That is a very good question.
Of course a despotic government (even one led by the mob) can claim the right to torture, confiscate property, imprison inhumanely, run a police state etc.
It is just that most Western democracies have chosen not any of these on moral grounds. Only Japan and the USA use judicial killing now- just lagging by a generation or so like with slavery in the US case.
That is your moral compass. The only States that agree with you are Japan and China, Iran, Iraq, much of Africa, and the rest of the developing and undeveloped world.
It is absolutely banned in Europe by constitutional decision.
Please produce a logical argument that does not rely on absolutism.
Getting killed by the state IS being treated unfairly by the system- at least that is what every western country save Japan and the USA have decided.
As long as you’re OK with your poster child being an unrepentant murderer. I don’t think that’s gonna win you many popularity contests, though.
And so, in less than two decades, Anders Breivik, a man who murdered 77 innocent people in cold blood in an attempt to start a race war, will get to be free, and he gets to spend the meantime living in better accommodations than most of his fellow citizens who work for a living? How is that more just than stringing him up?
The purpose of government is to protect the people. Murderers are a threat to the people. Executing them removes the threat.
How is it unfair? You commit murder, you forfeit your right to exist. What obligation does the state have to someone who has demonstrated a complete disregard for the value of human life?
Yes of course, but do you see my point? The anti-capital punishment movement faces an uphill struggle because they’ll never find a victim as perfect as, say, Rosa Parks. Large parts of the American population will respond to further executions with a “he deserved it”; there are some examples of that in this thread. Rosa Parks, on the other hand, attracted so much empathy because she was a genuinely hard-working woman who had done nothing wrong. No-one could possibly claim that “she deserved it”.
No he won’t.
No he doesn’t
Is Norway less safe with Breivik behind bars than if he had been executed?
His sentence is 21 years, with an option for release after as few as 10.
Cite for most Norweigans having free government-provided Playstations and private gyms?
Yes, because he remains free to proselytize his toxic ideology and play the public’s heartstrings in the hopes that he’ll someday get out and kill more brown people.
When one has the moral high ground one does not seek popularity.
People did not win popularity contests for opposing slavery, opposing Germany in the thirties and Russia in the fifties, taking part in Civil Rights demonstrations in the sixties, campaigning against Apartheid in the seventies, or campaigning against Torture camps and Guantanamo in the past decade.
All involve basic human rights, the most important recognised by all Western democracies save Japan and the US is an absolute right to ones own life.
Simple.
And so, in less than two decades, Anders Breivik, a man who murdered 77 innocent people in cold blood in an attempt to start a race war, will get to be free, and he gets to spend the meantime living in better accommodations than most of his fellow citizens who work for a living? How is that more just than stringing him up?
[/QUOTE]
He may or may not be freed depending on his mental state at the time. I agree that some people are so dangerous they need to be totally excluded from society. No-one is so dangerous that the state should be allowed to kill them.
Of course you are right- anyone with a “toxic ideology” should be exterminated. Fuck free speech. I am right with you there.
You should see the Press that US judicial killings get in the civilised world.
If a man is holding a gun to a kindergartener’s head, does he have an absolute right to his own life?
You know who else was just exercising his freedom of speech?
After 21 years his status will be reviewed. There is no way in hell he will be released, like your original message stated. No way in hell.
You do realise that Norway is one of the wealthiest countries on earth, and leads the world in Human Development rankings year after year? The fact that Norwegian prisons are comfortable does not make them better than what the average Norwegian experiences.
He does not remain free to proselytise anything. He is behind bars, and as such his communication with the outside is severely restricted. The fact that he has not been executed means that he has not become a martyr. I believe that’s the best possible outcome from a security point of view
In extreme circumstances such as that, it is a judgment call. But that does not in any way give moral sanction to killing someone two decades later as pure revenge and blood lust.
You do understand nuance, don’t you?
Who would that be?
“He was given the maximum sentence of 21 years, but with a “preventive detention” clause that means his time in jail can be extended as long as he is deemed a threat to society. It is unlikely he will ever be released.”
“detention for 21 years, with a minimum term of 10 years. Probably he is seated inside much longer. Probably a lifetime.”
Heck, I’m mildly curious about the mindset that wants the death penalty but then exercises it in such a Three-Stoogian manner. Get some professional death experts on it, if you want your executions done with consistency and skill, rather than some clumsy inexperienced possibly-reluctant prison employees.
Yeah, Smapti, in European countries like Germany or Norway where there are maximum sentences, there are also procedures in place to keep nutjobs like Breivik locked up for good. It’s not like they’ll just release you with no questions asked after 21 years. In Germany, for instance, if you got the maximum for violent crime, after your sentence is up, you get evaluated. They check your background, your history, your behavior in prison, your psychological profile and probably a whole bunch of other things not covered in a high-school ethics class to determine whether or not you are a danger to society. If they perceive you as such, you will continue to be held until this changes, and it’s reviewed every 2 years. If you’re a serial killer, officially your maximum sentence before you can apply for parole is 15 years. Realistically, you’re going to die in prison.