Let's go.........RANDOM!
So Todd Akin apparently has decided to stay in the election race. Pretty funny guy actually. And also reveling one of the things I always find strange about Americans: on the one hand you are geniuses that can land on the moon and mars and on the other hand there are people like Todd Akin. Makes you wonder if there are any americans that don't fall into the genius or complete lunatic dumbfuck territory
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
zjoere wrote:So Todd Akin apparently has decided to stay in the election race. Pretty funny guy actually. And also reveling one of the things I always find strange about Americans: on the one hand you are geniuses that can land on the moon and mars and on the other hand there are people like Todd Akin. Makes you wonder if there are any americans that don't fall into the genius or complete lunatic dumbfuck territory
Relevance
EDIT: link
Last edited by GreenRock on Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
No, I neither expect them to, nor do I think they should. I dislike retroactive legislation or ex post facto laws.
Rather, I see it as an inherent flaw of the Norwegian legal system. In law, how and why something is done is often just as important or more so than what is actually done, as it carries legal and symbolic weight. Regardless of whether functionally this will end up being a life sentence, I dislike what the verdict represents.
Rather, I see it as an inherent flaw of the Norwegian legal system. In law, how and why something is done is often just as important or more so than what is actually done, as it carries legal and symbolic weight. Regardless of whether functionally this will end up being a life sentence, I dislike what the verdict represents.
Last edited by Feud on Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A different standard from what? I haven't compared it to anything.
I presume you mean a different standard from either what I believe, or from the US legal system. It's certainly a different standard than what I would like, and a different one from the US. But, I'm not saying the US system is free of it's own flaws in murder cases.
Regardless of whether the result is the same as if the ruling were for life in prison, I dislike the legal system declaring him to be sane, declaring a punishment for his actions, but then reserving the right to indefinitely extend that punishment for what may be decades on end. I see that as a shortcoming. Law should stand for the the why and the justice involved as much as actual result.
I presume you mean a different standard from either what I believe, or from the US legal system. It's certainly a different standard than what I would like, and a different one from the US. But, I'm not saying the US system is free of it's own flaws in murder cases.
Regardless of whether the result is the same as if the ruling were for life in prison, I dislike the legal system declaring him to be sane, declaring a punishment for his actions, but then reserving the right to indefinitely extend that punishment for what may be decades on end. I see that as a shortcoming. Law should stand for the the why and the justice involved as much as actual result.
Last edited by Feud on Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've expanded both posts a bit to be more clear about what I mean.
I realize that it is intended to be a feature, but it is a "feature" that in this case I believe has shown itself to be a flaw.
A few years ago I worked nights at a grocery store. We used plastic bags, and they worked well for what we needed them to do. One day the store decided to change to a more "green" bag, made of more recycled materials and that used less plastic. The feature, if you will, was that we were cutting down and trying to do more to save the environment. The problem was that the new bags were junk, they could hardly carry even moderate loads from the till to a car in the parking lot without breaking. Consequently, nearly all loads had to be double bagged, sometimes even triple. We were using far more bags, and plastic, than before. Our new feature worked well sometimes, but under the weight of a larger load it fell apart.
I think that the legal system here is similar. The well intentioned feature of being more "humane" is resulting in them issuing a verdict, then saying that they might need to double or triple bag it down the road. But we're talking about people, both the criminal and families who deserve closure. To say "he killed 77 people, he might get out but maybe not, we'll figure that out later" I think is absurd. If you're going to lock him up forever, at least have the humanity to tell him and his victims so.
I realize that it is intended to be a feature, but it is a "feature" that in this case I believe has shown itself to be a flaw.
A few years ago I worked nights at a grocery store. We used plastic bags, and they worked well for what we needed them to do. One day the store decided to change to a more "green" bag, made of more recycled materials and that used less plastic. The feature, if you will, was that we were cutting down and trying to do more to save the environment. The problem was that the new bags were junk, they could hardly carry even moderate loads from the till to a car in the parking lot without breaking. Consequently, nearly all loads had to be double bagged, sometimes even triple. We were using far more bags, and plastic, than before. Our new feature worked well sometimes, but under the weight of a larger load it fell apart.
I think that the legal system here is similar. The well intentioned feature of being more "humane" is resulting in them issuing a verdict, then saying that they might need to double or triple bag it down the road. But we're talking about people, both the criminal and families who deserve closure. To say "he killed 77 people, he might get out but maybe not, we'll figure that out later" I think is absurd. If you're going to lock him up forever, at least have the humanity to tell him and his victims so.
Let's then assume that he repents and rehabilitates in those 20 years, is it really more "humane" to lock him up for double or triple his current sentence to save on paperwork? And if he doesn't, then he's aware that he won't get out, so I don't see how it's toying with him since he should know the result before the evaluation is even made. The only exception I can think of is if he repents near enough to an evaluation that the result becomes uncertain.
While I admit that the idea of him getting out at all can be concerning to the victims, what the court said was essentially "he won't get out as long as he's dangerous", the victims have 20 years to move on and the assurance that even if he gets out it's unlikely for him to do it again.
You're asking for a more "humane" system that favours certainty over actual humanity.
While I admit that the idea of him getting out at all can be concerning to the victims, what the court said was essentially "he won't get out as long as he's dangerous", the victims have 20 years to move on and the assurance that even if he gets out it's unlikely for him to do it again.
You're asking for a more "humane" system that favours certainty over actual humanity.
So what goal are you suggesting they pursue?
If it's to hold him until he's "rehabilitated", however that would be determined, why have a minimum at all? If he's rehabilitated after 5 years, why hold him longer?
Setting a minimum time limit implies that such is punitive. Given the scope of his crime, it seems a bit small. It seems like they're trying to balance between punishment and justice with rehabilitation, and neither is being done good service.
If it's to hold him until he's "rehabilitated", however that would be determined, why have a minimum at all? If he's rehabilitated after 5 years, why hold him longer?
Setting a minimum time limit implies that such is punitive. Given the scope of his crime, it seems a bit small. It seems like they're trying to balance between punishment and justice with rehabilitation, and neither is being done good service.
I think you've just summed up every decent justice system pretty much anywhere.Feud wrote:It seems like they're trying to balance between punishment and justice with rehabilitation, and neither is being done good service.
What the Norwegian system does is err towards rehabilitation as a possibility. The US and UK systems - beyond what the judiciary would like to think - are about the worst possible places to encourage rehabilitation
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests