The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Oslo (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Well explained Lobo.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4966 Posts

Profile of landmark
Not sure what your point is here Lobo.
I don't think there's been a wide acceptance that anybody who kills must be insane. What exactly are you referring to? Unless you think that people suffering from psychosis should be tried as others, I'm not aware that the non-delusional have been getting free passes willy-nilly. I guess I can think of Dan White, and I'm sure you're familiar with others, but does it really seem to you as a growing problem? Asking nicely here.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Can't speak for Lobo, of course, but his phrase, "the act becomes it's own excuse" is profound. It's definitely something I'm going to spend some time thinking about.
1tepa1
View Profile
Special user
694 Posts

Profile of 1tepa1
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 00:34, acesover wrote:
Do you feel that this guy really deserves a trial?

Mind you I said a trial. I am not speaking of his mental state. Lets assume he is found fit to stand trial. Do you feel he deserves one? Does anyone believe he is innocent?

Again assuming he is found mentally fit to stand trial. Why should he just not be executed? Is that uncivilized? Should a person be excuted who just killed 90 plus people and is judged mentally compentent? If so why? Maybe because he is a killer who thinks nothing of killing children. But I am just guessing here. Some may believe he has rights. Of course I believe he forfeited those rights when he killed all those people and everyone knows he did it.

Should we be asking why should a person who just executed 90 plus people warrant a trial when he has been judged mentally fit to stand trial for something we know he did? Should he be fed and clothed for the duration of his waiting to stand trial? Should he have cable TV while waiting? Just asking here.


First of all its not legal to execute anyone in Norway. And yes I think it is stupid to kill someone BECOUSE THEY KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not a good law. He should have a trial even tho we all know he did it and he admits it even himself. But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.


I think the real reason we have a trial is so that the evidence of his guilt is presented and evaluated - it may not seem important in a clear cut case like this, but it is extremely important in more ambiguous cases - so we must always follow the established procedure.

As for his punishment, the older I get, the colder my heart grows against perpetrators like him - I have moved from a staunchly anti capital punishment youth to a reluctantly pro capital punishment middleage. Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.
1tepa1
View Profile
Special user
694 Posts

Profile of 1tepa1
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.

Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.
[/quote]

I agree.
1tepa1
View Profile
Special user
694 Posts

Profile of 1tepa1
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:02, 1tepa1 wrote:
Quote:
Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.



I agree
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
As I sked in my post and honestly while there are many excellent points of view expressed here I do not believe that anyone has answered my question. That being. What is the point of the trial in this case? I can see where if the trial were by passed and we went right to punishment phase of the system many could argue that a very dangerous precedent has been set. Honestly that is the only reason I can see for a trial. I admit it is a rather good one. However this will end up being a media circus and a lot of attention will be focused on an individual that certainly does not deserve to draw another breath of life on this planet.

I understand that , The Law is The Law. But does it answer the underlying question of wht a trial will prove in this instance. We know he did it, we have come to the conslucion that he is of sound mind (that has been presumed in my asking the question of a trial) and he admits comitting the act. What is the point of a trial?

I am sure a trial will be costly, which only adds to this terrible act. Put this person away or excute him and be done with it. He does not deserve the time or energies of any sort of justice system as we all know he is guilty of this terrible act of mans inhumanity to man. The worse act a single human can commit is the taking of other lives to satisfy your own desires.

Again I say this is nothing more than an opinion (my opinion) and I feel that this person does not warrant a trial but only punishment as we all know he is guilty. There is no chance he did not commit this act. We are not going to find out he was home with his family whenthis tookplace and has eye witnesses to prove this. We have stated that in this instance he is of sound mind. Why the trial?

Maybe we should have the trial so he can get marriage proposals and letters from people who "understand" him. He is not worth the food he will consume nor the air he will breathe before his sentence is pronounced.

Is this a knee jerk reaction on my part? Maybe. But please tell me what a trial will accomplish. A trial is for the purpose of finding out whether a person is guilty or innocent and if guilty to what degree. Does any one here have any doubt to these questions? Again we have said he is guilty and of sound mind. Sems like we should proceed to the punishment phase.

All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 02:32, Destiny wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 01:10, balducci wrote:

In this particular case, it appears that he published a confession and so it sounds as though the trial should (hopefully) be cut and dry.


I think Balducci has it right - WE deserve a trial of even the most undeserving - the facts are presented and a verdict delivered - it's a system that has served us quite well for a long long time. In this case the evidence seems overwhelming.

As for his sanity, I don't know what Norwegian law states, but here, in the case of Martyn Bryant who carried out the Port Arthur massacre, although there were issues surrounding his mental health, the fact he was able to plan and carry out the attack, rendered that argument void.

I would hope that any decisions regarding such a person's fitness to stand trial were decided by a judge and jury - not a mental health expert - they often seem too close to their speciality to render an impartial verdict from my casual reading of news stories. (*I don't know that Norwegian law even works anything like ours - US, Canadian, Australian etc are all based on the English justice system, or 'British' as MARK LEWIS would insist Smile )

I hate to open this can of worms, but the "I'm crazy", "I was drug affected" and "I had a terrible childhood" excuses don't play well with me. Plenty of people with the same problems do not do terrible things.


I can say a little about this (at least how it would work here in America) because court evaluations are where the majority of my education has been, but I can't render an opinion on his exact diagnosis because that would be unethical.

What I can say is that just being insane does not get a person out of trouble. It has to be shown that they were too insane to know what they were doing. That is clearly not the case here.

Even if a person is declared insane however, contrary to popular belief, a person usually spends far longer in a mental institution than they would have in prison. That's because prison has to let them out when their time is up. A mental institution doesn't have to let them out until they are better, which in criminal cases is usually never. There are occasional fudge-ups, of course, but overall it is no gift to be declared Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI).
Once that declaration is made, the first step is commitment proceedings. There is no walking away for them.

As I said though, that is America. I have no idea how it works in Norway.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:25, critter wrote:

As I said though, that is America. I have no idea how it works in Norway.


This is important. Let's stand back and respectfully watch and support Norway as it deals with this tragedy.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:14, acesover wrote:
All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing you to listen to his reasons.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:14, acesover wrote:
All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing you to listen to his reasons.


However profound you feel your last statement is. You are wrong. There will not be anyone who reads a newspaper or watches television or for that matter mingles with other people who will not be forced to hear what he has to say.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Thanks for that Critter - helps my understanding.

Acesover - I really take your point and to a large degree, agree. but I suspect this is why we describe the justice system as 'due process'. It is just a process, and in this case, an obviously superfluous process, but it is 'due'. We don't do it for him - we do it for us. If we agree as a community to accept certain laws of behaviour and behave according to them at risk of punishment, then there must be a declared process for dealing with transgressions.

Otherwise we are just a mob, deciding on whim or rumour that someone is guilty and dropping them by a noose from a nearby tree.

Like you, I don't need to hear a thing about his motivations or manifesto. If it's true, as I think I heard , that he surrendered the moment authorities appeared, it says a lot about him that he thought it okay for kids to die for his cause, but was not willing to give up his own life.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:38, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.


To answer your first questions. To find out if they are guilty or innocent. In this case there is no doubt.

If you read my post the only downside in not having a trial could be the prcedent it sets. I am also talking about this case right now. Not what wil happen in the future. Again I am not trying to change laws. I am asking what will this trial accompliish? What will it accomplish other then to let him get on the stand and tell the world his reasons for this.

So the long and short of it is he gets what he wants and tells the world why he did it and Norway gets to have an expensive trial to find him guilty as we already know he is. I guess there is some sense to that I just find it hard to find. Remember I am talking abaout this case right now. Not any other case. This is more of a discussion of logic rather than law. I do understand some of the possible repercussions of no trial. But I am asking WHAT WILL IT ACCOMPLISH?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
I think it keeps things working correctly - like waiting for the light to turn green even when we see there are no cars coming.

I hope Lobo shows up - he always provides good insights into discussions like this.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
I think it is stupid to kill someone BECOUSE THEY KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not a good law.



So, by that logic, what's your suggested punishment for someone convicted of kidnapping? I assume you'd agree it's stupid to confine someone in a small place against his will BECAUSE HE CONFINED SOMEONE IN A SMALL PLACE AGAINST HIS WILL. That would be an eye for an eye.

Which is not to say that there aren't good arguments against capital punishment, but this isn't one of them. There's a difference between an act used as a criminal sanction and the same act committed against an innocent person.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Wow, I read Destiny's post right after I posted my last. Talk about wasting a wish.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:47, Destiny wrote:
Thanks for that Critter - helps my understanding.

Acesover - I really take your point and to a large degree, agree. but I suspect this is why we describe the justice system as 'due process'. It is just a process, and in this case, an obviously superfluous process, but it is 'due'. We don't do it for him - we do it for us. If we agree as a community to accept certain laws of behaviour and behave according to them at risk of punishment, then there must be a declared process for dealing with transgressions.

Otherwise we are just a mob, deciding on whim or rumour that someone is guilty and dropping them by a noose from a nearby tree.

Like you, I don't need to hear a thing about his motivations or manifesto. If it's true, as I think I heard , that he surrendered the moment authorities appeared, it says a lot about him that he thought it okay for kids to die for his cause, but was not willing to give up his own life.


Finally an answer. "Due process". Unfortunately as stated it is in this case superfluous and that is my whole point. What will it prove? Not trying to derail "due process". I am only trying to point out that having a trial in this case accomplishes nothing. However it does support the justice system and that is reason enough, regardless of how flawed.

However I stand by my point that as far as justice is concerned it accomplishes nothing in this case. It only prolongs getting to the punishment phase while giving this individual the spotlight. Which is exactly what he wanted. The killing was only a means to an end for him.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:57, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-07-25 10:38, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.


To answer your first questions. To find out if they are guilty or innocent. In this case there is no doubt.

If you read my post the only downside in not having a trial could be the prcedent it sets. I am also talking about this case right now. Not what wil happen in the future. Again I am not trying to change laws. I am asking what will this trial accompliish? What will it accomplish other then to let him get on the stand and tell the world his reasons for this.

So the long and short of it is he gets what he wants and tells the world why he did it and Norway gets to have an expensive trial to find him guilty as we already know he is. I guess there is some sense to that I just find it hard to find. Remember I am talking abaout this case right now. Not any other case. This is more of a discussion of logic rather than law. I do understand some of the possible repercussions of no trial. But I am asking WHAT WILL IT ACCOMPLISH?
For one, it will shine sunlight on his insanity. Whether he shrivels from the light, or stands confident in his madness, this will give the act some context. From how I see Norway handles violent crimes, this broader understanding is important to their society.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Oslo (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL