My views on the death penalty is typically reserved for the most heinous crimes, mass murder. There are no questions of guilt, and to my mind the world would certainly be a better place without them in it.
Indeed, it is just that, very progressive and humane. And shouldn’t be for the inhumane.
No worries there. A person that has murdered 77 people will likely face a maximum penalty of 21 years confined to a “cell” that is furnished better than many apartments, and he’ll even have something of a better lifestyle than some. Norway’s version of what constitutes a “harsh penalty.”
I disagree. It’s more about meting out a appropriate penalty. The closest to the Breivik mass murders is the Oklahoma Bombing massacre;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Apparently you believe that Timothy McVeigh should not have been given the death penalty.
How about Osama binLaden? I believe there's a line that is drawn for most, and for those that don't believe in such a penalty, they just haven't seen that line.
Which is why I made the comparison of the “Elohim” from HG Wells Time Machine; I frankly wonder if they have the capacity to deal with violent behavior. Treating mass murderers with rainbows, kittens, and butterflies, doesn’t strike me as an appropriate penalty. (Or as it might be the case, flat screen TV, private amenities, jogging trails, and a personal trainer)
Are you saying we should reserve judgement because it's another culture, so we should also reserve judgement on say...Saudi Arabia and China and their implementation of the DP as well?