Derailed: An off topic topic about nothing relating to the title.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Seeing as he killed 77 people, Sleepy is right. The man deserves to be thrown off of a cliff.

Obviously that won't work in Norway because of no death penalty, so life will do. Why that wasn't automatic is beyond me.

Sorry, United "900 years in prison" States has the right idea and Sleepy understood it clearly. At least 21 years in prison for murdering 77 people is lenient.

But he is not getting away with 21 years, I can fucking guarantee it. There's a cult forming behind his ideals, and everyone knows he doesn't regret what he did one bit (except for failing his original plan) so it's almost guaranteed he'll just strike again if he ever gets out.

And you think it makes some sense to give out sentences 20 times longer than the life expectency of a priosoner? Sure thing buddy. It's just a useless powerlevel. "Oooh, this guy got 200 years, must have done some real fucking bad stuff!". Life is a good penalty for those who deserve it, but giving out hundreds of years is just silly and childish.

PS: Agreeing out of ignorance isn't "getting it clearly".

Made in Finland wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Sleepy understood it clearly.

PS: Agreeing out of ignorance isn't "getting it clearly".

Ahem..."Understood it"

Ooh, nitpicking on typos, what a master argumentor you are. Well, it isn't "understanding it clearly" either.

Made in Finland wrote:Ooh, nitpicking on typos, what a master argumentor you are. Well, it isn't "understanding it clearly" either.

I'm sorry i just wanted to be a pain in the ass, i had no bad intention other than stated

For those talking about the DP, a DP would be a gift. Why it is considered a maximum punishment is beyond me; if someone kill many people, make him suffer the rest of his life for it, rather than lay him to rest in peace.

And, I kind of agree with the Norway system more (as Fin describes it). If it hits 21 years, and they reevaluate, it could last longer. Therefore, "21 years" could be one's entire life, could it not? And it probably will in the "77 deaths" case.

Our system sort of makes sense, but not really. The whole "900 years" thing is just an overkill sentence, so in case they get their sentene reduced for "good behavior" or etc, there is still no way it will be reduced to any number even close to their life expectancy. "Life sentence" doesn't really mean "for your entire life". I understand it, but that might just be because i'm used to it.

Made in Finland wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Seeing as he killed 77 people, Sleepy is right. The man deserves to be thrown off of a cliff.

Obviously that won't work in Norway because of no death penalty, so life will do. Why that wasn't automatic is beyond me.

Sorry, United "900 years in prison" States has the right idea and Sleepy understood it clearly. At least 21 years in prison for murdering 77 people is lenient.

But he is not getting away with 21 years, I can fucking guarantee it. There's a cult forming behind his ideals, and everyone knows he doesn't regret what he did one bit (except for failing his original plan) so it's almost guaranteed he'll just strike again if he ever gets out.

And you think it makes some sense to give out sentences 20 times longer than the life expectency of a priosoner? Sure thing buddy. It's just a useless powerlevel. "Oooh, this guy got 200 years, must have done some real fucking bad stuff!". Life is a good penalty for those who deserve it, but giving out hundreds of years is just silly and childish.

PS: Agreeing out of ignorance isn't "getting it clearly".

It's not agreeing out of ignorance, it's just another way of saying it. I personally don't care how it's said, the same result is given, and you shouldn't either. I don't think he's getting away with 21 years and nobody here does, so stop acting like it.

@Austin

If you don't mind dying, that's you. Defendants have many times completely come clean with a crime when told that the death penalty won't be pursued. People value their lives. There's only one of it.

Some people are so evil, so corrupt and poisonous that they need to be killed. Society has no place for them and has no reason to have them sit in some Norwegian summer camp of a prison.

eaustinn36 wrote:For those talking about the DP, a DP would be a gift. Why it is considered a maximum punishment is beyond me; if someone kill many people, make him suffer the rest of his life for it, rather than lay him to rest in peace.

And, I kind of agree with the Norway system more (as Fin describes it). If it hits 21 years, and they reevaluate, it could last longer. Therefore, "21 years" could be one's entire life, could it not? And it probably will in the "77 deaths" case.

I don't see how getting double penetrated would help.

No but seriously, that's true. Most spree killers actually commit suicide because they don't want to face the consequences and a life in prison. And yeah, Breivik is never getting out. Even if he gets out of prison, he'd be institutionalized for his own safety, because he'd be dead the day he gets out on public. I've seen this before.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not agreeing out of ignorance, it's just another way of saying it. I personally don't care how it's said, the same result is given, and you shouldn't either. I don't think he's getting away with 21 years and nobody here does, so stop acting like it.

I like how you're speaking for him and putting words in his mouth he didn't say. If he knew how the system worked, and that Breivik isn't really going to get out in 21, why would he imply that murderers get off easy in Norway? So yeah, no, that's not just another way of saying the same thing.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:If you don't mind dying, that's you. Defendants have many times completely come clean with a crime when told that the death penalty won't be pursued. People value their lives. There's only one of it.

Some people are so evil, so corrupt and poisonous that they need to be killed. Society has no place for them and has no reason to have them sit in some Norwegian summer camp of a prison.

I mind dieing, most people do. But, I have something to look forward to; that is the difference. We aren't talking life vs. death, we are talking locked up in prison till you rot to death vs. instant death.

You can't suffer or pay for a crime if your dead, you know what I mean? There is no suffering minus the 5 seconds of the actual killing part, whereas a life sentence in prison is an entire life of suffering. As Finland said, "Most spree killers actually commit suicide because they don't want to face the consequences and a life in prison", which means life in prison is worse to them, than death, and that is true for many in the US too, in the case of having no hope of ever getting out.

In cases where they might actually be released in the distant future, then yeah, the DP might be worse.

eaustinn36 wrote:In cases where they might actually be released in the distant future, then yeah, the DP might be worse.

That's not entirely true either. See: Shawshank Redemption.

Made in Finland wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:In cases where they might actually be released in the distant future, then yeah, the DP might be worse.

That's not entirely true either. See: Shawshank Redemption.

Eh I mis-worded that. I meant distant future as in like 10 years (10 years is a long time, to me at least). But yeah I see your point for sure.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALL OF YOU

Namorg wrote:SHUT THE FUCK UP ALL OF YOU

Are the words giving you a headache?

Made in Finland wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not agreeing out of ignorance, it's just another way of saying it. I personally don't care how it's said, the same result is given, and you shouldn't either. I don't think he's getting away with 21 years and nobody here does, so stop acting like it.

I like how you're speaking for him and putting words in his mouth he didn't say. If he knew how the system worked, and that Breivik isn't really going to get out in 21, why would he imply that murderers get off easy in Norway? So yeah, no, that's not just another way of saying the same thing.

Because a minimum of 21 years for 77 deaths is light. That means it is a possibility and it should never be given those circumstances.

Granted, my derailed thread cannot be derailed in this direction for long.

Spiderman.

Made in Finland wrote:You're a fucking retard.
You obviously didn't even bother reading a full article about it before posting about it and educate yourself even a little about the Norwegian law. It says AT LEAST 21 years. Do you know what "at least" means? Yeah. 21 years is the maximum penalty (something most countries outside of United "900 years in prison bicuz u r evul" States have). If, however, after 21 years he is still considered dangerous, he will get 5 more years, and get re-evaluated again after that, and they can keep on doing that for as long as they want.

Holy shit. Way to go flying off the handle over a joke, and a completely obvious one at that. No, I didn't read the full article or educate myself on Norwegian law, because I don't give a shit and I didn't need to. Believe it or not, I saw the "at least", and I knew that that meant he'd go to jail for at least 21 years. We have similar sentences in the US (called minimum mandatory sentences or something). I understand the concept. I also get the "reevaluating every five years" concept. We have that here too (parole). My point was, getting a minimum sentence of 21 years for killing SEVENTY SEVEN people is lenient as shit. Really, even if you think there's a chance he could change, he still killed fucking SEVENTY SEVEN people. SEVENTY fucking SEVEN. When you're talking about a number of people killed by a single person with a gun in a single instance, that's actually a lot. So regardless of how much he reforms, even if he becomes an absolute saint, he should still stay in prison forever. If he reformed, he'd get "Oh yeah, I killed 77 people that one time, I have to spend the rest of my life in prison. Even though I'm a nice guy now, I still get it; 77 people isn't something you can recover from in a lifetime. It's kind of completely irredeemable.".

I agree that the 900 years type sentences are fairly silly sounding. That's why there's life without parole. A sentence made for people who shouldn't ever leave prison under any circumstances, like for example, someone who kills 77 people. The point of the JOKE that you apparently missed was that 21 years is a light minimum sentence for someone who kills 77 people. The sentence should be life without parole. That would mean there's no minimum or maximum because he's spending the rest of his life in jail because he killed 77 people. Now, maybe Norway doesn't have life without parole. The joke still makes sense either way you look at it. Either they have life without parole and the joke points out how light the sentence was. They don't have life without parole and the joke points out how shitty their justice system is. Or, they don't have life without parole, but it is known that he's effectively got it because they'll never let him out anyway. The joke points out how ridiculous their justice system is (and never mind that the possibility of him getting out, no matter how remote, shouldn't even exist).

Note that I'm not saying it's a good joke. I'm just explaining the logic behind it.

Made in Finland wrote:
But he is not getting away with 21 years, I can fucking guarantee it. There's a cult forming behind his ideals, and everyone knows he doesn't regret what he did one bit (except for failing his original plan) so it's almost guaranteed he'll just strike again if he ever gets out.

And you think it makes some sense to give out sentences 20 times longer than the life expectency of a priosoner? Sure thing buddy. It's just a useless powerlevel. "Oooh, this guy got 200 years, must have done some real fucking bad stuff!". Life is a good penalty for those who deserve it, but giving out hundreds of years is just silly and childish.

Agree with how silly the 900 years things sounds again. But I just want to mention that the possibility of him getting out shouldn't exist, even if it won't happen. Even if he's effectively got life, he should have actually gotten life.

Made in Finland wrote:
I like how you're speaking for him and putting words in his mouth he didn't say. If he knew how the system worked, and that Breivik isn't really going to get out in 21, why would he imply that murderers get off easy in Norway? So yeah, no, that's not just another way of saying the same thing.

Pot calling the kettle black here. You're putting words in my mouth by implying I didn't get it. I did get it and know Breivik isn't getting 21 years. I implied murderers get off easy in Norway because getting the possibility of parole after 21 years for killing 77 people is... getting off easy. Say it won't happen all you like, but the possibility of it happening shouldn't even exist.

So basically, relax. Not all of us are in a perpetually awful-to-neutral mood. Sometimes we make jokes. I've explained why I implied murderers get off easy in Norway (the logic of the joke). I'm surprised that you not only completely missed it, but missed it and then got into an argument over it and at no point realized "Oh, that was a joke".

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Because a minimum of 21 years for 77 deaths is light. That means it is a possibility and it should never be given those circumstances.

For the billionth time, on paper 21 years is the absolute maximum in Norway, but it doesn't literately mean he's getting out in 21 years because the sentence can be prolonged indefinitely. This isn't a difficult concept. If they deem him fit for society and let him go, so be it. But that isn't happening,

@Sleepy: So what if it was a joke? It was an uneducated one, and it was implying that the law in Norway is too loose, which it isn't.

And once again, 21 years is the MAXIMUM sentence they can give to someone. Breivik got the full fucking penalty, literately the worst thing in the law. Are you implying they should make an exception just for him? The Norwegian law is one of the most sensible I know, and hey, equal right for everyone. The thing is, we all know the chance for him to get on parole really doesn't exist. In theory, yes, but it's never gonna happen and if it does someone is gonna go up to his house and shoot him. As said, I've seen it before.

Made in Finland wrote:@Sleepy: So what if it was a joke? It was an uneducated one

Uneducated? Uneducated!? Are you calling desert sleepy Uneducated? Look at this mother fucker!


With a degree that prestigious how could be possibly be uneducated! Jeez, fin.

Made in Finland wrote:@Sleepy: So what if it was a joke? It was an uneducated one, and it was implying that the law in Norway is too loose, which it isn't.

If 21 is the maximum someone can be given and life without parole isn't available, then I'd definitely say it's too loose. But I guess this would just come down to your opinion and sense of justice.

Made in Finland wrote:
And once again, 21 years is the MAXIMUM sentence they can give to someone. Breivik got the full fucking penalty, literately the worst thing in the law. Are you implying they should make an exception just for him? The Norwegian law is one of the most sensible I know, and hey, equal right for everyone. The thing is, we all know the chance for him to get on parole really doesn't exist. In theory, yes, but it's never gonna happen and if it does someone is gonna go up to his house and shoot him. As said, I've seen it before.

And I was saying that the maximum is too lenient. Not implying they should make an exception for him, saying they shouldn't have to. Saying they should be able to give out more than a 21 year maximum. And on the sensible part, it again comes down to your own sense of justice. I wouldn't call limiting yourself to 21 years and making parole even a remote possibility sensible. The chance for him to get out doesn't exist? Well, what about in forty years, what happens if the panel reviewing his case is very merciful and he seems or even has reformed? It's a possibility. Charles Manson could have possibly gotten out of prison if he'd have just stopped acting so crazy.

As for someone going to his house and shooting him, I've seen one single case resembling that. I don't buy it, it sounds like the typical unfounded shit talking you hear all the time on the internet (on any police brutality video "We're gonna rise up! ...Eventually", on any gun related video "They'll have trouble if they try to take my guns! ...Not really though".).