Nazi cult murderer Charles Manson is rotting in hell!

[KiwiRob]

Killing is wrong, which is why he's in prison.

He killed 77 people there's absolutely no doubt it was Anders, he admitted it, he should have been executed. Even my very Norwegian wife thinks the polce made a huge mistake by not killing him when they had the chance. In open and shut cases like this the death penalty is the only just form of punishment. But since this is Norway chances are he will be back out on the street some day.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

He killed 77 people there's absolutely no doubt it was Anders, he admitted it, he should have been executed. Even my very Norwegian wife thinks the polce made a huge mistake by not killing him when they had the chance. In open and shut cases like this the death penalty is the only just form of punishment. But since this is Norway chances are he will be back out on the street some day.

Nobody is saying he didn't do it.

The police are not the courts. When you get into a situation where the police are handing out sentences without trial then you're in very dangerous territory.

What difference does it make whether it's an "open and shut" case? So are you saying when it's not open and shut, the punishment should be a prison sentence and not capital punishment? Why is someone being punished if there is doubt they're guilty?

 

[Matski]

Then you need to get a new travel agent.

I agree, that room is far too opulent for any murderer. They should live a very basic existence for the rest of their lives, and life should mean life.

But the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. It does not make right what they've done wrong. It just reduces the justice system to the same level as the murderers.

Also, there is an argument that it makes victims more likely to be killed in robberies, for example, because if they survive they can testify.

I'm unlikely to change your stance on the matter, but for clarification, I don't believe in the death penalty in all cases of murder. For somebody facing life incarceration it simply makes no sense to invest time and money in that person, or to ingore the risk that they may find a way to offend again. They relinquish basic human rights at the point they decide to take others lives en masse for no purpose other than to take life, and in the case of Brevik - they have probably already accepted that their actions will result in their death, be it by a Judges order, or an armed response team... in that respect I accept that it's no deterrent, I just see it as a sensible, lower risk, efficient outcome.

Manson was trying to trigger what he believed was the inevitable downfall of society. Both he and Brevik effectively devoted their existence to undermining society and taking away peoples life, liberty and freedom... they must have at least accepted and at worst expected that this choice they made would result in their death.

Maybe, I'm just too reasonable... if I decided to kill lots of innocent people, I'd expect to die too... and maybe I expect to see that in others!

 

[Zafiro]

I prefer Breivik in prison. He is suffering there. His freedom is extremely limited and he can't do shit. He will die of slowness. If another prisonmate finds him, Breivik will be murdered and he will be dropping the soap over and over and over again.

 

[Matski]

I prefer Breivik in prison. He is suffering there. His freedom is extremely limited and he can't do shit. He will die of slowness. If another prisonmate finds him, Breivik will be murdered and he will be dropping the soap over and over and over again.

There are people who haven't murdered anyone with no effective freedom, who don't have the shelter and comfort he does, and that aren't provided with food, heat and clothes. I'd prioritize them over trying to make someone suffer. It is simply a waste of resources to look after him.

Let's also hope he doesn't get bored or fed up enough to stab a guard in throat with a shiv, thereby managing to ruin more lives and add to his body count whilst incarcerated. It's a worthless risk.

Why waste resources and take risks in order to keep someone alive who has demonstrated they themselves have no appreciation for the value of life.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

There are people who haven't murdered anyone with no effective freedom, who don't have the shelter and comfort he does, and that aren't provided with food, heat and clothes. I'd prioritize them over trying to make someone suffer. It is simply a waste of resources to look after him.

Let's also hope he doesn't get bored or fed up enough to stab a guard in throat with a shiv, thereby managing to ruin more lives and add to his body count whilst incarcerated. It's a worthless risk.

Why waste resources and take risks in order to keep someone alive who has demonstrated they themselves have no appreciation for the value of life.

I must admit, if there's ever a reason to support capital punishment, Anders Breivik is it. But civilised societies don't stoop to his level. We're better than that.

That's my only reason not to support the death penalty.

 

[Deleted member 1071]

...They relinquish basic human rights at the point they decide to take others lives en masse for no purpose other than to take life, and in the case of Brevik - they have probably already accepted that their actions will result in their death, be it by a Judges order, or an armed response team... in that respect I accept that it's no deterrent...

Precisely.

 

[KiwiRob]

Then you need to get a new travel agent.

I agree, that room is far too opulent for any murderer. They should live a very basic existence for the rest of their lives, and life should mean life.

But the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. It does not make right what they've done wrong. It just reduces the justice system to the same level as the murderers.

Also, there is an argument that it makes victims more likely to be killed in robberies, for example, because if they survive they can testify.

I agree it doesn't serve as a deterrent but it's better to remove people like this form circulation permanently so that there is no possibility of them getting out and doing it all over again, which happens frequently.

So in your opinion the tirals arfter WW2 should have put those NAZI monsters in prison not hung?

There are some people whose crimes are so bad a death sentance is the only valid form of punishment.

 

[KiwiRob]

I prefer Breivik in prison. He is suffering there. His freedom is extremely limited and he can't do shit. He will die of slowness. If another prisonmate finds him, Breivik will be murdered and he will be dropping the soap over and over and over again.

Breivik will never be put into the general prison population, he doesn't mingle with anyone, his only human contact is with his guards and lawyer. But Norway is Norway, his 21 year sentence will eventually come to an end and he will be back out on the streets. The same thing happened with Arnfinn Nesset, sentenced to 21 years, was released after 12, this all round nice guy was convicted of 22 murders but is believed to have killed 138 people.

 

[Centurion]

The same thing happened with Arnfinn Nesset, sentenced to 21 years, was released after 12, this all round nice guy was convicted of 22 murders but is believed to have killed 138 people.

It's sickening that you can commit atrocities but can be released early by acting nice. It's unjust when the victim has to endure a lifelong injury or even worse, death.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

Breivik will never be put into the general prison population, he doesn't mingle with anyone, his only human contact is with his guards and lawyer. But Norway is Norway, his 21 year sentence will eventually come to an end and he will be back out on the streets. The same thing happened with Arnfinn Nesset, sentenced to 21 years, was released after 12, this all round nice guy was convicted of 22 murders but is believed to have killed 138 people.

The alternative to the death penalty shouldn't be early release. We're talking about two different things. The death penalty is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should ever be released from prison, so don't use your support of the death penalty by using examples of someone being released early.

 

[klier]

The same thing happened with Arnfinn Nesset, sentenced to 21 years, was released after 12, this all round nice guy was convicted of 22 murders but is believed to have killed 138 people.

What's up with people from there becoming mass murderers? I'd be care full with the tab water if I were you Rob.

 

[KiwiRob]

The alternative to the death penalty shouldn't be early release. We're talking about two different things. The death penalty is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should ever be released from prison, so don't use your support of the death penalty by using examples of someone being released early.

My point was it's Norway Breivik will likely be released early, I doubt he will spend his life behind bars, the Norwegian system isn't allowed to do that, 21 years is the maximum he can spend behind bars, when the reality is he should be dead. I don't know a single Norwegian who thinks keeping him alive is a good idea.

Another nasty POS who should also be executed is Ratko Mladic, but I guess you can also find reasons why he should remain breathing, just think of the 8,373 Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica massacred under his direction. I'd also execute Colonel Thomas Jakob Peter Karremans for being an utterly incompetent idiot, but what did the Dutch do they promoted him, those 8,373 mens blood is just as much on his hands as Mladics.

 

[KiwiRob]

What's up with people from there becoming mass murderers? I'd be care full with the tab water if I were you Rob.

It's a passive society, people get away with a lot here, just don't speed and you'll be OK!

 

[Deleted member 1071]

It's a passive society, people get away with a lot here, just don't speed and you'll be OK!

My, my-does this sound familar.

Traffic violations (always), littering (well, maybe sometimes) and "insults" in verbal form or in the form of "hand signs" directed at fellow citizens (almost always) will lead to big-time busting here in Absurdistan (aka Bundesrepublik Deutschland).

All else...ummm...not so much.

 

[Mick Briesgau]

My, my-does this sound familar.

Traffic violations (always), littering (well, maybe sometimes) and "insults" in verbal form or in the form of "hand signs" directed at fellow citizens (almost always) will lead to big-time busting here in Absurdistan (aka Bundesrepublik Deutschland).

All else...ummm...not so much.

One more thing: paying your tax late or not at all (and if your not paying your "Rundfunkbeitrag aka Zwangsabgabe").

 

[Mick Briesgau]

I'd also execute Colonel Thomas Jakob Peter Karremans for being an utterly incompetent idiot, but what did the Dutch do they promoted him, those 8,373 mens blood is just as much on his hands as Mladics.

Hmm, poor results in historyclass...?

 

[Deleted member 1071]

One more thing: paying your tax late or not at all (and if your not paying your "Rundfunkbeitrag aka Zwangsabgabe").

You just DON'T EVEN f**k with the GEZ, Mick.

 

[KiwiRob]

Hmm, poor results in historyclass...?

No I did well in history, I know a few people who were actually there when it happened? My best friend’s wife was working for the UN and was in Bosnia when the massacre occurred. The man's a coward, he should have fought to the last man to save those people. Soldiers when well led can pull off miracles against insurmountable odds, a couple of good example are the Battle of Mirbat and the Siege of Jadotville.

 

[klier]

I'd also execute Colonel Thomas Jakob Peter Karremans for being an utterly incompetent idiot, but what did the Dutch do they promoted him, those 8,373 mens blood is just as much on his hands as Mladics.

Incompetent without a shadow of a doubt, but I have to agree with @Mick Briesgau here, do something about your history please. Karremans was working for the U.N, and if anything, the imcompetence is fully on the U.N. The way you make it sound is absolutely mad.

Absolutely riciculous of the highest order to name him with Mladic. Period.