|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: That Norway Massacre... started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2012,10:53
is < going to trial. >He killed 77 people. 8 in the bombing of a government building, and 69 kids at a camp. QUOTE However, the court will have to decide whether Breivik is sane. If sane, he faces up to 21 years in prison; if deemed criminally insane, he would be committed to psychiatric care. Go ahead and do the math on that one. 21 years for the massacre of 77 people, most of whom were hunted down like animals. They didn't die peacefully, but in total panic and fear. None of this factors in the countless other victims who escaped death or had loved ones murdered. This is why liberals suck. They're so concerned with appearing civilized according to today's standards, which are constantly changing, that they forget about the victims while falling over backwards trying to protect the criminal. Hey George Clooney, here's a nice example of where liberals are wrong. No, the man doesn't have to be executed, although financially, it makes sense...but he should NEVER have the opportunity to be a free man again. Posted by Leisher on Aug. 24 2012,10:20
Liberal justice: Kill 77 people, mostly teenagers, and < get 21 years. > What a joke. Posted by GORDON on Aug. 24 2012,10:26
There's a mechanism though that he gets reevaluated at 21 years to make sure he is "better, now?" I think I heard that.At least with a life sentence you know you are never getting out.... giving this guy hope to be dashed has gotta hurt. Assuming they ever actually keep peeps locked up at the end of their sentences. Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 24 2012,10:30
< No, it's life >.QUOTE The five-judge panel in the Oslo district court unanimously convicted Breivik, 33, of terrorism and premeditated murder and ordered him imprisoned for a period between 10 and 21 years, the maximum allowed under Norwegian law. Such sentences can be extended as long as an inmate is considered too dangerous to be released, and legal experts say Breivik will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison. That trial went exactly as he wanted, though. From what I understand of the Norwegian prison system, he's going to get three cells to himself, one for living, one with exercise equipment, one with a laptop (and probably limited internet access). I also think post-secondary education is freely available to all inmates. Posted by Leisher on Aug. 24 2012,10:33
Do you know how easy it would be to pretend that you're full of regret and reformed? Liberals typically eat that shit up.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 24 2012,10:35
(Leisher @ Aug. 24 2012,12:33) QUOTE Do you know how easy it would be to pretend that you're full of regret and reformed? Liberals typically eat that shit up. This dude is not going to do that. He's content to spend the rest of his life in solitary, away from the multicultural demons he's fighting against. He's agreed not to appeal any verdict that finds him legally sane. He has shown zero remorse at all points in the trial. There is no trace of any shame or guilt. Posted by Leisher on Aug. 24 2012,11:05
Give this some thought...He's trying to change their society, and make it less accepting because he believes it's killing their culture and making them vulnerable to threats. If he goes to jail and stays there defiantly, he's their Manson, only without the followers. Although, let's be honest, he'll get some. But what if he begins to change at around the 10th year of his sentence? He starts expressing remorse and regret. He writes a book all about his sins and his mistakes. He writes the families of his victims to apologize, but not ask for forgiveness because "he doesn't deserve it". The liberals eat it up, and he gets out and does some interviews about his remorse, yada, yada, yada. Then 2 years later he pulls the same shit only with a bigger body count. When arrested and interviewed he explains his remorse was all an act to show how weak Norway is and how they need to change to protect themselves from outsiders who can easily manipulate the system. Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 24 2012,11:05
By my way of thinking, it would be more humane to kill him. Keeping someone alive to be locked up with no freedom for the rest of their lives is just too cruel. Much kinder - and more morally correct - to kill them.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 24 2012,12:27
(TPRJones @ Aug. 24 2012,13:05) QUOTE By my way of thinking, it would be more humane to kill him. Keeping someone alive to be locked up with no freedom for the rest of their lives is just too cruel. Much kinder - and more morally correct - to kill them. Norway subscribes to the "rehabilitation" philosophy. Taking freedom is viewed as far less heinous than taking life. I'm personally ambiguous. On the practical side of things, killing can be done to save time, space, cash, resources, etc. It's also irreversible. On the idealistic side of things, I'm inclined to make certain people's lives as much of a living hell as possible so as to dissuade other psychos from trying similar things. It's just so goddamned expensive. |