Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:44 pm

Yes, I meant your standards.

Thing is, you didn't point out any flaw, hence my comment. You might not agree with it, but him not being in jail for life is an intended feature of their legal system, so you essentially just decried a feature as a bug.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:00 pm

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.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:36 pm

But they can't say that because the maximum sentence for his crime isn't locking him up forever.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:42 pm

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.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:44 pm

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.
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:36 pm

Feud wrote: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.

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.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:37 pm

Agreed.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:20 am

Cooper42 wrote:The US and UK systems - beyond what the judiciary would like to think - are about the worst possible places to encourage rehabilitation


That depends on which court we're talking about.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:24 am

Feud wrote:If it's to hold him until he's "rehabilitated", however that would be determined, why have a minimum at all?

Deterrence. Where there not a minimum and crimes of passion would essentially be legal.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:41 am

Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:If it's to hold him until he's "rehabilitated", however that would be determined, why have a minimum at all?

Deterrence. Where there not a minimum and crimes of passion would essentially be legal.


If that's the case, then a person's disincentive per crime is reduced the larger and more heinous that crime is. A murdering one person in Norway means that for that life you might serve 21 years. If you kill two, you only have a deterrence of 10 1/2 years each. Three, it's only seven.

If we are to assume that the criminal is sane, as is the case here where they are sent to prison rather than a mental health facility, and where "rehabilitation" can get them out after a set amount of time regardless of the scale of their activity, doesn't that give an incentive to make the crime as general and wide spread as possible out the outset?

It turns criminal justice into a buffet table: pay a set amount and have your fill, whether it's one plate or ten.
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:37 am

This assumes it is normal to receive the maximum sentence for the murder of a single person.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:42 am

Or that people are likely to think "well, I was going to kill this person who I hate, but considering the ratio of years in prison vs. bodycount I should probably kill everyone I meet en route too, it makes mathematical sense!"
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:28 pm

Neil Armstrong died :(
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:51 pm

zjoere wrote:Neil Armstrong died :(

*salutes*
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:14 am

Xarlaxas wrote:Or that people are likely to think "well, I was going to kill this person who I hate, but considering the ratio of years in prison vs. bodycount I should probably kill everyone I meet en route too, it makes mathematical sense!"


Perhaps unlikely, but given that the current system allows (even if just in a technical sense) that the guy who detonated a car bomb downtown and then methodically murdered 70 children might leave prison in twenty years because he realized that what he did was a bad thing, I'm not sold on it.

As for Neil Armstrong, sleep well good sir. I wish that your funeral were attended by the first man to walk on Mars, hopefully we'll do your legacy justice.

Finally, just got around to seeing the new Batman. Good, the French Revolution in America aspect was really interesting. but, I liked the Dark Knight and Batman Begins more.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests