My DW just asked me if I was happy that the Oslo terrorist won't face the death penalty.

[BelfastBloke]

Everything suggests that this neo-Nazi who massacred almost 100 people has been captured bang to rights. There's no question that he did it, unlike in some USA states where they have executed innocent people.

When it's as cut-and-dried as this, with so many witnesses, are you all happy that no European country has the death penalty?

[Empusa]

Yes.

How can anyone possible say "murder is wrong and must be punished", and then justify killing another? It makes no sense.

Taking another's life is wrong.

[suzikettles]

Yes I'm happy.

You can't legislate for just the "cut-and-dried" cases to be executed (and sometimes what seems cut-and-dried turns out not to be - I'm not suggesting that this is the case here obviously), and inevitably the death penalty means that innocent people will be put to death.

It's just not worth the risk of judicial murder. What if it was you? Or your son? Or your father? Would you grieve less than the poor, poor families in Norway?

[Wallissimpson]

No, hanging's too good for him, to coin a phrase.

I hope he rots for sixty years in misery and solitary confinement eating food other inmates have shat in.

[onagar]

I've always thought that convictions could distinguish between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'beyond any doubt'. For the latter I'd be happy to see criminals executed at least for violent crimes.

We might also want to distinguish between spur of the moment crimes which might be instantly and sincerely regretted and crimes that were premeditated.

I doubt you will get anyone else to say they are in favour though. It is very unfashionable to treat criminals like criminals.

[MinnieBar]

Yes. For two reasons:

1. A society that has the death penalty is, IMHO, not civilised. To quote Voltaire it is 'an arbitrary barbarity against human nature'.
   
2. I actually think it is more of a punishment to keep the criminal alive to have to live with what they have done for the rest of their life.

[catinthehat2]

What wallis said. No escape. No control over anything.
And not being let to do a Harold Shipman when it all gets a bit much (ie suicide)
60 sounds fine to me

[DuelingFanjo]

yes.

[asecretlemonadedrinker]

I think death penalty is wrong, I do belive there should be longer sentences and definatly more whole of life ones (UK). Disgusting as he is, he could be mentally ill. He could absoloutly be horrified and beyond remorse in a few years. I mean, god it's ....pretty unforgiverable what he did, but I never feel death is right. It's so barbaric. I read alot earlier in the week about the guy in America who was put to death despite being so very remorseful - a changed man (from what I read anyway), and even one of the men he nearly killed called for him to not face death. He still was executed a few days ago :( It's not right, though I can't feel too sorry about Bin Laden being killed for example, mainly because I fear if he was captured then we would be a whole lot worse off with terrorism if we didn't free him etc.

[WillbeanChariot]

Yes. The death penalty is barbaric. No one has the right to take the life of another person.

[Wallissimpson]

Actually, I am not against the death penalty per se. I would see it introduced for child murder.

[nethunsreject]

Death penalty is hideous. In any situation.

If someone hurt/killed my kid, I would want to rip them apart with my bare hands BUT that doesn't mean I am in favour of them being hung/electrocuted/ehatever in cold blood.

[HomemadeCommunistRussia]

Yes absolutely. Killing people is wrong.

[Tortington]

yes. death is too easy. i can wish that prison was harder though cant i?>

[aubergine70]

Yes. How can we say killing someone is wrong then kill someone for doing it.

[TheCrackFox]

Hopefully, he will live to 100yrs so he can think long and hard about his crimes.

[BornSicky]

absolutely yes, for all the reasons given above.

There may be no margin of error here, but there is always the chance there could be in any other case.

In addition, two points: he could be suffering from serious mental health issues which could have affected his actions, and loathesome as it might be to contemplate, I also believe that everyone should have the opportunity for rehabilitation. Prison is punishment and a severe one, but I also believe it should (though doesn't always) aid rehabilitation.

[Ponders]

How do you deal with a person like this though? Is he mad? Is he sane-but-deluded? Should he just be punished, or should they attempt rehabilitation, or psychotherapy?

What's weirdest is that he chose not to kill himself...maybe he is mad. Maybe he thinks he can convince us all that, whatever his motives were, he was justified.

lemonadedrinker, I heard about Mark Stroman too & he did sound sorry, much wiser now, & remorseful, & killing him seemed like such a waste of an opportunity to maybe educate some against hate. (Texas, though )

I doubt somehow that this guy will ever see the light

[Becaroooo]

I think he should never see another sunrise or sunset.
I think he should never eat great food or drink good wine ever again.
I think he should never be with a woman/man again.
I think he should never be able to look forward to the future or plan anything.
I think he should be denied every experience and pleasure he has denied his victims and their families.

Execution (or death penalty if you prefer) is way too quick.

[nenevomito]

Yes - I don't agree with the death penalty full stop.

Let him rot in jail.

[Ponders]

I doubt he'll rot in a Norwegian jail. I can imagine they are very enlightened (& fairly uncrowded, probably)

[TheCrackFox]

I would put him in a cell without a window.

[Joolyjoolyjoo]

I was actually pretty surprised he didn't shoot himself, although I heard a report that he tried to? Given that most of these crazy madmen do choose to shoot themselves I would keep them alive, contrary to their wishes.

I can't help feeling that someone who behaves this way simply cannot be sane. Apparently it was because of some grievance he had with the governmental policies- does he honestly think that, in light of his actions, people will look and say "well, he has a point?" What the hell is he hoping to achieve by this. I can only conclude it is not the action of a sane person.

I'm another one who thinks that a) the death penalty is morally wrong, and b) that it is too easy for the culprit- a nice painfree death seems a mockery of the terror he instilled in his victims. I'd rather he suffer (although am aware that probably makes me a bad person)

[Ponders]

Apparently his FB page gave one of his interests as Freemasonry

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017851/Norway-attacks-gunman-Anders-Behring-Breivik-right-wing-extremist-hated-Muslims.html\top photo here} - I didn't know it existed outside the UK. Surely he's very young to be a member? Is it different in Norway?

& if he was anti-Muslim these attacks make no sense at all

[Ponders]

\link{http://www.freemasonry-universal.org/freemasonry/norway/freemasonry.html\Grand Lodge of Norway}

'Principles
To show compassion and fellowship is an obligation for each human being, but a Free Mason is especially bound and must be most vigilant in this area'

[BornSicky]

it won't be that kind of freemasonry he's interested in.

Freemasonry has long been associated with the occult and it's often (most would say wrongly) argued to be of interest to Hitler. It's one of those "things" that right-wing nut jobs have a tendency to get all excited about.

Judging by the early info available it seems he attacked the island (and Oslo) because it was a Labour Summer Camp and he disagreed with the politics of the party (which is also in power atm)