Who says I'm trying to compare Norway to Poland? I'm not fantastic at explaining myself though, so maybe it sounded like that. I haven't looked up the homeless statistics in norway or anything. All I know is that almost anyone else deserves that money to be spent on them more than the serial killer. While on the subject of norway though, I applaud their low crime and murder rates. Maybe if I lived somewhere more like that I would have different views on the death penalty. Who knows.

Once you go on a killing spree. from my point of view, your human rights are gone. I don't those people as equals. If it were my choice, those people would be dead. Not because I'm thinking "grrr I'm so angry, I want payback!", like you would love to believe. But because in my eyes, they signed off their "human rights" when they commited such a sick act(s). The way I think of it, they are below human.

inb4 "but I already told you it costs more to kill someone etc". I've already responded to that.

I see where you are coming from Diazepam. But losing freedom itself is losing something substantial. Killing is simply the easy way out. Both for us and the criminal. On top of being barbaric that is.

so justice is ignored? all criminals lose out, jails just become holding cells for people to slowly starve to death in. what you are suggesting is the subversion of justice. what if a person killed another in self defense by gets sentenced to man slaughter? shoudnt waste money on them when there are children with cancer afoot. what about other jurisdictions where drug trafficking results in death penalty, no need for a court appointed lawyer, lets just prosecute by default because we arent wasting money on a no good drug lord. just serial killers? what about non serial killers but killers nonetheless that dont show remorse? what about the killers who show remorse in later years of incarceration?


kill one person kill five people. link back to what i have typed above.

There's nothing in that post that I can sensibly reply to. If you don't understand/accept/whatever my view on the death penalty by now then there isn't much else I can say to explain it better. There's no point asking me "what about xyz criminal in xyz country". I've already explained in previous posts which criminals I was talking about and my imaginary, ideal form of the death penalty.

alright then, how come you insist that money not be spent on justice? on ensuring that society doesnt become more monstrous than the criminal?

what about the middle ground when it comes to homicide? killing spree = 2 people? 4 people? 6 people?

at what point do you suddenly waive away human rights because for you it is simply convenient?

I don't insist that.


Regular life inprisonment i'd say.


When they kill people for stupid reasons.

So Ducky. You're saying that if someone kills people, he shouldn't be killed himself?


Guess what? Prison isn't even bad to people like that. Or regular people. I read a story where a guy stayed in prison 14 years just to avoid paying alimony.

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/a ... /7year.htm


I'm just saying. Why worry about taking the moral high ground? Rapists and murderers certainly don't, and they could care less what happens to themselves or others. Give sympathy to those who deserve it. Most of those people are sociopaths and psychopaths that take advantage of people and hurt them, and they would still do that before, during, and after prison. I don't care if it's "similar to nazi eugenics", because those type of people are mentally deficient and don't deserve to live.