdly

If killing mass murderers is an act of revenge, then incarcerating them for life must be considered likewise, especially so, as quite a few of them express a preference to be dead anyway.

Therefore according to your line of thinking, we should simply turn them all loose again amongst society to continue to do their worst, so we can no longer be accused of commiting "acts of revenge".

Lion in Winter

Where on earth did he say that?


There is nothing new at all about violent and warped behaviour from the human race. I doubt very much that there is more of it than there was before. We have better means to hear about it, and we also try and judge it in a way that we did not before so it comes to the public eye more. What has changed over the centuries is the evolution of consistent systems of justice to deal with them. So at least one aspect of human society is improved to that extent. I can't see how throwing someone to the mob would mark an advance in civilized behaviour, or promote it in any way. If that means there is a cost to keeping these people alive until they die naturally,while preventing them from hurting anyone else, then so be it - it's a cost I'm prepared to pay when compared to the alternative.

Dick Dasterdly

I don't personally say turn them loose, I'm simply following RMs line of arguement with which some of those who would prefer death, to life inside, apparently agree.
If one is revenge, then likewise so is the other, you can't have it both ways.

As regards paying the price, try giving a straight answer to my previous post, which RM carefully avoided.
When times are hard and things are really desperate, it may well come down to choice.
Who should have priority, the mass murderer or the decent citizen struggling to simply survive ?

fionamw

ok...........

Well we know some prison officers rather well and are assured that in some respects this is ALREADY the case in the UK. I for one think THAT is a step too far, never mind providing chess partners for a mass murderer. Keeping someone incarcerated is one thing. Keeping them in comfort, with TVs, PS2s, cigarettes, you name it which the rest of us have to afford, plus a fasttrack to the front of the NHS queue, seems a tad generous to me.

anonimouse

But sadly is a fact, imagine the enquiery that would be launched when a prisoner dies in jail through what they would say was neglect, they wouldn't take the chance.

Re the game machines, I read Ian Huntley (the murderer of two young girls) has to play through the bars so he can't hurt himself with the wires.

fatbrit

TVs and PS2s are a cheap way of keeping folks quiet. Ask any parent.

fionamw

Well I can't argue with that, given my 10yo currently has his confiscated.....

But as for the hospital stuff, we're not talking about the same treatment as others, we're talking about queue-jumping, prison officers' time accompanying, etc etc.

fatbrit

Have we got any evidence of queue jumping?

The prison officer's time to accompanying them back and forth to hospital is the cost of keeping us safe. Civilized countries do not deny health care.