Norway Killer gets 21-Years

[FireIceTalon]

That force, would be the Proletarian itself. In other words, it is a bottom up, class conscience and grass roots revolution. See, even through these questions, I can see your lack of understanding/misconceptions about Communism, and Communists. Communists do not seek to use government as a means to "redistribute the wealth", and we understand wealth itself in a very different way from how most people think of it. Communists (and Anarchists), rather, want the ABOLITION of the state, as well as Capitalism itself. But using government to achieve Socialism would seem to imply we want to do this through a non-revolutionary process - also not the case. We will leave that to our Utopian Socialist and Social Democrat friends. A Marxist understands wealth to be much more than just income, assets, and investments. The fundamental aspect of wealth, from our POV, is the control to the means of production. "Communism deprives no man the right to appropriate the products of society, all it does is deprive him the right to exploit the labor of others by means of such appropriations" - Marx. Workers would have self-determination in a Socialist or a Communist society, especially the latter (though the former must occur first - unless you are an Anarchist, and that is where Anarchists and Marxist Communists disagree, but I digress). Under Capitalism, they do not.

Indeed, this society has not yet materialized (though Native Americans and other tribal groups had very Communistic-like societies without hierarchies even well before recorded history) - and it is probably a ways from doing so. But to say it is fantasy, and never will, is not only overly deterministic and short-sighted, but such statements are also probably guilty of a Nirvana fallacy and a Appeal to Improbability fallacy. I'm sure feudal lords, Divine Right Absolutist monarchs, and southern slave owners never thought they'd lose their power either, but they did: they never could have predicted the change in material conditions that culminated in the formation of a new society Every previous system of class antagonisms has failed, every so-called Empire that perpetuated these class antagonisms has failed, there is no reason to believe Capitalism and its ruling class of CEO's, hedge-fund managers, banker tycoons, and the politicians and military industrial complex that upholds it will be an exception. "Revolutions are the locomotives of history" - Marx. The material conditions allowing for its destruction have to be in place before revolution can occur, but it is probably more a matter of when than if. But more importantly, there is no reason to WANT it to be an exception - Socialists don't desire to perpetuate or simplify class antagonist societies, we desire to eliminate them completely. Then we don't have to be Socialists anymore, or talk about politics ever again.

[Taem]

Anyways... minus the minor derailing (common occurrence here at the Lounge), I have more to add:

Are you aware of the conditions in which Anders Behring Breivik will be spending the next 10-21 (or more) years of his life? Are you seriously ready for this? I heard this on NPR and had to look it up to believe it: link

He gets three-roomy cells all to himself. In one cell is his bedroom and lavatory. In another, a moderate fitness gym. In the final, a study hall complete with laptop computer. This isn't a joke. And if what I'm reading from that linked report is also true, he gets access to a university education and can even write and publish books. I understand Norway's policy of rehabilitation, but this stretches the imagination of justice to it's limit... well, at least it does for me! I can't speak for the rest of you.

Edit: Found a more up to date link for you guys. Guess the first link was wrong about the university education: Link

[DeeBye]

Is this how they do justice in Norway? A man murders 77-people, is found competent to stand trial so clearly knew what he was doing, and gets a mere 21 years, of which the trial judge say he needs to serve at least 10 of those years... 10 freaking years?!? Are you kidding me? And the year he's already been in prison counts as time served...

In Canada we have no death penalty, so the way we deal with people like this is to label them as Dangerous Offenders. Basically, it keeps monstrous felons in tiny dark holes forever. It really doesn't matter what the prison term is - being labelled a Dangerous Offender is harsh stuff and ensures that these monsters never see the light of day.

The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society because of their violent tendencies, but whose sentences would not necessarily keep them incarcerated under other legislation.

Paul Bernardo is probably the most well-known psychopath in Canada that we have locked up forever with this legislation.

[eppie]

The sentence could be extended, potentially indefinitely, in the future if he is considered still to pose a threat to society. Norway does not have the death penalty.

So do you know how routine or not something like this is in Norway? Perhaps they handle plenty of "life" sentences through this bureaucratic process.

He is not going to be freed untill he is in his 70s or so and even that will be unlikely.
He will serve 21 years and after that every 5 years justice will investigate if he still is a threat (which he will be) and so his sentence will be extended with 5 years at a time.

[eppie]

Anyways... minus the minor derailing (common occurrence here at the Lounge), I have more to add:

Are you aware of the conditions in which Anders Behring Breivik will be spending the next 10-21 (or more) years of his life? Are you seriously ready for this? I heard this on NPR and had to look it up to believe it: link

He gets three-roomy cells all to himself. In one cell is his bedroom and lavatory. In another, a moderate fitness gym. In the final, a study hall complete with laptop computer. This isn't a joke. And if what I'm reading from that linked report is also true, he gets access to a university education and can even write and publish books. I understand Norway's policy of rehabilitation, but this stretches the imagination of justice to it's limit... well, at least it does for me! I can't speak for the rest of you.

Edit: Found a more up to date link for you guys. Guess the first link was wrong about the university education: Link

Taem, I understand that in this particular case it looks (and probably is) unfair. He would indeed 'deserve' a death penalty; but the thing in a good justice system is that you can't change the rules on a case to case basis.

The Norwegian justice system is vastly superior to that of the USA, in the fact that the US system is solely based on revenge and does not care at all for trying to get people back in society (trying to make them better). So in general (on average) there is a good system in place....even though at this particular case everybody understand that death penalty or worse would be the most fair.

[shoju]

I still say that 150 bucks for a gun and ammo solves the problem a lot better than giving someone a 3 room bungalo for the rest of their natural life. Someone commented ealier that it was like putting down a rabid dog. I agree.

While I'm not a "huge" fan of the death penalty, having the death penalty as an option is always better than not having the option. I would rather have the option, and not use it, than not have the option, and be in a position where it is the best option.

[eppie]

I still say that 150 bucks for a gun and ammo solves the problem a lot better than giving someone a 3 room bungalo for the rest of their natural life. Someone commented ealier that it was like putting down a rabid dog. I agree.

While I'm not a "huge" fan of the death penalty, having the death penalty as an option is always better than not having the option. I would rather have the option, and not use it, than not have the option, and be in a position where it is the best option.

You make it sound too simple.
Let's take the case Breivik; maybe 99% of the Norwegian people would be in favor of giving him the death penalty. But what about other murders, and where do you draw the line? 95 % agreement? 75 %? or just a simple 'more than 50%? And who makes the decision where to draw the line?

You are making a choice between revenge on a single person and throwing away all ethics of a whole society. Because that is what it is all about; revenge. I mean giving death penalty's in such cases is not putting other nutcases of committing such a crime right? Of course it is indeed also a lot cheaper just to kill this guy.....very true....but do you want to make this choice based on money?

Of course besides ethics there is another disadvantage of a very severe punishment system. The prison system in the US for example makes big criminals from small criminals. And makes small criminals from people put away for smoking some weed. Further getting a death penalty is far more dependent on the type of lawyer you can afford than on the crime you committed.

Here there is of course a big difference in thinking between the USA and Europe, something that we will not solve here on the lounge.

[Jester]

Let's take the case Breivik; maybe 99% of the Norwegian people would be in favor of giving him the death penalty. But what about other murders, and where do you draw the line? 95 % agreement? 75 %? or just a simple 'more than 50%? And who makes the decision where to draw the line?

Anyone with $150. And then you're Colombia.

-Jester

---

While I'm not a "huge" fan of the death penalty, having the death penalty as an option is always better than not having the option. I would rather have the option, and not use it, than not have the option, and be in a position where it is the best option.

Sovereign states are still sovereign. They cannot credibly prevent themselves from using the death penalty. If Norway wanted to pass a law that this particular guy should be killed, there's nothing to stop them, unless some other country wants to invade over it.

Every country always has the option. The question is, who exercises it?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I still say that 150 bucks for a gun and ammo solves the problem a lot better than giving someone a 3 room bungalo for the rest of their natural life. Someone commented ealier that it was like putting down a rabid dog. I agree.

While I'm not a "huge" fan of the death penalty, having the death penalty as an option is always better than not having the option. I would rather have the option, and not use it, than not have the option, and be in a position where it is the best option.

I'd rather the government didn't have the power to kill it's citizens. Mistakes happen, and also abuse of power. There are sensational aberrations, like this case, which give one pause. But, justice means they get an appropriate punishment. There is little hope for rehabilitation, so this guy is just warehoused human garbage.

Even adding "chain gang" or "hard labor" give the state too much power to abuse it's citizens. It says more about us as a society that we don't kill the killers.

Minnesota is more like what Deebye described. Violent sociopaths get life long prison terms with little hope of release in their lifetimes. Sexual predators get civilly committed, and so they don't get free ever, unless they serve their lengthy sentence and convince a panel of psychiatrists they are safe to release.

[shoju]

You make it sound too simple.

No, It's not too simple. People just don't like it being this simple.

Let's take the case Breivik; maybe 99% of the Norwegian people would be in favor of giving him the death penalty. But what about other murders, and where do you draw the line? 95 % agreement? 75 %? or just a simple 'more than 50%? And who makes the decision where to draw the line?

You shouldn't leave it up to the populace. It should be left up to those who are elected, or placed, in a position to oversee these things.

You are making a choice between revenge on a single person and throwing away all ethics of a whole society. Because that is what it is all about; revenge. I mean giving death penalty's in such cases is not putting other nutcases of committing such a crime right? Of course it is indeed also a lot cheaper just to kill this guy.....very true....but do you want to make this choice based on money?

No. It isn't about revenge. It's about two things.

1.) What to do with a person who committed terrible crimes
2.) The amount of money it takes to house a person that commits these terrible crimes.

I don't want him dead as some sort of "revenge" for the fact that he murdered 77 people, simply because they didn't align with his world view.

I think that the death penalty should be used, because this guy, who did slaughter 77 people, isn't remorseful. He isn't insane. He isn't going to be "Rehabilitated", he isn't going to rejoin society as a "changed" man at some point.

Which means, that for him to be incarcerated, he is going to be in a 3 room prison cell, sucking up a vast sum of money, and manhours, that are better spent elsewhere. If I thought that he was mentally ill, or that he could be "rehabilitated", I would be all for it. But, I just don't see it.

The Death Penalty is no more "Revenge" on him, than sentencing him to a punishment that will (hopefully) end up as life without parole. The Death Penalty (if handled by my suggestion), just costs a significantly smaller portion of the governemnt/taxpayer's money.

Of course besides ethics there is another disadvantage of a very severe punishment system. The prison system in the US for example makes big criminals from small criminals. And makes small criminals from people put away for smoking some weed. Further getting a death penalty is far more dependent on the type of lawyer you can afford than on the crime you committed.

What? I don't know of anyone who has "sold some weed" who is up for the death penalty, or in jail for a long time. Christ, My son's mother

1.) Ran a Crack House (including the manufacture of Crack Cocaine)
2.) Sold Crack Cocaine
3.) Was caught with over 1lb total weight in Marijuana over the course of 3 arrests
4.) Was caught attempting to shoplift $500 in items used in the manufacture of illegal "street drugs"
5.) Stole $50+ in Gasoline (on foot)
6.) Failed to take care of her children resulting in charges of Child Endangerment

(these are the highlights, the rap sheet is oh so much longer)

And, Her lawyer was a Public Defender.... Not necessarily the.... "creme de la creme" of legal counsel in the US.

And still spent a grand total of just 18 months in Jail / Prison. Most of the Jail Time? Tacked on because the second time she was in Jail they rang up most of the charges twice. Once as the Charge, and once as a count of Probation Violation.

They couldn't even keep her in jail after she was arrested the first time. She posted bail, and went on about her merry way committing more crimes, getting arrested, and posting bail again. I have a hard time believing that the US Prison System is what makes them "Bigger" Criminals.

Even in a state like texas, who uses the Death Penalty the most, It isn't used for things like "smoking weed" or for some small crime. The death penalty is sought and used in cases involving the death of other individuals, done with some sort of premeditation, or purpose. We aren't even talking vehicular manslaughter / homicide because you were drunk.

Here there is of course a big difference in thinking between the USA and Europe, something that we will not solve here on the lounge.

Maybe. I just don't see spending 10's of thousands every year to incarcerate someone who knowingly planned the deaths of a large amount of people, because of his world views.

Sovereign states are still sovereign. They cannot credibly prevent themselves from using the death penalty. If Norway wanted to pass a law that this particular guy should be killed, there's nothing to stop them, unless some other country wants to invade over it.

Every country always has the option. The question is, who exercises it?

-Jester

Sure, they have the "Option" of passing a law, but really.... Is that how it should be handled?

I'm not saying that the US Death Penalty is the answer. I'm not. But I'm also saying that not having "some sort" of system by which you can decide to use the death penalty in cases isn't the answer either.

I'd rather the government didn't have the power to kill it's citizens. Mistakes happen, and also abuse of power. There are sensational aberrations, like this case, which give one pause. But, justice means they get an appropriate punishment. There is little hope for rehabilitation, so this guy is just warehoused human garbage.

Of course mistakes happen, of course there can be abuses of power. It's one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of the Death Penalty as currently legislated in the US either.

This, is the type of case, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, These cases where there is no debate, there is no question, These "Sensational Aberrations" as you called them.

Even adding "chain gang" or "hard labor" give the state too much power to abuse it's citizens. It says more about us as a society that we don't kill the killers.

Why? What should they do? Sit there? Do NOTHING?

And I'm confused. Are you saying that it somehow says something "better" about us because we don't kill the killers? That we are somehow... a "better" society, because we stuff the killers in a concrete cell, behind razor wire, in a hole with armed guards? That makes us a better society?

Minnesota is more like what Deebye described. Violent sociopaths get life long prison terms with little hope of release in their lifetimes. Sexual predators get civilly committed, and so they don't get free ever, unless they serve their lengthy sentence and convince a panel of psychiatrists they are safe to release.

That doesn't make us any better than using the death penalty. Life in Prison without the possibility of Parole, or some such "sentence" feels the same to me as "skeletons in the closet" that we don't want anyone to know about, or see.

[Jester]

Sure, they have the "Option" of passing a law, but really.... Is that how it should be handled?

Yes?

If there's someone so monstrous that you're contemplating going around due process and hiring an assassin to kill him, surely passing a law isn't so difficult?

I'm not saying that the US Death Penalty is the answer. I'm not. But I'm also saying that not having "some sort" of system by which you can decide to use the death penalty in cases isn't the answer either.

Again, they have the option, and "some sort" of system - apparently it's called the Storting. They decide what's law in Norway. If they wanted to decide differently, that's their prerogative.

-Jester

[shoju]

Yes?

If there's someone so monstrous that you're contemplating going around due process and hiring an assassin to kill him, surely passing a law isn't so difficult?

Hiring an Assassin? That's a bold step from suggesting that $150 bucks for a gun + ammo would be a better solution than spending in the millions to keep him incarcerated.

I also never suggested that they should go around Due Process. I suggested that they should add to it, by including the death penalty.

Personally, I think "passing a law" and the bureaucratic-ness that is entailed in that is not the way to do it. In Norway it could be far easier, I'm looking at it from an "american law passing" situation, where it would get dragged through 3 terms of congressman before it was tabled, because of the ridiculous amount of filibustering that it would see due to special interest lobbying.

Again, they have the option, and "some sort" of system - apparently it's called the Storting. They decide what's law in Norway. If they wanted to decide differently, that's their prerogative.

-Jester

And isn't my prerogative as a person to question that? Or am I not allowed to question methods?

[Jester]

Hiring an Assassin? That's a bold step from suggesting that $150 bucks for a gun + ammo would be a better solution than spending in the millions to keep him incarcerated.

I must have misunderstood you. I thought the idea was to simply dispose of him, Scott Evil style. If all you mean is it's cheap to kill him, I assume there are plenty of lethal instruments available to Norway - no need to buy anything. Push him off a fjord, maybe.

I also never suggested that they should go around Due Process. I suggested that they should add to it, by including the death penalty.

Personally, I think "passing a law" and the bureaucratic-ness that is entailed in that is not the way to do it. In Norway it could be far easier, I'm looking at it from an "american law passing" situation, where it would get dragged through 3 terms of congressman before it was tabled, because of the ridiculous amount of filibustering that it would see due to special interest lobbying.

Looks to me like there are three options to kill him.

1) Kill him without legal process.
2) Legalize the death penalty, then kill him.
3) Create a special law for his case, then kill him.

Both of the last two options involve passing a law, somehow. The first violates due process. (Well, they all involve ex post facto justice, which is dodgy in any country.)

And isn't my prerogative as a person to question that? Or am I not allowed to question methods?

No. This is all simply counter to your argument that they have no option available to kill him. I'm saying they do have the option - it just involves changing the law. If you mean they have no convenient option to kill him, then I think you're right - but that's a feature, not a bug. If Norwegians wanted judges to have that power, they'd have given it to them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'd rather the government didn't have the power to kill it's citizens. Mistakes happen, and also abuse of power. There are sensational aberrations, like this case, which give one pause. But, justice means they get an appropriate punishment. There is little hope for rehabilitation, so this guy is just warehoused human garbage.

Of course mistakes happen, of course there can be abuses of power. It's one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of the Death Penalty as currently legislated in the US either.

This, is the type of case, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, These cases where there is no debate, there is no question, These "Sensational Aberrations" as you called them.

There are thousands of hum drum murders every year. Most are gang related, drug related, or domestic violence. Only a few get sensationalized. With serial, or mass murder, you quickly reach the limit of what justice is possible. If a drive by shooting kills a baby sleeping in a house, how is that more or less heinous than a bomb blast killing dozens. How do you punish the murderer? Kill him? Kill him 300 times? Or, do you put them in a cell and make them think about why they are there every day.

Even adding "chain gang" or "hard labor" give the state too much power to abuse it's citizens. It says more about us as a society that we don't kill the killers.

Why? What should they do? Sit there? Do NOTHING?

And I'm confused. Are you saying that it somehow says something "better" about us because we don't kill the killers? That we are somehow... a "better" society, because we stuff the killers in a concrete cell, behind razor wire, in a hole with armed guards? That makes us a better society?

Why are they there?

If it's to punish them, or make them suffer, then why would that do anything other than to provide vengeance?

Is it to remove them from the society to protect the society? Then, sitting in a cell, behind razor wire, with armed guards serves that purpose. We might even let them watch TV. Who cares as long as they are removed from doing harm to us.

If it is for rehabilitation, then who determines what is needed, who does it, who measures it, and ostensibly it is to prepare them to return to society. In that end, providing vocational training, or "work" for them is for their benefit, and ours once they rejoin us in the *real* world. The concept of chain gang, or "hard labor" is Gulag, or vengeance related, and we don't really want the government meting our vengeance to citizens any more than we want them meting out death to citizens.

Minnesota is more like what Deebye described. Violent sociopaths get life long prison terms with little hope of release in their lifetimes. Sexual predators get civilly committed, and so they don't get free ever, unless they serve their lengthy sentence and convince a panel of psychiatrists they are safe to release.

That doesn't make us any better than using the death penalty. Life in Prison without the possibility of Parole, or some such "sentence" feels the same to me as "skeletons in the closet" that we don't want anyone to know about, or see.

It's not a closet. It's prison. A place where they've lost all their freedom, and must do as they are told by prison guards every day.

Most importantly, they are not in our society. To answer my own question from above, the answer is #2. We don't invest enough to rehabilitate, and we don't punish them. The only purpose prisons serve in our society is to separate those who victimize others from our more peaceful society. Our justice system, like most things that the government is involved with, barely works and costs too much.

Which is why we are so confident about them taking on more work.

[Taem]

Let's take the case Breivik; maybe 99% of the Norwegian people would be in favor of giving him the death penalty. But what about other murders, and where do you draw the line? 95 % agreement? 75 %? or just a simple 'more than 50%? And who makes the decision where to draw the line?

You shouldn't leave it up to the populace. It should be left up to those who are elected, or placed, in a position to oversee these things.

It IS up to the populace... You do realize that as citizens of our country, we can sign petitions to have new laws added or even old laws removed or altered. These petitions, after a certain amount I am not familiar with, will be passed to the state to be put onto a ballot for voting purposes, at which point citizens can express their opinion. This happened with marijuana in California to legalize the drug, but was voted down. When people in Cali get caught smoking weed and go to jail, I have NO SYMPATHY for them because they choose to not change the law. The same can be said for ANY law you like/dislike. Petition to have it changed, and if enough people agree with you, you will see change, but if they don't then you won't. The laws we have in this country, we make and live by. If someone doesn't like the laws of their current country, they can (try) to relocate or if they have billions, perhaps even start a country of their own on some remote island or warlord torn country in Africa .

Regarding the rest of what you said, after some thought I agree with Jester and Eppie that if in fact other countries choose to rehabilitate as part of their law, then no matter how much you or I or anybody else despises it, even if you are a citizen of said country, it is the law, and something that must be lived with for the betterment of society as a whole. Even if the law isin't "perfect", having order is always better than having anarchy. These laws don't just make themselves you know .

[DeeBye]

spending in the millions to keep him incarcerated

I keep seeing arguments like this - how costly it is to keep these psychos in prison for the rest of their lives versus how cheap it is to just kill them.

I have a few issues with that line of thought, but the main one is this - is it really cheaper to administer the death penalty than it would be to house them in prison forever? It's not like they build special prisons for these guys with specially trained and equipped guards, Magneto-style. Find a dark cell in the basement of an active prison and remember to feed him (or her, must not discriminate) some gruel once or twice a day. The main costs the taxpayers pick up when dealing with these monsters is more due to the legal system. The millions spent on them is actually prosecuting them, which is going to happen regardless of whether the death penalty is applied or not. After that, things get relatively cheap no matter how you decide the fate.

[eppie]

spending in the millions to keep him incarcerated

I keep seeing arguments like this - how costly it is to keep these psychos in prison for the rest of their lives versus how cheap it is to just kill them.

I have a few issues with that line of thought, but the main one is this - is it really cheaper to administer the death penalty than it would be to house them in prison forever? It's not like they build special prisons for these guys with specially trained and equipped guards, Magneto-style. Find a dark cell in the basement of an active prison and remember to feed him (or her, must not discriminate) some gruel once or twice a day. The main costs the taxpayers pick up when dealing with these monsters is more due to the legal system. The millions spent on them is actually prosecuting them, which is going to happen regardless of whether the death penalty is applied or not. After that, things get relatively cheap no matter how you decide the fate.

And if I can add to that. These things like the Breivik case don't happen a lot in Norway, so spending some crazy amount of money once isn't as bad as changing the whole ethical basis of your country.
Also, the money spend, is mainly manpower I guess so it is not like it is thrown away.

The fact that Breivik deserves the death penalty is a whole other discussion than the one of having the possibility of giving the death penalty in a country.

[kandrathe]

I keep seeing arguments like this - how costly it is to keep these psychos in prison for the rest of their lives versus how cheap it is to just kill them.

In California, $47, 102 per year. Versus the risk of recidivism...

I'm willing to pay that to keep an axe murderer locked up. I have issues with the crack and pot smokers getting locked up.

[shoju]

I must have misunderstood you. I thought the idea was to simply dispose of him, Scott Evil style. If all you mean is it's cheap to kill him, I assume there are plenty of lethal instruments available to Norway - no need to buy anything. Push him off a fjord, maybe.

Nope. I just simply mean that offing him is the cost effective measure.

Looks to me like there are three options to kill him.

1) Kill him without legal process.
2) Legalize the death penalty, then kill him.
3) Create a special law for his case, then kill him.

Both of the last two options involve passing a law, somehow. The first violates due process. (Well, they all involve ex post facto justice, which is dodgy in any country.)

And my point is, if the death penalty were already on the option, there would be a legal process, and they wouldn't need to pass laws, because the laws would already have been enacted.

There are thousands of hum drum murders every year. Most are gang related, drug related, or domestic violence. Only a few get sensationalized. With serial, or mass murder, you quickly reach the limit of what justice is possible. If a drive by shooting kills a baby sleeping in a house, how is that more or less heinous than a bomb blast killing dozens. How do you punish the murderer? Kill him? Kill him 300 times? Or, do you put them in a cell and make them think about why they are there every day.

You aren't following me. You are trying to make this about a separate "type" of crime. You can't possibly think that some gang banger who accidentally kills an "innocent bystander" in a shootout has the same mentality as someone who orchestrates a "terror" style plot do you?

Both Crimes are heinous, I wont argue that. But I (personally) look at the example that you put forth, and think there is possibly a chance at rehabilitation.

I look at a person like I laid out in my examples, and don't feel there is a chance of rehabilitation. Someone like Breivik isn't going to sit there in that cell and wake up one day and realize what he did was wrong. He isn't going to look at this, and say "MAN! I MESSED UP!" He thinks he is a martyr for his cause, He isn't going to be able to join the population again. He isn't going to be able to be a "normal functioning member of society" or even a "fringe member of society" He has no remorse, and there isn't much likelihood that he will ever have remorse for it. At that point, locking him away is just tossing the skeleton in the deepest darkest closet, and hoping that no one remembers it, or that he goes on and does something else.

Why are they there?

Because society / lawmakers / judges / etc... decided that their actions were a crime, and that there was a debt to society involved.

If it's to punish them, or make them suffer, then why would that do anything other than to provide vengeance?

If you look at it all as vengeance, then why bother locking them up in the first place? Why not just slap the backs of their hands, and give them a stern talking to. OH right. That doesn't work.

Is it to remove them from the society to protect the society? Then, sitting in a cell, behind razor wire, with armed guards serves that purpose. We might even let them watch TV. Who cares as long as they are removed from doing harm to us.

I care, Because they are wasting our money sitting there and doing nothing? I guess it's one of the things that I grew up with. Punishment was always equal parts removal from society (grounding, not allowed to attend something), and "punishment" (working during the time that I should have been doing what I wanted to).

If it is for rehabilitation, then who determines what is needed, who does it, who measures it, and ostensibly it is to prepare them to return to society. In that end, providing vocational training, or "work" for them is for their benefit, and ours once they rejoin us in the *real* world. The concept of chain gang, or "hard labor" is Gulag, or vengeance related, and we don't really want the government meting our vengeance to citizens any more than we want them meting out death to citizens.

I disagree. "Chain Gang" and "Hard Labor" provides a service. Consider it their employment that covers things like "Preparing them to return to society". Again, I'm not saying that the US system is "right", but I'm not saying that it's wrong either, because I don't look at it as vengeance. If I were looking at it as vengeance, I would hand over the prisoner to those who they wronged, and let them decide the punishment.

It's not a closet. It's prison. A place where they've lost all their freedom, and must do as they are told by prison guards every day.

It's a metaphor, I think that might have been lost on you. No. They haven't lost all freedom. Solitary Confinement is about the only place in a prison where a prisoner has lost "All" freedom. There is the illusion that they have lost all freedom because they are behind walls, and live in a cell, and wear clothing we find to be degrading as a society, and they have a very regimented lifestyle, as though they where they were children. Almost similar to Boot Camp in some ways.

Most importantly, they are not in our society. To answer my own question from above, the answer is #2. We don't invest enough to rehabilitate, and we don't punish them. The only purpose prisons serve in our society is to separate those who victimize others from our more peaceful society. Our justice system, like most things that the government is involved with, barely works and costs too much.

I wont argue that enough isn't invested in rehabilitation, or that the justice system as currently is, struggles to "work". But I bear issue with the idea that prisons are just these holes we throw people. Maybe they get better, maybe they rejoin society, maybe they don't. You put them to work, you put them to task. You give them goals, including rehabilitation (when it is applicable).

I keep seeing arguments like this - how costly it is to keep these psychos in prison for the rest of their lives versus how cheap it is to just kill them.

I have a few issues with that line of thought, but the main one is this - is it really cheaper to administer the death penalty than it would be to house them in prison forever? It's not like they build special prisons for these guys with specially trained and equipped guards, Magneto-style. Find a dark cell in the basement of an active prison and remember to feed him (or her, must not discriminate) some gruel once or twice a day. The main costs the taxpayers pick up when dealing with these monsters is more due to the legal system. The millions spent on them is actually prosecuting them, which is going to happen regardless of whether the death penalty is applied or not. After that, things get relatively cheap no matter how you decide the fate.

As Kandrathe points out, the average prisoner in California is $47,102 per year. In other states (North Carolina).

The actual "Cost" of putting a person to death under current laws is hard to quantify, because most of the "statistics" that you find point to the overall blanket costs associated with the death penalties including appeals processes, Death Row, and the like. Like I said, The US System isn't "right".

And if I can add to that. These things like the Breivik case don't happen a lot in Norway, so spending some crazy amount of money once isn't as bad as changing the whole ethical basis of your country.
Also, the money spend, is mainly manpower I guess so it is not like it is thrown away.

The fact that Breivik deserves the death penalty is a whole other discussion than the one of having the possibility of giving the death penalty in a country.

I agree with you on both points. I may not... "Like" the idea of it not being there (death penalty), but your reasoning makes sense.

In California, $47, 102 per year. Versus the risk of recidivism...

I'm willing to pay that to keep an axe murderer locked up. I have issues with the crack and pot smokers getting locked up.

I don't have an issue with it. Rarely, is the sole reason they are being locked up because they smoked crack or pot. There are normally other charges that are put forth with them.

I see your point though. I don't think Drug Abusers are helped in Prison. My son's mother didn't kick her drug problem until she went to rehab. We're still waiting for her to kick the "I'm a terrible human being" problem that the drug abuse made worse.

[kandrathe]

Also, the money spend, is mainly manpower I guess so it is not like it is thrown away.

It is, and it isn't thrown away. What is produced by the labor? In this case, it is justice. I'd say that for the peaceful operation of a society that justice is valuable. I think there is a limit to how much we should pay for that justice, however.

But, you can't just claim that all labor spending is not wasted resource. Yes, the employed will spend their earnings on stuff. But, where did the resources come from in the first place?

For example, let's say we had a mad ruler who wanted to build a humongous butter sculpture of himself, and due to the nature of butter began building it in the cool days of autumn. By edict, he recruited all the best artists in the land and spent the nations treasury to build it. Of course, by summer everything is wasted, and the nation is bankrupt. While this is an extreme of waste, it is very appropriate for much of our government projects done for the selfish short term interests of the rulers.

Yes, those sculptors were employed all winter, but what might they have done had they worked on more useful endeavors?



This is why I focus on ROI for government work. It is never the case that ALL spending is good spending.