Excuse Me While I play The Worlds Smallest Violin (Brevik)

[Crown]

Not to cheapen this with a terrible pun, but I'm willing to bet he played a Rogue.

I take offense to that. So does my Goblin Rogue Flaggix.

Yep, deffo a Rogue.

[Scrib]

So...personal dislike is an argument for warehousing people? I mean, I can take it a few steps further and think of an actual argument but I'm sleepy and I don't want to guess.

Do you not perceive a difference between "I personally dislike Fred" and "Fred is a bloody menace to society with a proven track record of literally destroying innocent lives?"

Whether he attempted to stab you to death is not, on it's own, a convincing argument for or against the idea that he would be redeemed after thirty years or whether he should be released after that time period. That's the problem with your argument.

But do you not grasp the difference between "I hate Fred and want him to suffer" and "I think Fred is dangerous and will always be dangerous?"

Because that's where you're coming down on this case. You, who are totally ignorant of the murderer's personality and behavior, assume that Raw Shark is motivated by personal hatred or spite. It doesn't even seem to occur to you that he might be motivated by having seen and heard this person, both at the scene of a crime and in trial afterwards. That he might have information about this particular murderer that you don't have, which might convince him that the murderer is very unlikely to ever really regret his actions or change his ways.

If we trust parole boards implicitly maybe this isn't a problem- but given the limits of psychology as a science in the modern era, I find it very hard to believe that they can be relied upon as the sole line of defense as to whether certain people no longer pose a threat. Breivik is one such person.

I can absolutely perceive the difference, as I said in my first post on this issue it's a few steps away from an actual argument (and there are strong ones to be made), you could jump in at least two directions from the post that started this, however I don't particularly see why I should run around looking for said argument, when it should have been clear from the beginning. Perhaps it is uncharitable for me to be this way but c'est la vie.

Also:Can totally see the argument about parole boards but if we're talking about the limits of modern psychology we must ask who is better suited to utilize this limited tool. I suppose this is where the argument made for life-without-parole that could be overturned would come in. It at least puts the burden on the criminal.

[Simon_Jester]

I can absolutely perceive the difference, as I said in my first post on this issue it's a few steps away from an actual argument (and there are strong ones to be made), you could jump in at least two directions from the post that started this, however I don't particularly see why I should run around looking for said argument, when it should have been clear from the beginning. Perhaps it is uncharitable for me to be this way but c'est la vie.

It was perfectly obvious to me what he was saying. I think you're going a little beyond 'uncharitable.' And into 'I suspect I understand you, but I can't be bothered to respond to this argument as though I actually understood it. So here, let me construct this strawman instead.'

Also:Can totally see the argument about parole boards but if we're talking about the limits of modern psychology we must ask who is better suited to utilize this limited tool. I suppose this is where the argument made for life-without-parole that could be overturned would come in. It at least puts the burden on the criminal.

Honestly, for a parole hearing the burden of proof should always be on the criminal's side; they should have to point to an exemplary record and a serious good-faith effort to prepare for rehabilitation and return to society.

This is not to say that most prisoners should be denied parole- it's just that we should make it a routine expectation that they have to work for parole, and put conditions in place to make that the natural process for them. So on the one hand, they have to work for it. On the other hand, failing to work for parole should be a conspicuous thing that flags the inmate for special psychiatric and disciplinary attention, sort of how a failing child in a school is flagged for special attention.

Why? Why should we build nursing homes in prisons to keep the infshould irm elderly murderers who haven't committed a crime in 40, 50, or 60+ years locked up because justice/revenge? So the private prison industry can charge taxpayers out the ass when a Medicare/ Medicaid facility would charge much less?

I would think it fairly easy to keep open the functional equivalent of a publically operated nursing home. If there were even that many such convicts who live to geriatric age without parole in the first place.

I mean if the 80 year old is still stabbing people and shit that's one thing, but most 80 year olds (if they live that long, prison healthcare is an atrocity) are not even inclined to do that. Even if they did murder someone in their distant past. There will always be exceptions, but you gotta look at the bigger picture.

Personally, I think that "life without parole" should be reserved for a short list of very severe cases.

When someone has committed a crime that severe, for whatever definition of 'that severe' that we choose to use... I think it is justified to do something a little outside the normal bounds of how we treat other prisoners. In this case, keeping them in jail literally until they die- because the action is such that we cannot take chances and cannot extend to them that trust, that statement of "you're a free man again," even symbolically.

In the case of the 'ordinary' first degree murder, maybe "30 years and you're out with good behavior" is actually enough. In other cases, though, I think the added expense to the state is justified by the combination of (slightly) reduced risk and the benefit to society of having at least some kind of collective statement that there are truly permanent consequences for this great a crime against innocent people.

I agree that for the vast majority of inmates prison is or should be literally all about rehabilitation and preparing the convict to reenter society as a productive citizen. I do think there are some exceptions, where it is about confining them for the public safety and also preserving some sense of "this is an action we cannot accept or come to terms with, this is just too much to be forgiven or forgotten."

[Scrib]

Honestly, for a parole hearing the burden of proof should always be on the criminal's side; they should have to point to an exemplary record and a serious good-faith effort to prepare for rehabilitation and return to society.

This is not to say that most prisoners should be denied parole- it's just that we should make it a routine expectation that they have to work for parole, and put conditions in place to make that the natural process for them. So on the one hand, they have to work for it. On the other hand, failing to work for parole should be a conspicuous thing that flags the inmate for special psychiatric and disciplinary attention, sort of how a failing child in a school is flagged for special attention.

True, but in the case of a flat 30 year limit on sentencing there is no burden is what I meant to say, unless there is a final board for extremely heinous crimes. At least with the life-without-parole thing there is a burden. And I don't know, I would think that that burden is even greater than what regular parolees face though tbh I'm not truly sure.

[Flagg]

To be fair I said 30 to life. So just like in Norway with Brievik the worst of the worst would likely never get out.

[Grumman]

Brievik should never be released. Anyone willing to commit mass murder as a distraction so he can commit more crimes is surely willing to try to trick the Norwegian equivalent of a parole board for the same ends. Quite simply, he cannot be trusted.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Brievik should never be released. Anyone willing to commit mass murder as a distraction so he can commit more crimes is surely willing to try to trick the Norwegian equivalent of a parole board for the same ends. Quite simply, he cannot be trusted.

If for no other reason, he should remain in prison for his own protection. With 77 bereaved families (give or take), not to mention his face being known to the rest of the public, I can't imagine there'd be anywhere in Norway that he could live without fear of reprisal from someone.

[Ritterin Sophia]

He doesn't like his PS2? Take away his fucking game console and give him a deck of cards and some string to play with.

That's too direct. Replace his PS2 with an Apple Pippin and if he complains make it a Nokia N-Gage.