toldailytopic: What should be done to the man responsible for the Oslo Norway murder
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
zippy2006
New member
So at what point does human responsibility and paying the penalty for your actions come into play? :think: Is he a man who made a choice or a robot which malfunctioned?
The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, by C.S. Lewis
MrRadish
New member
As far as I can see, both of those things seem a bit irrelevant, particularly in comparison with the effective search for a sustained method of preventing the reoccurance of tragedy. I don't see why 'paying the penalty for your actions' is important per se, except possibly as a means of discouragement (and not a particular reliable one at that, as the continued existence of crime shows).
He is a man who made a choice for certain reasons, external and psychological, which are the product of society and of his own experience.
The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, by C.S. Lewis[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic thrust of what Lewis is saying seems to be that in treating criminality as a disease, rather than a choice for which justice demands retribution, then we risk imposing mercy/kindness on people that don't want it. This, according to Lewis, devalues mercy/kindness because it ceases to mean 'the fulfilment of a desire to be pardoned of a recognised wrongdoing'. There also seems to be a suggestion that he mistrusts the elitism that could result from experts defining a theraputic approach, presumably as opposed to his preferred alternative, the self-righteous baying of an angry mob.
If I'm not misunderstanding him and this is what he's saying, then Lewis' fundamental argument seems to hinge on his not wanting to alter his understanding of the word 'kindness'. Furthermore, he seems to make a number of unfounded basic assumptions, detailed herewith:
1. That the retributive 'Justice' system as it currently is does actually fulfil some purpose (already indicating that his argument is valid only to those who agree with it).
2. That kindness has to mean 'the fulfilment of a desire to be pardoned of a recognised wrongdoing' and not, for example, 'an interest in somebody's welfare'.
3. That the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment is motivated solely by a hollow desire for 'mercy' for individual criminals, and not the benefit of society as a whole.
4. That people are capable of making decisions for no reason.
5. That the current system treats everybody has having the right to an opinion and a reformed one wouldn't. Rehabilitation doesn't declare someone's psychological state to be 'wrong'. It declares it to be incompatible with society, which is why offenders are separated from everybody else. Offenders can refuse to cooperate with rehabilitation, in which case they typically remain seperated indefinitely.
6. That society has the right to declare somebody worthy of a painful death but does not have the right to offer them psychological assistance.
Finally, the last third or so of his argument seems devoted to the idea that a reformative rather than retributive justice system would threaten religion. In particular, the process he describes of an evil leader decreeing the 'treatment' of the religious, resulting in their death, is no worse and, as far as I can see, no more likely than an evil leader declaring adherence to a faith to be immoral and decreeing retributive punishment for it. Indeed the oppression of religious minorities frequently takes place in cultures with a strong emphasis on harsh justice, Hitler's Germany and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan being just two examples of this. Quite aside from this, the Justice System is an arm of the state, and I - along with most of the developed world - advocate its separation from religion. If the religious wish to condemn certain people as 'evil', so be it, but this should not affect (nor feel threatened by) the state refusing to do so.
Lewis' argument appears to me to be fundamentally tied by a desire to more closely link the penal system with his understanding of the relationship between 'justice' and 'mercy' in modern Christian dogma. It's understandable from a theological point of view, but to put it above the benefit either of individuals or society as a whole is, in my view, verging on barbaric.
zippy2006
New member
I will offer you a more thorough reply soon, but I think (from my glance) that you've misread Lewis a bit. He is saying that your redefinition of kindness turns man into a sort of robot; you devalue man at the same time. You are taking away his choice, his free will, his responsibility, and therefore demoting him. Even your statement:
...is indicative of the changing of man from man to a robot, designed for some end by the designers (those who shape society). Lewis' book the Abolition of Man is, unsurprisingly, about the abolition of man that comes of such thought. Such a psychologically deterministic view of man is also absurd from a logical point of view, since the examiner is a man himself.
If my computer "misbehaves" I fix it. I don't ask it permission, I treat it as a machine and change it; it has no say in the matter. If my child misbehaves I rebuke him and interact with him and explain it to him, I don't flip a switch in his brain to get him to act "correctly" and call it good. He is a human being. He must choose and his choice must be honored, not dismissed, else your own choice in handling the situation can also be dismissed just as easily by someone who believes it is simply a 'malfunction.'
More to come :e4e:
Sleepy Time
New member
Although I'm one who thinks Glen Beck is a wacko, detrimental to our country's recovery, I also hold to the credo that even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. He compared this guy to a 'Hitler youth corps' type. Typical Beck-(crap)-ola I would think.
I've not read much on this but was this guy in some kind of youth school? And was the curriculum decidedly left-wing indoctrination? I'm a firm believer in: "Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it comes from the far-right OR the far-left"
I simply don't know, too much on my plate (my brother's death, starting a new job) to even keep up with things.
I have no opinion here, I'm just wanting to know if anyone has any insight into this angle...
I've not read much on this but was this guy in some kind of youth school? And was the curriculum decidedly left-wing indoctrination? I'm a firm believer in: "Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it comes from the far-right OR the far-left"
I simply don't know, too much on my plate (my brother's death, starting a new job) to even keep up with things.
I have no opinion here, I'm just wanting to know if anyone has any insight into this angle...
Last edited:
I followed the ad at the top of the page for those demonic pig heathes, "amnesty international". They allow you to write a message, or put your own to the Governor Jay Nixon. Naturaly, I urged him to not profane God. Thanks for the easy access fellas. 
Intelligence? :idunno:
lol ... u ppl are funny ...
do all u ppl crying for the death penalty or cruel and unusual punishment even realise that ur exactly the same as the killer?
killer sits at home, looks out his window at the world, doesnt like what he sees and decides he wants to kill it ...
u sit at home, look at the news on tv, hear about a man who killed some kids and decide u want to kill him ...
"its justice!" says the killer, "coz the world is crazy and needs to be cleansed"
"its justice!" says u, "coz the killer is crazy and needs to be removed"
lol ... and this from ppl who are sposed to be civilised christians ...
can someone from the pro-death camp please explain why ur judgement of death upon another person is righteous but this guys judgement of death is not ...
as an aside, why do ppl who profess belief in God care so much when someone else is sent to Heaven? is it such a bad thing to die? ... i understand why atheists would be upset coz for them its the end of the road ... but to those who sincerely believe in God and the afterlife ... i really dont get it ...
There is a slim chance his boasts have some truth to them and he's working with others.
sorry ... i had to make 2 posts coz im not smart enough to know how to quote multiple posts in one entry ...
umm ... doesnt it follow from ur own argument that its in the greater interest of society to condemn prisoners to life without parole since by doing so they will kill 2.3 other prisoners instead of just the 1 that the courts would have put to death?
im guessing that the view of the pro-death lobby is that the rate of death sentences is far too low anyway so really these "lifers" are just implementing the executionary policy that the "queasy" far left court system is just too "nice" to undertake ... actually, u should be happy that prisoners are killing each other in such a fashion and be cheering them on to kill more ...
also, u say that "killing the one saved many" ... but the "many" being saved are prison scum ... murderers, rapists, child molesters ... ppl u would argue should be put to death anyway ...
u also say that by sentencing these ppl to life without parole instead of killing them, the left has created a "WORSE evil" since twice as many of them end up getting killed ...
this is all really confusing ... are you arguing that criminals should be killed or that its evil to do so?
did u really win state with this argument? ...
sorry ... i had to make 2 posts coz im not smart enough to know how to quote multiple posts in one entry ...
umm ... doesnt it follow from ur own argument that its in the greater interest of society to condemn prisoners to life without parole since by doing so they will kill 2.3 other prisoners instead of just the 1 that the courts would have put to death?
im guessing that the view of the pro-death lobby is that the rate of death sentences is far too low anyway so really these "lifers" are just implementing the executionary policy that the "queasy" far left court system is just too "nice" to undertake ... actually, u should be happy that prisoners are killing each other in such a fashion and be cheering them on to kill more ...
also, u say that "killing the one saved many" ... but the "many" being saved are prison scum ... murderers, rapists, child molesters ... ppl u would argue should be put to death anyway ...
u also say that by sentencing these ppl to life without parole instead of killing them, the left has created a "WORSE evil" since twice as many of them end up getting killed ...
this is all really confusing ... are you arguing that criminals should be killed or that its evil to do so?
did u really win state with this argument? ...
Honestly, I don't care if murders are killing *other* murderers inside of prison. That is not the justification behind the death penalty. Murderers are very similar to cancer. We don't isolate the cancer and just hope it behaves.
The death penalty is the only way to make sure that an individual never has the chance to murder ANOTHER innocent individual. While they are alive, there is always the chance that they can escape, kill prison personnel or be let out on good behavior.
Here is a list of murderers that were released to murder again:
http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html
A dead murderer cannot reoffend ... ever.
A doctor looks at a cancer and says we need to destroy this and remove it from the organism or it all eventually dies.
A liberal looks at a cancer and thinks if we just give it steroids, it has a chance to cure itself. We'll add human growth hormone for all the good cells to grow stronger. The result is you speed up the demise of the organism.
I loved your analogy, I never understood it as clearly as now.
A liberal looks at a cancer and thinks if we just give it steroids, it has a chance to cure itself. We'll add human growth hormone for all the good cells to grow stronger. The result is you speed up the demise of the organism.
I loved your analogy, I never understood it as clearly as now.
lol ... u ppl are funny ...
do all u ppl crying for the death penalty or cruel and unusual punishment even realise that ur exactly the same as the killer?
killer sits at home, looks out his window at the world, doesnt like what he sees and decides he wants to kill it ...
u sit at home, look at the news on tv, hear about a man who killed some kids and decide u want to kill him ...
"its justice!" says the killer, "coz the world is crazy and needs to be cleansed"
"its justice!" says u, "coz the killer is crazy and needs to be removed"
lol ... and this from ppl who are sposed to be civilised christians ...
can someone from the pro-death camp please explain why ur judgement of death upon another person is righteous but this guys judgement of death is not ...
as an aside, why do ppl who profess belief in God care so much when someone else is sent to Heaven? is it such a bad thing to die? ... i understand why atheists would be upset coz for them its the end of the road ... but to those who sincerely believe in God and the afterlife ... i really dont get it ...
lol ... u ppl are funny ...
do all u ppl crying for the death penalty or cruel and unusual punishment even realise that ur exactly the same as the killer?
Wrong ...
Wrong. It's not about personally deciding to kill some anonymous Joe Smoe off the street. Death penalty advocates understand that the only way to keep violent predators from reoffending is to permanently remove them from society. They are a malignancy.
What's rather crazy is that you believe you are speaking for those who commit heinous acts towards other human beings and actually compare them with those of us who want to protect society from such vile cretins.
As well as some nonbelievers such as myself!
Sure can! "We" don't go around murdering innocent human beings. They do. Understand yet?
Being a Christian or Atheist has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the death penalty. For a Christian, my guess would be that they would tell you the individual STILL has a chance to be saved while sitting on death row.
For a non Christian such as myself, I just want the walking, talking human cancer of society removed PERMANENTLY.
Understand?
His/her analogy is stupid ... as well as your own.
NO YOU ARE!
rofl.
if you are going to say it's stupid, explain why it is stupid, so you don't look so stupid.
I guess you can rename me, and make up terms that don't exist in an attempt to demonize me all you want. It proves you are a petulant debater (use the term loosely.)
I'm sure you think you are being cute and using logic here. I really tried to find it. All I can find are lies and strawmen. Let me explain.
You think killing 2.3 white collar offenders, tax dodgers, would hold the same reasoning as killing a captial murderer? No wonder you guys have no clue what the issue is with Capital Punishment. You can't make sense of crimes. "It depends on the definition of IT your honor". sigh.
If the person of the 2.3 murdered by a capital offender were capital offenders, I guess I'd still have issue with it because it usurped the powers of lady justice and may have removed the appeal that would have proven the person innocent.
So to answer your question, it would only follow to my own argument...... if you were a petulant, problematic, non truth seeking, manipulator, and perpetuator of arguments.
I'm sounding like Jesse Jackson there. Again with the demonization. I mean if your argument is weak, nothing like saving face by implying the person you discuss with is a demonic horde of badness. You get sympathy votes that way. Like Obamma and closing guantanamo, (he kept it open when he got i office because he was shown he was an idiot to suggest it....)
Can you show me anyone, anywhere that said death sentences are too low? I'm in TEXAS, no one here would say that. We use capital punishment more than most states combined. The far left, queasy??? Isn't my term, I think queasy is far to generous. You guys would feed the world until they forgot how to feed themselves, you would build dependence on govt, you would feed cancer rather than excise from the organism, all in the name of "we are morally better!". There I returned your idiotic implications back in kind. See how stupid it looks?
Only a true leftist wouldn't know the difference in capital murder and white collar crime. Your position is really, that tax evaders are as evil as murderers? That's the position yoU MUST take to say what you just said. Who would want justice to be usurped and an undeserving person die. I guess you guys on the "left" (out ofthe line for common sense.) have a tough time with assigning guilt or innocence. For you, everyone is a victim. It's probably all just a misunderstanding anyway. Every capital offender should be made sheriff of a county, and then we can watch how they enforce the law and learn to empathize with their thinking and inner child.....
You are condoning the killing of non capital offenders. I guess you feel that isn't a worse evil.
It must be confusing for you. Your responses show your head screwed around so many directions you don't know up from down. No one has ever said criminals should be killed. That's a strawman lie, which is the only defense you have. :| That alone should tell you something. if you'd listen or not.....
It's evil to put a known capital murderer in a position where he could kill 2.3 more people, outside of justice, that may not have been capital offenders anyway.
if you think otherwise, it explains why you can't see the reasoning to this conversation. You should recuse yourself.
[
NO YOU ARE!
rofl.
if you are going to say it's stupid, explain why it is stupid, so you don't look so stupid.
Unless you can show where any liberal has suggested treating cancer by using steroids and human growth hormones rather than removing it, you are just spouting off ... stupidly.
You didn't show anything. You just made a proclamation.
I did the same thing, except my comment had an appropriate analogy at least.
BTW
www.dictionary.com simile
That was probably unfair. You could be challenged. Let me back up.
You have a cancer cell, that multiplies exponentially and makes more and more cancer cells. Cancer cells are bad. they eat up things we need inside to live.
The most common treatment for putting off cancer is removing the bad parts, and keep the cells from spreading.
Now, you have a person in society, who premeditates the cessation of life of another. Once they cross that line, they are categorically more likely to be repeat offenders in society, and 2.3 times more likely to do it in prison on a life sentence. The human body, and the human race are borth organisms. One of the body, one an "organism" of homo sapiens. When you get a bad cell remove it.
You can try to feed human growth hormone to counter the cancer, but it only enables it.
You can try to rehabilitate a person that premeditated murder, but it only enables it.
I admit, if you find this stupid, I'm stupid. There was a time this logic prevailed........>>>> Wood floats, iron sinks, iron boats will sink.
I guess I was hoping for a little creativity on your side to track the conversation. I'll try to recall not to expect as much of you in the future. Will that prevent our issue from repeating?
:devil: