solarz
Brigadier
I think we will shortly be seeing a change in that law. I seriously doubt the Norwegians would be satisfied with only 21 years for this guy.
Major terrorist attack in Oslo, Norway
- Thread starter Maggern
- Start date
I think we will shortly be seeing a change in that law. I seriously doubt the Norwegians would be satisfied with only 21 years for this guy.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Hmmm In our country sentencing laws aren't retrospective. I wonder if its the same in Norway.
Maggern
Junior Member
It's the same yes.
Two points:
1. We are somewhat proud of being able to keep a law-abiding society even with such meager sentences compared to other countries. It's what makes Norway Norway. Police are not allowed to carry guns without special ad hoc permission, and we don't believe in prisons.
2. Although there will certainly be an uproar to introduce harsher punishments, especially in the case of terrorism, politicians have made it clear that Norway's response to this will be to be MORE open and MORE democratic, and that we will not let violence influence our behaviour for the worse. If anything, sentences would be reduced to show this guy he cannot budge Norway in the direction he wants.
(Pardon if it sounds a bit too patriotic, but meh)
Quickie
Colonel
The matter of justice aside, what about the question of keeping this guy from doing more menace to the public? What will happen after the 21 years? Is he allowed to roam free again with the risk of him doing more menace to the public?
Red___Sword
Junior Member
I am in no position to "judge" one law system from another, and I think if people read news these few days
would know that China just sufferd from a major and successful terrorist attack that is also aiming governmental building at Xinjiang, (although currently, as of today, the more concentrated headlines would be the CRH train accident, WTF of the world is it today?) - My point is, there are 4 humanoid animals being arrested, and there is no way they can get away with anything other than join their "pals", at hell.
A whole set of Law system which running a country, it is indeed could be made as if "law" is something philosophic and artful, that law is something we helding it at a "higher" moral place, for us to abide with law, we are persuing something make us human to "next level" - like, no life should be taken other than god, no death penalty....
But I still would like to point out that law is aim for certain (good) persue of the society (a more "civiled world"), law should also "solve problems" - problems that haunted us the inperfect world.
Like Quickie said, 21 years of prison, what's after that? The nut getting out and do something again? - Despite we normal guys having a big trouble to figure out how to justify the balance of "** (till now, 81?) people's death, in return, we have had transformed one bad guy into a normal productive member of the social community, by our great justification system of law"... despite that, what keeps the guy from doing something again? (maybe not killing 80 plus people in "wholesale" this time, but assaulting one single innocent is still lost of a one innocent people) - and what keeps ordinary people who are as less enlighted as we (or at least me) are, can't take the consequence and trying to "throw over" the balance of thier current living society and thus simply makes social unrest?
How to justify THAT?
- man I recall last time anyone trying to thumbing the people trying to change some social reality - they call them "dictator"s; and anyone trying to "reason" with those people have a different mind with current social reality - they call that "brainwash"... If the bad guy only get 21 years of sentence as predicted, it DOSE brings out this kind of questions.
Maggern
Junior Member
Not to turn this into a discussion of which society or legal system is superior to another, the point is that Norway was something before this. And if we tear down exactly what makes Norway Norway to pursue this lone nut, we have given him the greatest gift he ever wanted. His motif seems to be to "wake up" a naïve and pacifist society.
This man will never be allowed to mingle in the streets as a common man again. The law is not blind, even if it is lenient. Most likely he will serve his 21 years, without the possibility of perole, and then spend the rest of his adult life in some kind of seclution in society, under constant surveillance (footchain?), and with no access to internet or any other two-way media. He won't be in jail, but he won't be able to blow anything more up. And this person is quite obivously not one who wishes to walk around stabbing casual people on the street. He has done his "physical" job, now it is time for sickening propaganda.
For common crimes, I feel it is more important to give every felon a second chance, and not lock him or her up for the rest of eternity, thinking "what if". I think Norwegian society is of the opinion that most habitual criminals are exactly that because of their neighbourhood, friends and experiences. The cycle can be broken if a proper re-introduction into society is performed, and they might even end up adding to society by getting a job. Those that are crazy, are most usually identified as such and are admitted to psychiatric hospital or something for the remainder of their lives.
In conclusion, I'm not saying this is right for every community. But I say that society should not change because of the actions of a few individuals. That's exactly the goal of terrorism. The fact that 9/11 had happened, which was a shock to the WHOLE west, and not just the US, meant Norway this time was shocked, but had already seen how other countries had dealth with their attacks. As such, I think the Norwegian government felt it could take a more cautious course, and learn from possible mistakes others had done. In whatever way that might have been. If China suffers a terrorist attack, they should of course deal with that in whatever way they see necessary. But I think showing the terrorists that nothing changes by their actions, only their incarceration and whatever, is the greatest victory a society can have.
This man will never be allowed to mingle in the streets as a common man again. The law is not blind, even if it is lenient. Most likely he will serve his 21 years, without the possibility of perole, and then spend the rest of his adult life in some kind of seclution in society, under constant surveillance (footchain?), and with no access to internet or any other two-way media. He won't be in jail, but he won't be able to blow anything more up. And this person is quite obivously not one who wishes to walk around stabbing casual people on the street. He has done his "physical" job, now it is time for sickening propaganda.
For common crimes, I feel it is more important to give every felon a second chance, and not lock him or her up for the rest of eternity, thinking "what if". I think Norwegian society is of the opinion that most habitual criminals are exactly that because of their neighbourhood, friends and experiences. The cycle can be broken if a proper re-introduction into society is performed, and they might even end up adding to society by getting a job. Those that are crazy, are most usually identified as such and are admitted to psychiatric hospital or something for the remainder of their lives.
In conclusion, I'm not saying this is right for every community. But I say that society should not change because of the actions of a few individuals. That's exactly the goal of terrorism. The fact that 9/11 had happened, which was a shock to the WHOLE west, and not just the US, meant Norway this time was shocked, but had already seen how other countries had dealth with their attacks. As such, I think the Norwegian government felt it could take a more cautious course, and learn from possible mistakes others had done. In whatever way that might have been. If China suffers a terrorist attack, they should of course deal with that in whatever way they see necessary. But I think showing the terrorists that nothing changes by their actions, only their incarceration and whatever, is the greatest victory a society can have.
I largely agree with many of your sentiments Maggern and I certainly understand the logic of the Norwegian response.
There is though a question that runs in my mind.
I would have no doubt about the logic of the Norwegian approach if this was an external terrorist threat. This sort of thing brings people together and a united front is easy.
This however was an internal matter and if such actions can achieve one outcome, it is that it can shatter unity which has become delicate.
I have no doubt that while few, if any, will agree with the man's actions or laud him as a radical visionary etc, I do wonder if he is just the tip of a Tromso iceberg and that many others; if not saying "there but by the grace of god go I", have not at least daydreamed in an idle moment of doing something to wake the dozing nation.
I am curious just how much of the hidden conversation in Norway is more in tune with the aims of the gunman than many would like to believe and that soon, some will argue that simply maintaining the status quo is untenable and could risk unrest?
I ask this because for many countries these are now interesting times, and if financial stagnation and drift is affecting Norway as it affects many others caught in the Atlantic Financial Crisis, underlying worries and concerns have a way of crystallising around significant events.
There is though a question that runs in my mind.
I would have no doubt about the logic of the Norwegian approach if this was an external terrorist threat. This sort of thing brings people together and a united front is easy.
This however was an internal matter and if such actions can achieve one outcome, it is that it can shatter unity which has become delicate.
I have no doubt that while few, if any, will agree with the man's actions or laud him as a radical visionary etc, I do wonder if he is just the tip of a Tromso iceberg and that many others; if not saying "there but by the grace of god go I", have not at least daydreamed in an idle moment of doing something to wake the dozing nation.
I am curious just how much of the hidden conversation in Norway is more in tune with the aims of the gunman than many would like to believe and that soon, some will argue that simply maintaining the status quo is untenable and could risk unrest?
I ask this because for many countries these are now interesting times, and if financial stagnation and drift is affecting Norway as it affects many others caught in the Atlantic Financial Crisis, underlying worries and concerns have a way of crystallising around significant events.
airsuperiority
Captain
Instances where the flaws of laws failed to do justice for those who died
The point I think Maggern is making is that the view of Justice being served is primarily the right of the bereaved or otherwise victim.
The reaction of these people will be paramount in determining the final outcome of the event.
Also remember just who the vast majority of the victims are. They are the children of supporters of the ruling party and in some instances of senior and elite party members. This means that much of the response will be aimed pretty much internally and aim to give collective voice to the Socialist Party. Party Unity will be the stepping stone to National Unity, so in that sense, the stakes are very high. This is part of the potential conundrum to which I alluded in my previous post.
airsuperiority
Captain
I see both sides of the arguments from Red Sword,Plawolf and Maggern, and I appreciate and agree from both sides of the post. Topics like these can go on forever, so I'd only say, that those who created the law aren't no real philosophers, and laws can never truly dictate the gravity of an action, for law is man-made, but the rules of the universe aren't. There are also enough flaws in the systems of our societies as it is, if we examine from philosophical, criminological, and sociological perspective to start off the bat. My high school teacher once said, "Why do we punish criminals by locking them up in an institution with each other? What kind of punishment is that?" (this validates Maggern's argument)
However simultaneously even as a psychology major that I am, while although I believe man is born a blank slate, I hold great reserve that once they've adopted their values, they can be completely rehabilitated or "taught" to change and thus changes the game. I believe there are some who can be changed and given a second chance, and these are the ones who merely aren't aware of the wrong ways of their actions. These ones are the ones who are prospective to good change if given proper help.
On the other hand, there are some who are born insensitive/immune to whichever ideas you bring forth, because either it's been drilled into their minds for too long, or that they are unable to perceive these senses. (Some Anti-Social Disorder patients, aka the commonly-called psychopaths), are some examples.
(for some reason I'm reminded of those classic cases of China bashers LOL) These ones are much harder to work with because psychologically speaking, they are equivalent of a blind person. Even if you give them a pair of functional eyeballs donated by a deceased person, this newly visually-capable person will still be unable to comprehend certain features and patterns, such as facial recognition and etc(probably permanently, as they didn't develop this ability in their early years). Same goes to a child who didn't learn to socialize or speak prior to age 11. Past that age and they can never truly adapt the full functionality of language as flexible as we do. In fact, they can't even get anymore advanced than 3 year old when it comes to using languages and sentence structure. For that reason, my argument is within my analogy that some of these offenders might be unable to perceive their actions as wrong because they lack that complete stem of moral fiber. (think about it, sometimes it's even frightening enough how bias can lead the western media to skew their reporting of tibet and uiyghur incident, although again that can emerge as conformity to authority argument..)
Going further ahead, if you combine various factors together, we even get many arguing their case on the behalf of "insanity", although it clearly is an excuse for lighter sentence. As these cards maybe skillfully played, the loopholes in the system, criminology, and the complexity of psychology makes a society too ideal towards hardened individuals a rather ineffective and inappropriate system to use.
However simultaneously even as a psychology major that I am, while although I believe man is born a blank slate, I hold great reserve that once they've adopted their values, they can be completely rehabilitated or "taught" to change and thus changes the game. I believe there are some who can be changed and given a second chance, and these are the ones who merely aren't aware of the wrong ways of their actions. These ones are the ones who are prospective to good change if given proper help.
On the other hand, there are some who are born insensitive/immune to whichever ideas you bring forth, because either it's been drilled into their minds for too long, or that they are unable to perceive these senses. (Some Anti-Social Disorder patients, aka the commonly-called psychopaths), are some examples.
(for some reason I'm reminded of those classic cases of China bashers LOL) These ones are much harder to work with because psychologically speaking, they are equivalent of a blind person. Even if you give them a pair of functional eyeballs donated by a deceased person, this newly visually-capable person will still be unable to comprehend certain features and patterns, such as facial recognition and etc(probably permanently, as they didn't develop this ability in their early years). Same goes to a child who didn't learn to socialize or speak prior to age 11. Past that age and they can never truly adapt the full functionality of language as flexible as we do. In fact, they can't even get anymore advanced than 3 year old when it comes to using languages and sentence structure. For that reason, my argument is within my analogy that some of these offenders might be unable to perceive their actions as wrong because they lack that complete stem of moral fiber. (think about it, sometimes it's even frightening enough how bias can lead the western media to skew their reporting of tibet and uiyghur incident, although again that can emerge as conformity to authority argument..)
Going further ahead, if you combine various factors together, we even get many arguing their case on the behalf of "insanity", although it clearly is an excuse for lighter sentence. As these cards maybe skillfully played, the loopholes in the system, criminology, and the complexity of psychology makes a society too ideal towards hardened individuals a rather ineffective and inappropriate system to use.