What would you do with someone as evil as the shooter in New Zealand that killed 51?

AMKC

Me I think a normal prison is to good for a person that does something like that and a death sentence is just an easy way out for them. I think they should be thrown in a dark cold cell with no windows and just enough food. They obviously do not want to contribute in any meaningful way to society so why should it have to pay for him in a cosy cell while the family of those he killed had to very thereloved ones and will never see them again. I also think if we as a society done this it might be a deterrent to stop others from doing what he done.

seamus

I don't believe there's any purpose to be served in torture or cruel punishment. We know it doesn't discourage crime. We know it doesn't prevent recidivism. All it does is satisfy sadistic revenge fantasies.

Which would ultimately debase ourselves and undermine the entire basis on which we feel empowered to "judge" a serial murderer. How can society consider itself to be a moral arbiter when it's happy to engage in violence for the purpose of revenge?

My personal opinion is that anyone who has been sentenced to life imprisonment should, after a period of adjustment, be given the freedom to commit suicide. I don't mean just left alone with a belt, but if they express a rational desire to commit suicide, we assist them in doing it peacefully and dignified.

Then the problem goes away. If someone actually wants to spend the rest of their life in prison, so be it.

Ten of Swords

Life imprisonment without parole is the strongest penalty available in New Zealand and that is what he got.

There are plenty of nations that torture and brutalize their prisoners for various transgressions, thankfully New Zealand isn't one of them

Wanderer78

a good mass always solves the issues of the evil doers!

GooglePlus

I'd stick him in a cell for the rest of his life confined to solitude.

I can't think of anything worse, a death sentence would be an easy way out compared to that.

His radical ideology will soon fall apart when he's met with nothing but his own thoughts.

Wanderer78

GooglePlus wrote: »

I'd stick him in a cell for the rest of his life confined to solitude.

I can't think of anything worse, a death sentence would be an easy way out compared to that.

His radical ideology will soon fall apart when he's met with nothing but his own thoughts.

yup, psychologically torturing humans solves issues to...

Life in prison. Humane treatment is what a civilised society strides for.

Yes, revenge is tempting and I couldn't judge a parent harshly for seeking it but that's not the role of the Justice system. Force, violence and pain are only when needed. Revenge on behalf of a victim is not a need.

The death sentence is also tempting but until society reaches a stage where mistakes are impossible, it's not an option in my mind.

Life sentences are not the weak answer people perceive. Brady was begging for death for many years. Locked away, in his own head and unable to cause any further pain too society.

In Brady's case however I'm sure the temptation to make him feel what his victims felt was strong as was the desire to force him to give up the bodies.

I'm rambling, it's a complicated issue.

Wanderer78

Niner leprauchan wrote:

The death sentence is also tempting but until society reaches a stage where mistakes are impossible, it's not an option in my mind.

A world without mistakes and failures, would be one hell of a depressing place

Frankie Machine

Wanderer78 wrote: »

a good mass always solves the issues of the evil doers!

Mass murder, indeed.

AbusesToilets

In addition to the above mentioned life imprisonment, I would like to see their views challenged publicly. I feel that's one of the weaknesses of today's society, on that there's a movement to silence abhorent views instead of shining light on them. Let people see how empty and fallacious his ideas are.

seamus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

In addition to the above mentioned life imprisonment, I would like to see their views challenged publicly. I feel that's ones of the weaknesses of today's society, on that there's a movement to silence abhorent views instead of shining light on them. Let people see how empty and fallacious his ideas are.

Sometimes what seems obvious ends up having the opposite effect.

If it becomes the norm to take a psychopath, publish his manifesto for all to see, and engage in a public discussion about it, you can end up rallying more people to his cause.
People who would otherwise have never paid attention will identify with his arguments, ignore the debunking of it, and view him as a martyr.

As a result you get an increase in psychopaths going on killing sprees because they do it knowing they will gain noteriety and their insane ramblings will get a full public airing.

The US inadvertently got themselves into that mess by making every mass shooter a celebrity and publically discussing and dissecting their motives.

Imagine you're really angry about the world, feel like you have really important and absolutely right opinions that everyone needs to hear, but you're an outcast socially. Then you see the legacy and infamy that mass killers are given. That might eventually seem like a perfectly rational and reasonable option; people will die, but your message is bigger than anyone else and more important than a few lives.

The solution might be muzzling the media when it comes to mass killings. Come up with broadcasting guidelines that put serious restrictions on what the media can and can't discuss about mass killers, limiting them only to what is necessary for the satisfactory execution of justice and refrain from deep biographies, speculatory analyses, etc. Perhaps put a ban on publishing any photos of them, using a generic pseudonym to refer to them. And so on.

Wanderer78

Frankie Machine wrote:

Mass murder, indeed.

Ah no, just ordinary plain vanilla mass will deal with the evil doers

AbusesToilets

seamus wrote: »

Sometimes what seems obvious ends up having the opposite effect.

If it becomes the norm to take a psychopath, publish his manifesto for all to see, and engage in a public discussion about it, you can end up rallying more people to his cause.
People who would otherwise have never paid attention will identify with his arguments, ignore the debunking of it, and view him as a martyr.

As a result you get an increase in psychopaths going on killing sprees because they do it knowing they will gain noteriety and their insane ramblings will get a full public airing.

The US inadvertently got themselves into that mess by making every mass shooter a celebrity and publically discussing and dissecting their motives.

Imagine you're really angry about the world, feel like you have really important and absolutely right opinions that everyone needs to hear, but you're an outcast socially. Then you see the legacy and infamy that mass killers are given. That might eventually seem like a perfectly rational and reasonable option; people will die, but your message is bigger than anyone else and more important than a few lives.

The solution might be muzzling the media when it comes to mass killings. Come up with broadcasting guidelines that put serious restrictions on what the media can and can't discuss about mass killers, limiting them only to what is necessary for the satisfactory execution of justice and refrain from deep biographies, speculatory analyses, etc. Perhaps put a ban on publishing any photos of them, using a generic pseudonym to refer to them. And so on.

There's truth in that, some of the trend toward spree killing in the US can be traced to the attraction of the notoriety attained by the shooters.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

A world without mistakes and failures, would be one hell of a depressing place

Perhaps but I don't think executing innocent people is an acceptable risk

Jump_In_Jack

I wouldn’t think a mass murderer would consider life imprisonment as more of a deterrent than the death penalty.
And at least with the death penalty there would be no chance of escape, no chance of influencing others and no further cost to society.

If the murderer is unmistakably identified, and of no further value to the authorities to prevent future atrocities, then it would be best to put the murderer to sleep.

However, it gets complicated if the murderer has information that may be useful to fighting crime and terrorism.
And it would be very dangerous if there could be terrorists or criminals behind the murders that are threatening or encouraging the murderer to commit the atrocity, or facilitating the murderer in committing the atrocity.

In the case where it may be possible to extract important information from the mass murderer it would probably be better to try.

It’s very difficult to give a straightforward answer.

Wanderer78

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Perhaps but I don't think executing innocent people is an acceptable risk

Execution is kinna dump anyway, it doesn't solve anything

Gatling

If that happened here could you imagine the sentence that would be given.


If you have no death penalty life sentence is the only option and even at that he's going to be treated like a hero in prison

salmocab

I like that the media had a bit of a blackout on his name. I’m aware it’s available quite easily but I think the fact that most people won’t remember his name is a good thing. It’s hard to be a martyr if your name means nothing. Life without parole is the right sentence for him.

Wanderer78

Gatling wrote:

If you have no death penalty life sentence is the only option and even at that he's going to be treated like a hero in prison

No he won't be, he ll probably be isolated for a large proportion of the time he serves

Gatling

Wanderer78 wrote: »

No he won't be, he ll probably be isolated for a large proportion of the time he serves

What makes you think he will be isolated,

Could be gardening and taking yoga soon enough


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/29/yoga-herbs-and-sunshine-new-zealand-opens-humane-jail-for-most-violent-inmates

An Ri rua

seamus wrote: »

Sometimes what seems obvious ends up having the opposite effect.

If it becomes the norm to take a psychopath, publish his manifesto for all to see, and engage in a public discussion about it, you can end up rallying more people to his cause.
People who would otherwise have never paid attention will identify with his arguments, ignore the debunking of it, and view him as a martyr.

As a result you get an increase in psychopaths going on killing sprees because they do it knowing they will gain noteriety and their insane ramblings will get a full public airing.

The US inadvertently got themselves into that mess by making every mass shooter a celebrity and publically discussing and dissecting their motives.

Imagine you're really angry about the world, feel like you have really important and absolutely right opinions that everyone needs to hear, but you're an outcast socially. Then you see the legacy and infamy that mass killers are given. That might eventually seem like a perfectly rational and reasonable option; people will die, but your message is bigger than anyone else and more important than a few lives.

The solution might be muzzling the media when it comes to mass killings. Come up with broadcasting guidelines that put serious restrictions on what the media can and can't discuss about mass killers, limiting them only to what is necessary for the satisfactory execution of justice and refrain from deep biographies, speculatory analyses, etc. Perhaps put a ban on publishing any photos of them, using a generic pseudonym to refer to them. And so on.

It's a difficult plate to step up to but, yes, it's wise to treat the condemned in a civilised manner and most definitely to seek standards of media coverage.
A number of years ago, in NY State I think it was, the police realised that by documenting and the media subsequently broadcasting single car suicide/crashes as such, the rate went up. It literally fed the beast.
Good broadcasting guidelines, with oversight and sanctions, are essential across many strands of life.