Death Penalty Debate

Just a reminder that this guy is playing with his Playstation in his comfy prison house right now while his lawyer is campaigning for giving him internet access.

Just some of the things Breivik has access to prison:
1. Three cells - one for sleeping, one for exercising, one for studying, as well as use of the exercise yard
2. Allowed to cook and wash his own clothes
3. Regular contact with his family, including phone conversations with a female friend
4. Access to lawyers, a priest, health professionals and other prison staff
5. Got to build a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition
6. Newspapers, television, and a Playstation 2
7. Declined the opportunity to play chess with volunteers
8. Has a computer (with no internet access)

I worked for 11 years to buy an apartment, and its a bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen+living room combined. Three cells. Worked my best years to get these three cells, still paying for them. Fuck.

Here’s a list of things Breivik reportedly complained about in the suit:
1. His Playstation 2 games are insufficient because they are "outdated… and not for adults"
2. He was unhappy having to eat with plastic utensils
3. having to drink cold coffee
4. Only having access to one of the three rooms in his cell at times
5. Not being allowed postage stamps
6. Only being allowed to use the egg timer while cooking
7. Not being allowed to use the oven to cook a frozen pizza
8. No internet access

Breivik being treated well is a bad thing how?

Yes, gas porky, class war now

One mass murderer is getting these, while one homeless man isn't getting them.

Those christians deserved it
Also i agree that homeless people must be treated just as well as breivik

...

def penaldy 4 coolacks

Sorry, I phrased that post poorly in hindsight. I meant repeat offenders in reference to rapists.

Its funny

Well, firstly, I think anyone that is in favor of life sentence (especially regarding serious crimes) wouldn't ever be content with allowing this guy the stuff he currently has access to. Just throw him in a regular old cell, or in this case, since there's sufficient evidence, just execute him

No, not in itself, but it does put things into perspective. I can't take anyone seriously who argues that Breivik not being killed is okay in any way.

Its reply

Per much we hate Breivik executing him will only make him a martyr

It's benis

I think you're confusing him with Varg. Brevik shot up a summer camp.

Oh i guess i did confuse him with varg. He killed kids? What a douche. Varg did nothing wrong tho

Havent you heard? It's hip to kill people as long as you have ideological justification.

They'd call them martyrs only if you don't kill enough.

6 million jews died in the holocaust, and they're still considered martyrs. 6 million not enough for you?

As opposed to what? Him appearing regularly on the news to this day? Him laughing his ass off at the liberal prison system? Him wanting to get internet access, so he can cash in his upvotes by becoming the ultimate e-celeb for the alt-right?

Memes have a relatively short life-span. When pol picked up Elliot Rodger's story it soon became a regular inside joke for them. That diminished nearly completely by now. The fact that Breivik can appear and reappear again on the net, doing this consciously and having actual effect, lengthening his influence over regular memes.

Consider the fact that there are Norwegian nazis out there right now who dream about taking over and setting their hero free.

The fact that we have to talk about this guy is an obscenity in itself, ruining our social standards.

But if you kill murderers, aren't you just as bad as they are?

You sound spooked by some dude in prison

It was 10-12 million atleast.

Jews? I doubt it, I know the 12 million mark was for all victims of the Holocaust, but jewish victims I believe most historians consider that number to be around 6 million

Okay, hear me out. I know this might sound crazy at first, but it makes a lot of sense of you think about it.

People have souls, but they are not souls like religions believe them to be, they are made of matter like everything else, but are invisible like air. These souls gravitate around their human body. When you kill someone the soul gets confused and since you were the last on it saw it starts gravitating around you instead.

Killers say that something changed about them when they first killed their first victim. It's because they gained another soul and the body felt the increased gravitational pull.

So, to answer your question:
No, because when the state executes a murderer, his collected souls hop on to the executioner, so you are in fact better then they ever were since you collected his and his victims' soul when you executed them, that is, you one upped them soulnumber-wise. (It is a well documented phenomena fact that executioners live extremely long lives – in case you need proof of all of this.)

There's also the fact that if you let the killer live, his collected souls are strapped onto their killer, instead of someone from "our side".

Holocaust is a business - and carte blanche for Israel to mess with Palestine (and in general).

For example, can you tell me how many Belarusians died during WW2? Practically one third of a nation was wiped out.

Life-long sentences for heinous crimes and an option of voluntary euthanasia.

Well if compassion exists, and choice doesn't what option is there besides being deluded by revenge? I am more in favor of more comfy prisons, and opening research into morally constructive brain surgery, or some other kind of treatment. There must be a way to transform the brain of violent people. Also, people should not be in prison if they don't need to be isolated from society, such non-violent " criminals.

Pic is just to illustrate what would it look like if we could see souls. Now imagine 60 kid souls being trapped around their killer.

To be fair, that's because it's politically incorrect to imply that people in Eastern Bloc nations suffered for reasons unrelated to communism.

Yes.

Unironic spook. But only because I'm using "ethics" and "morality" as separate concepts, wherein morality is personal and can be based on faith and ethics have to follow some coherent philosophical logic.

So my ethical argument, here, is that life in prison can be worse than death. Any inmate who would prefer the death penalty should get it, because I don't go in for that "oh yeah, that would just make them happy, why do they deserve relief?" punitive bullshit. A select few extreme cases (generally mass murder/mass shooting/serial killing/whathaveyou) should get it regardless of what their own position is, so long as there is a high bar for evidence. Unless we have a means to re-integrate them into society where they can and will be trusted, those guys are fucked and there's no reason to keep them locked up if there's no legal doubt that they're guilty.

I'm unaware of an article that prevents this. There's a whole host of less constitutional things the American political class does. "No taxation without representation" has become a particularly unfunny joke.

I kinda doubt this works that well for that. Like, when I was a little kid, maybe. Then again, maybe it does work pretty well, but I don't think it's a solid argument - the state is also an example, so it could be argued that by enacting violence (in many cases extremely unjustly - there are way too many executions as is and many of them are over false accusations) the state actually encourages it.

For the crime?
Irrelevant. The grieving families… sorry for their loss or whatever, but they can shut the fuck up unless the killer just lost his job over it or something minuscule like that. Their bloodlust shouldn't be obliged by default, that's retarded.

A serious issue. But part of it is that the death penalty is politicized. We've abolished public hangings and whatnot, but that mentality prevails when law enforcement see it as their duty to kill a certain amount of prisoners. Being "tough on crime" tends to result in putting as little distinction between innocence and guilt as possible when it comes to the death penalty. Execution should be extremely rare.

There are a number of reforms that ought to be done, which I suspect could make it cheaper. The way that criminal courts are approached in general is prone to hassle and corruption.

That said, even if reforms didn't make it cheaper, they still ought to be done and in my eyes this aspect shouldn't decide whether or not the death penalty remains.

Kill more cops, less of the general populace.

Fuck 'em.

Serious issue.
In a lot of cases, attorneys are just shit in general. You can, for the record, hire a private attorney who will stab you in the back - the rarity of decent public defenders is a disaster, and the disrespect that they're given ought to get a lot of people fired at the least.

Abolishing the death penalty, given the current level of corruption and the poor defense afforded to the public, could potentially be an easier fix to these problems. What I'd prefer is justice reform and fewer death penalties doled out only for a select set of extreme offenders, but it might be too much to ask that people watch what their own fucking government is doing.

It isn't. The war was shit for everyone on the ground, regardless of uniform. It's just that the propaganda is geared towards the 6 trillion jews who were masturbated to death, if it spent too long on everyone else that number would seem like nothing. And it works: most people believe 6 gorillion jews died in the war but have no idea how many people died.

Don't get me wrong, but Isreali imperialism against Palestine is awful, but that doesn't make the Holocaust "business"

Why do the kids in that picture look so happy?

Business is not Holocaust as such, but the modern use of it.

I.e. I am talking about Holocaust as expensive brand - like queen of England, for example.

Souls are confusing creatures.

Obvs because they're confused souls and don't know any better.

The death penalty should only be allowed for counter-revolutionaries. Other than that, I believe all sorts of crimes can be rehabilitated whether through education, conditioning, or responsible policy by a socialist state.

These people complaining about Breivik don't realize he's literally just getting what everyone else is getting in that prison system and trying to make you think like some reactionary dumbshit by giving you an extreme example of a mass murderer living well, It's still Prison, folks. You're still effectively cattle no matter how high quality the oats are.

Abolish the nuclear family and there will be no need for family "closure".

What exactly is the goal of abolishing the nuclear family? Explain please.

Autists think that family = power structure, and that the only reason for a person to want to be with their direct relatives is brainwashing from church and government.

Cool, be with your immediate family and shit if that's what you prefer, that's not the point.

If my son is murdered, I would want the murdered to be punished.
I would want that for reasons of citizenship - of course I don't want a murderer walking around our community.
However, I would also want that for personal reasons. I would want it more than others for my personal loss.
This isn't memes, or power dynamics, or nothing religious or statist.

But that's not true you gigantic faggot, the 6-million figure is a consensus among historians.

That’s a sick ass gang tattoo grandma

Reconsider your views.

...

I am for the death penalty as a revolutionary tool. I am against it as a matter of business as usual. Purge the old power structures and be done with it. After that the focus should be rehabilitation.

The reason death penalties cost more is because of the death row incarceration and extremely long appeals process. If we just immediatly killed anyone sentenced with no hassle it would be the cheaper option.

...

Instead of killing prisoners on death row, I think it would be better for the scientific community to experiment on them. Maybe use them to colonize the moon or Mars. It would give them a sense of self worth and a chance to help others. I think this would be better than being executed.

Yeah, when we are sending a critical multi-billion mission on Mars, the best candidates aren't former military pilot volunteers or donors who are willing to pay for the privilege, we should throw serial murderers and mentally ill freaks instead.

And the reason for that very long process is to make sure we don't execute innocent people.
If it happens even once the trust in the system is eroded and there will be riots.
Meanwhile, when someone is in jail for 10 years and it turns out they were innocent, people get mad, but quickly forget it. This happens literally every year, and nobody has rioted about it yet, nor ever will. Imagine if they were killed though. One potentially innocent black man was executed and this basically started the whole black liberation movement.

It was 20 million, dontcha know?
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

85,000,000 people died in WW2, lets attribute them all to ze germans.

It is the whole concept of "penalty" that should (and will) be questioned by the future communist society. What we can already see is that even inherently oppressive structures such as bourgeois states do not need to resort to death penalty nowadays.

make murder legal.

Punitive "justice" is literally bronze-age thinking and it has zero evidence for any efficiency and zero philosophical or ethical support.
Unnecessary killing is still murder even when the state does it.
Doesn't work.
Retarded and not a mindset that should be encouraged.
Too common.
Prison is factually cheaper.
They should try to find closure in something else besides murder.

The death penalty is a reactionary, pointless concept that only serves to satisfy the bloodlust of reactionaries.

Just because the American prison system of barbarity has caused you to think that treating criminals like humans is a bad thing doesn't mean it is. There's a reason why countries with Nordic prison system has such low recidivism rates. They actually try to rehabilitate the criminal and not make it a sport and a nice economy in brutalizing them.

A counter-revolutionary has his reasons same as any other criminal, he's not somehow intrinsically worse.

You do realize that Rupert Murdoch owns the telegraph, right? Don't you ever consider the angle before you read?

Gulag (with a human face) is the cheapest and most effective

Good luck forcing the kind of people who would be executed to be productive laborers.

"banning the death penalty" seems to be a farcical proposition, honestly. the very nature of sovereignty is that the sovereign can do whatever the hell they want to given only physical constraints (this is where most "constitutions" exist; what constitutions really are is what governments feel they can get away with without revolt, not some written document) because they have access to the abysses of natural and artificial death and can threaten to use them on their subjects. now, they can and often do choose penalties short of death, but those penalties only really work given the implicit existence of death as an option. actually "abolishing the death penalty" would entail abolishing the state.

this isn't to say abolishing the state is a bad thing, but even then, it seems highly doubtful that that's really possible any time soon. as long as scarcity or vulnerability and capacity to suddenly engage in violence exists, the collective will occasionally need to make people do things for no special benefit other than the sake of the action itself, which some people will evaluate as not worth it; in those instances, the collective's only option is sovereign power, which necessarily entails the death penalty.

now, i'd be fully on board with moving away from retributive justice in general, but "abolishing the death penalty" is a foolish idea.

in real socialism the nazis prefer death to the prison

Fuck off, you anarkiddie

Its abolished in a crapload of countries and last time I checked the states still existed
Are you really that dumb?

What do you think would happen to those who refuse to accept the non-death punishments? I suppose that if law enforcement was so competent that it could non-lethally incapacitate them every single time without fail it would somewhat mitigate my point, but I don't see how "rendering someone absolutely incapable of defying anything the State might ask of them" is so morally preferable to death, honestly.

Also, if someone tries to kill someone but is instead killed by that person in self defense and that person faces consequences short of the standard ones for murder, the "self-defense" was in many ways state-sanctioned murder; murder that, in my opinion, should most certainly not be banned, for the state forcing a person to be in a position where they either die or face the same penalty a murderer would receive would be unacceptable.