Anders Breivik suing government for "inhumane" and "degrading" treatment

[Wells]

He is still extremely devoted to his ideology. Someone who is willing to do what he did has no respect for human life and him facing death won't change that. He deserves to die and keeping him alive is an insult to everyone who he butchered.

Their country doesn't share your views on retributive justice. Those who can be made productive and safe members of society are made so and those who can't are kept where they can't hurt others. There is honor in a justice system that only uses the minimum force necessary.

[Deletedaccount1]

It is an insult to those he has killed that you'd want to do him a favor he no doubt wants. That's the whole point.

What are you even saying? Are you saying he wants to die and we shouldn't grant him that? How do you know this?

- - - Updated - - -

Their country doesn't share your views on retributive justice. Those who can be made productive and safe members of society are made so and those who can't are kept where they can't hurt others. There is honor in a justice system that only uses the minimum force necessary.

Those who can't wouldn't exist in the first place if their government took punishment more seriously.

[Deleted]

Put a bullet in his head.

[Elim Garak]

I have no sympathy for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was completely justified. Tragic of course that so many innocent people lost their lives but it was their fault for tirelessly supporting the policies of Imperial Japan.

So one might have no sympathy for 77 people killed by Breivik, it was completely justified. Tragic of course that so many innocent people lost their lives but it was their fault for tirelessly supporting the policies of multiculturalism.

Right?

[Deletedaccount1]

Put a bullet in his head.

Plenty of people who would be morally outraged that you would want it for Breivik would cheer in delight at it happening to the guy in your profile pic.

[xChurch]

So one might have no sympathy for 77 people killed by Breivik, it was completely justified. Tragic of course that so many innocent people lost their lives but it was their fault for tirelessly supporting the policies of multiculturalism.

Right?

Those two scenario's are really nothing alike.

[Deleted]

Plenty of people who would be morally outraged that you would want it for Breivik would cheer in delight at it happening to the guy in your profile pic.

You're trying to tell me bleeding hearts are idiots?

Well, color me surprised.

[Azadina]

What are you even saying? Are you saying he wants to die and we shouldn't grant him that? How do you know this?

Do I need to repeat my question because you didn't feel like answering it the first time? Which would you choose; 5 something decades in prison, or death?

I'd pick death, the other poster would have picked death, and Mr. breivik has tried to starve himself in the past, so we know what he'd like aswell instead of the alternative. So, do you want to do him a favor then?

[Deletedaccount1]

So one might have no sympathy for 77 people killed by Breivik, it was completely justified. Tragic of course that so many innocent people lost their lives but it was their fault for tirelessly supporting the policies of multiculturalism.

Right?

You are ignoring the historical context. Had the bombs not been dropped, hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been deployed instead and many, many more would have died for nothing. The bombing saved lives instead of a traditional invasion, warned the world about the danger of nuclear weapons and stopped future use of them as well as stopped Japan from being under Soviet influence.

[Guy4123]

You are ignoring the historical context. Had the bombs not been dropped, hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been deployed instead and many, many more would have died for nothing. The bombing saved lives instead of a traditional invasion, warned the world about the danger of nuclear weapons and stopped future use of them as well as stopped Japan from being under Soviet influence.

He's going to counter with the ol' "the Japanese were already going to surrender dropping the bombs was purely so show off to the Russians".

[Deletedaccount1]

Do I need to repeat my question because you didn't feel like answering it the first time? Which would you choose; 5 something decades in prison, or death?

I'd pick death, the other poster would have picked death, and Mr. breivik has tried to starve himself in the past, so we know what he'd like aswell instead of the alternative. So, do you want to do him a favor then?

It doesn't fucking matter what I want because I would never be in that situation in the first place, you are acting like he didn't commit a crime. When you violate another person's right to life, you forfeit your own.

- - - Updated - - -

He's going to counter with the ol' "the Japanese were already going to surrender dropping the bombs was purely so show off to the Russians".

As a Japanese person with a master's degree in history, this is not true.

[Guy4123]

It doesn't fucking matter what I want because I would never be in that situation in the first place, you are acting like he didn't commit a crime. When you violate another person's right to life, you forfeit your own.

- - - Updated - - -



As a Japanese person with a master's degree in history, this is not true.

Oh I know it's not, but it wont stop unreasonably guilty people from saying it.

[Deleted]

There is honor in a justice system that only uses the minimum force necessary.

Put a bullet in his head.

Hmmm...quite the conundrum......

Gotta go with the bullet.

[Azadina]

It doesn't fucking matter what I want because I would never be in that situation in the first place, you are acting like he didn't commit a crime. When you violate another person's right to life, you forfeit your own.

Then why did you even ask those questions if you are not capable of imagining a simple scenario that is even laid out for you to look and answer, twice.

[Elegiac]

Hmmm...quite the conundrum......

Gotta go with the bullet.

Said bullet costs significantly more than the alternative.

[Deletedaccount1]

Then why did you even ask those questions if you are not capable of imagining a simple scenario that is even laid out for you to look and answer, twice.

What are you even talking about? Explain to me why Breivik has a right to live after what he did without dragging the retarded Golden Rule into it.

[Elegiac]

What are you even talking about? Explain to me why Breivik has a right to live after what he did without dragging the retarded Golden Rule into it.

Because the death penalty as a general punishment is fairly unethical, since it's impossible for the state to make restitution in the case of error.

[Deletedaccount1]

Because the death penalty as a general punishment is fairly unethical, since it's impossible for the state to make restitution in the case of error.

Sure as a general punishment but this is well beyond reasonable doubt or any margin of error. There is a line.

[Azadina]

What are you even talking about? Explain to me why Breivik has a right to live after what he did without dragging the retarded Golden Rule into it.

I can't really be bothered to explain further. If you feel like he has deserved some favors, and you want to grant them, then go ahead. I wouldn't.

[Elegiac]

Sure as a general punishment but this is well beyond reasonable doubt or any margin of error. There is a line.

And where's the line?

As Texas demonstrates, reasonable doubt means fuck all as a metric when it comes to determining eligibility for the death penalty. It's better to just let them live out their lives in captivity.