I really think that all the bad criminals should die after first crime, if its more like assault or theft. If u do crime in finland you have a reason to die, thats my obinion. But if you kill some person that killed your family its ok to kill him or her without consequence´s. Say i am crazy but thats my honest obinion.

you’re crazy

…what?
There are very few crimes for which rehabilitation doesn’t work. I’m thinking people who are multiple murders etc… And maybe those could be killed. But as the American example and common sense shows, accidents do happen, and killing few guilty people is not worth it if innocent people are killed accidentally too.

So, I’m against it. Personally, rest of your life in jail might be worse punishment than death. Also; it isn’t like our prisons are FLOODING with prisoners as it is. And that’s about only justification for killing a prisoner I can think of.

Death penalty does not serve much purpose. Using death penalty as ultimate punishment does little to decrease crimes. In fact, death penalty might seem nicer than spending rest of your life in jail. I simply do not believe it’s worth it that for the few criminals that simply can not be controlled, we could cause much more suffering. It’s not like it’s much of a cost issue either, because people on death row aren’t exactly any cheaper than any other prisoners.

Death penalty is pretty much like torture.

The death penalty is simply hypercritical. If you say that noone can kill and then on the other hand mandade the state to have the abilty to murder surely all your credibility is gone.

The death penalty is simply resorting to the base instinct of revenge and is best left out of civilised modern societies.

Death penalty is pretty much like torture.

death penalty might seem nicer than spending rest of your life in jail.

…so life in jail is worse than torture?

If you say that noone can kill and then on the other hand mandade the state to have the abilty to murder surely all your credibility is gone.

I’m not allowed to lock people in my own private prison. But if I do something naughty, I’ll get sent to a prison. Is that hypercritical?

The death penalty is simply resorting to the base instinct of revenge and is best left out of civilised modern societies.

I’m not sure it’s always revenge people seek. Life in prison often means 10-20 years. So you kill someone and end their life, and in 10 years you’re out enjoying the rest of yours. People don’t have much faith in the system, they know it’s often that people don’t spend life in jail, death penalty is a sure why that they won’t be enjoying their life later on.

BTW – I’m against the death penalty for two reasons 1) it can never be undone 2) I think life in prison is a much worse, and therefore much more suitable punishment.

I favor the death penalty for graffiti painters. But, there must be solid proof—like video image and dirty hands of the perpetrator—to avoid mistakenly killing someone.

Also, anyone caught in gang-related activity should be executed—in particular, if the gang is known to use violence or intimidation. They don’t even need to murder anyone. Association is enough.

I also support executing hooligans who randomly damage private property. Although it’s not a big problem here in Finland—it’s more prevalent in central Europe—it could become a problem here if we’re not vigilant. So, if someone is caught even thinking about commiting a random act or vandalim, that person should be exectuted before the act can be carried-out.

I’ll think of some more later…..

“Death penalty does not serve much purpose. Using death penalty as ultimate punishment does little to decrease crimes.”

How do you know it does not work? It is almost never used. Try executing all the murders and then lets see if it works. Last year there were over 14,000 murders in the US. It has taken over 20 YEARS to execute 1,000 murders. Try executing 1,000/year and I bet you see a drop in the number of murders. Right now each execution is a circus event. That’s wrong. It should just be a simple execution of justice, tossing out the garbage.

Phil,

I’d support life in jail over death penalty if it wouldn’t be so expensive for us law abiding citizens. A dead criminal is a cheap criminal.

Although, in Finland, there’d be very little use for a death penalty. Extremely severe crimes are really scarce, fortunately. Hopefully the situation remains as such in the future.

Death penalty shouldn’t be utilized as a punishment, but as a method to remove hopeless cases from threatening our lives. In fact, severely mental criminals who are beyond help should be given priority, instead of being relieved of death penalty, as is the case in the USA.

Actually, I’m also in favor of euthanasia in the case of badly retarded childs who are expected to either suffer of pain throughout their life or who will never be able to think rationally even for a slight bit. It’s inhumane to let childs grow up while knowing they’ll never be able to live. Sooner or later we will have to think over the ethics as we become ever more capable to keep alive people who’d be long dead otherwise.

That’s my take on the use of death, as a tool rather than a punishment. It’s not radical to be rational – rationality stands between radicality and sensitivety.

Fred Fry wrote: How do you know it does not work? It is almost never used.

I nominate this for the ahistorical comment of the month.

***

Phil quoted the US State Department: The Foreign Affairs article notes that, in Europe, also, debate on the death penalty continues, and that support for the death penalty is, in fact, growing. Some 50 percent of Italians and French want capital punishment reinstated.

I believe the article to be “The False Crisis over the Atlantic” by Antony J Blinken, from the May/June 2001 issue. (The last five years have not been kind to Mr Blinken’s thesis that “United States and Europe are converging culturally, economically, and with some effort, strategically.”) Looking at what polling data is available on the Web, it’s not readily apparanet that support for the death penalty is, in fact, growing. For example:

“According to a survey carried out [in September 2006] by the French institute for public opinion TNS Sofres, only 42 percent of French citizenry support the re-establishment of the death penalty. In 1981, when the French parliament approved the proposal of then president Francois Mitterrand, of abolishing the capital punishment, 62 percent of the French population defended death penalty as a dissuasive measure against crime.” — Julio Godoy

It was difficult to find any recent data for Italy. Amusingly, according to the Foreign Affairs article, in 2001 about 50 percent of Italians supported the death penalty in Italy, but according to this Pew poll, only 22 percent supported it in the US. Context is everything, I guess.

Personally, I advocate executing anyone who advocates executing others. There’s no place for people like that in a civilized society. Kill ‘em all.

@12, “Personally, I advocate executing anyone who advocates executing others. There’s no place for people like that in a civilized society. Kill ‘em all.”

Therefore, somebody who thinks exactly like you would execute you because you are proposing to execute others.

Ok, here’re some more…

Board public transit or a cruise ship, shout, act aggressively towards other passengers: Death penalty within 30-days. Drunkenness is no excuse. No appeals.

A group of teenagers assaults someone—or any group of people—regardless of age—assaults someone. Death penalty. Individual cowardliness is no excuse.

After a football (soccer) game, hooligans proceed into streets and damage private property. Death penalty. Drunkenness is no excuse. Did I already mention this one?

Anyway, seriously, we’ve got over 400-million people crammed -into tiny Europe. And we keep talking about how we need to increase the population to fund our lumbering welfare state. If we’re going to continue in this direction, then we need to eliminate the garbage in our society. After all, it’s easier to eliminate someone who causes harm to society than it is to create a new person to pay for the destruction he causes.

This is an utilitarian approach. Nothing more, nothing less.

What’s up with a certain worldwide ideological/political group that mandates the beheading and slaughtering of people who refuse to submit to their belief system?
Are these people justified in their persecution and execution of people who do not believe the way they do!?…infinndel from Massachusetts(Peace Be Upon Him)(please do not attempt to remove my head by violent means)

Hey!infinndel, you have a good head on your shoulder….maybe you should put it back on your neck!

“Also; it isn’t like our prisons are FLOODING with prisoners as it is.”
is this sarcasm. our prisons are flooding with prisoners. most of prisons are overcrowded and understaffed. I think one reason why politicians are reluctant to give longer sentences is that there is no room in prisons.

“Death penalty does not serve much purpose. Using death penalty as ultimate punishment does little to decrease crimes.”
I guess that the death penalty doesn’t scare anyone from doing crimes, because probably those who would be subject to death penalty don’t think that far ahead. But it would prevent those sentenced to death from committing crimes again.

Suitable candidates for death penalty would be those prisoners who are now put to preventive detention (pakkolaitos).
http://www.yle.fi/genreportaalit/portaali.php?genre=terveys&osannimi=tutkittua_muututkimu&jutunid=2998
http://www.viikkosavo.fi/pdf/200434/11VISA180900.pdf

to sum up the contents of links above.
1971-1995 there were 102 prisoners in finland who were considered for preventive detention (all of them had committed serious violence or sexcrimes and renewed their act within 10 years). 42 of these were actually put in preventive detention. During the follow-up time 10 prisoners were released from preventive detention and all of them renewed their crime soon after the release.
During follow-up 50 of those prisoners who had not been put to preventive detention were released. After release 82% of those fifty renewed their crime.

The prison system in finland is not working very well. And preventive detention, which is very unusual, means only that you have to serve your whole sentence including previous parts of sentences you haven’t already served. it’s weird. the sentences are way too short in the first place and it’s considered extra punishment (decided by court in prison) if you really have to serve your time in jail.

In addition to these dangerous criminals we have a bunch of criminals in mental hospitals who have not been convicted because of mental disorders. There are of course those psychotics, but then there is the growing number of psychopaths and people with serious personality disorders. These are people who have committed many serious crimes and in all likelihood will be doing them again if they are ever released. You can’t really cure a psychopath. So we keep them in closed depardments of mental hospitals for dangerous patients until they are so old and weak that they can be put in normal mental hospitals. And a place in these hospitals costs something like 300-600 euros per day for one patient.

I’m not saying that i necessarily support death penalty, but it would be cost effective. I believe people tend to think noble innocent prisoners like the guy in the “prison break”. But i can assure that none of those 42 who were put to preventive detention were innocent or noble. The psychopaths may seem noble and sympathetic but that’s one of the reasons they are so dangerous.

I don’t think that life in prison would be worse than death penalty, and i think that most of the prisoners feel the same way. and if you think that death would be too easy for the criminals isn’t that just the sort of revenge mentality that we should avoid according to JG in 6th comment.

Have you watched the tv-show rikostarinoita suomesta? it seems that most of the crimes were done by prisoners in their vacation from the prison.

The prisons are indeed over-crowded, but the number of prisoners is still internationally very small.

I’m pretty sure that there is a strong correlation between truly hideous crimes and the support for the death penalty. A few “uncle jammus” each year and the number of supporters would start rising steadily.

And, by the way, one of the best arguments for the DP is that it prevents murders – I mean, if you’re dead you can’t kill anybody, can you. Putting murderers in prisons for life doesn’t naturally prevent them from murdering other inmates.

The best argument against is, perhaps, that it’s impossible to make sure that innocent people will not be executed along with quilty ones. Although the USA has tried to make the system fool proof – and investigating the cases after executions next to impossible – it’s been proven almost beyond any doubt that at least a couple of innocent people have been executed during the last twenty years or so. There is bound to be others we don’t know about. Pretty unbearable.

What about making the death penalty really painful? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Prison sentences cost a lot of money. But what if we torture the prisoner for a short time. That would have the same impact as a long prison sentence.

If u do crime in finland you have a reason to die, thats my obinion.

Wow! Eurovision Markku couldn’t have said it better!

“it’s been proven almost beyond any doubt that at least a couple of innocent people have been executed during the last twenty years or so. There is bound to be others we don’t know about. Pretty unbearable.”

I don’t know what kinds of crimes are punished by death in the US, but i think it very unlikely that a completely innocent person would be put to preventive detention in finland. he would have to be very unlucky to be convicted repeatedly of serious crimes he hadn’t committed (well he or she.) and then the people assessing him in prison court should mistake this perfectly normal fellow to be an especially dangerous one. of course there might be innocent people, because you know the thing about eternity, monkeys with typewriters and the complete works of shakespeare.
Is it unbearable to live in a society where the state might sentence innocent person to death, when that it is very very unlikely? or is it more unbearable to live in a society where the state releases serial rapists and murderers from the prisons to murder and rape completely innocent persons. of course there is the option of life in prison, but why is not equally unbearable to think that innocent people are senteced to life in prison (when many people seem to think life in prison is worse than death). and keeping dangerous criminals alive in prison in order to safe the life of the hypothetical innocent one of them, is much more expensive than saving the lifes of other equally (or more) innocent people by other means, e.g. putting that money to healthcare or something.

is much more expensive than saving the lifes of other equally (or more) innocent people by other means, e.g. putting that money to healthcare or something.

People are making this a cost issue, which I think is quite creepy – a sign of the times for sure. There’s only the slight problem that an execution (with the preceding time on death row, appeals etc.) costs more for the taxpayer than a life in prison. And while prisoners have been quite graituously been executed in the United States, this has not been helpful in emptying the prisons.

The vindictive point is a non-issue to me. IMO, taking a person’s liberty is a sufficient punishment for any crime. Loss of liberty is taken differently by different people, as is loss of life. The real issue in case of dangerous criminals is keeping them away from regular folks. In that sense, I don’t care either way. I do think that we need to have genuine life imprisonment instead of the automatic pardon system we have now.

It costs what it costs, just like other things.

One Finnish criminal that deserved the death penalty was the Dane who executed the two policemen a couple years back. Instead of the death penalty, he is not in Denmark, with his Finnish wife, that he acquired while in jail for murder, and at least one kid, both living off of the Danish welfare system, since dad can’t work. Death penalty or not, the European justice system is broke. At least two Finns have committed murder in th US (one man and one woman) and have scooted off to Finland to avoid the death penalty. At least they were afraid of US justice. AND what about the woman who went into the shooting club in Helsinki and murdered everyone inside with the handgun she rented, only to get caught at the airport with bullets in her pocket.

As for making sure they are guilty, yes, lets be sure we do that. However, not every crime has doubt as to who the guilty party is. Like I said before, 14,000 murders last year. For the death penalty to be a deterrent, then it should be expected that a murderer will receive that as a punishment. Right now that is not the case. The Finns who fled the US, they fled states that sentence murderers to death.

One Finnish criminal that deserved the death penalty was the Dane who executed the two policemen a couple years back.

Actually, a little over 9 years ago. A Finnish rapper took the name Steen Christensen, but later changed it to Steen1 because of the controversy. See, even our gangstas are PC.

Instead of the death penalty, he is not in Denmark, with his Finnish wife, that he acquired while in jail for murder

Finnish women show their impeccable taste in men again. Do you think that there should perhaps be a law against it?

Death penalty or not, the European justice system is broke.

Oh yes, draw conclusions from a single case. The prevalence of crime is a good objective measure of the justice system, and we both know how Europe and the USA compare in that respect. I do agree that letting obvious psychopaths out of prison on unsupervised vacations is incredibly stupid. We have our own Christensen in Juha Valjakkala, who committed murder in Sweden while on a vacation from prison.

At least two Finns have committed murder in th US (one man and one woman) and have scooted off to Finland to avoid the death penalty.

The US and Finnish justice systems are at opposite extremes: a medieval vindictive systems pitted against the touchy-feely bleeding heart system we have here. It makes sense for a criminal to flee to Finland given the opportunity no matter what the verdict.

At least they were afraid of US justice

Didn’t stop them from murdering, though. I rest my case.

ND what about the woman who went into the shooting club in Helsinki and murdered everyone inside with the handgun she rented

A great example of the dangers of a trigger-happy gun-toting culture, for sure. She’d applied for a permit but it had been rejected. In the States it could have been the subway instead of a shooting club.

She was and is seriously mentally disturbed. I know how you Republicans get off on executing insane and mentally handicapped people, but she’ll probably spend the rest of her life in the Niuvanniemi institute for the criminally insane, where she belongs. Do you have a problem with this?

Actually, a little over 9 years ago. A Finnish rapper…

Ok, add this to my list…

Anyone who is a rapper, or is even suspected of thinking about becoming a rapper, deserves the death penalty. Artistic freedom is no excuse, because rap does NOT qualify as art. Death penalty for sure. No questions asked.

—-

I mean, really, we’re using all these examples, of ax-murderers and cop-killers, to support the death penalty. Knowing that they’ll get the death penalty, just makes them more desperate and ready to use violence.

Instead, we should concentrate on using the death penalty for much lesser infractions. That way, we eliminate potential trouble-makers right from the start, before they can grow into more serious criminals. Rappers are a good example, since they are surely destined for an expanded role in criminality.

“get off on executing insane and mentally handicapped people”

Yes, yes, every single murderer by default has mental problems of some sort or some horrible history that can be used to excuse their actions. How about addressing the problems BEFORE they kill.

“she’ll probably spend the rest of her life in the Niuvanniemi institute for the criminally insane, where she belongs. Do you have a problem with this?”
– Nope. Not unless she kills again. Then again, how about asking the people she murdered if THEY have a problem with that?

“a medieval vindictive systems pitted against the touchy-feely bleeding heart system we have here.”
– Call the US a medieval system but where would you rather spend some time in jail, the US, say Texas, or in Russia? Or how about the dungeon in Paris for illegal immigrants?

“Didn’t stop them from murdering, though.”
– Well now they will be freed at some point to re assume a life in Finland. What is the fair sentence for murder? Is 10 years enough? What if someone hated you that much that he was willing to pay that price to remove you from the living? Is that all you value your own life? 10 years? (with visitation and Finnish female groupies.)

I am sorry folks, i was little wasted last night. I just written down something, that came up in my head. My english is so bad, i know…

Yes, yes, every single murderer by default has mental problems of some sort or some horrible history that can be used to excuse their actions.

Come on, Fred, that strawman can’t even stand on its legs. Quick, give it a lethal injection to put it out of its misery.

Of course, a miserable childhood alone does not excuse ones actions. However, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia is another matter entirely, as is being on the level of an 8-year-old. If you insist on executing them, for God’s sake, be consistent and execute actual 8-year-olds as well.

How about addressing the problems BEFORE they kill.

Oh, absolutely! I fully support the state supplying adequate psychiatric care and taking care of mentally handicapped people, instead of leaving them at the mercy of random charity. But this would be liberal welfare-statism that no good Republican could ever support.

What is the fair sentence for murder? Is 10 years enough?

Again, you speak from the Hammurabi/Mosaic perspective. But I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable if someone important to me was killed 5 years ago and the killer was out of jail.

What if someone hated you that much that he was willing to pay that price to remove you from the living?

True, then it would not be a sufficient deterrent. Likewise, doing a few years of time may be a very good deal for white-collar crimes if you make tens of millions from it. Just look at the Uoti brothers. Lately, Kari’s joined the honourable blogging crowd. You can read about the bros’ exploits here (in Finnish).

freeridin’ franklin: why wouldn’t this be a cost issue.
so you have a psychopath who has repeatedly committed serious violent crimes including two murders. because the state wants to make sure he doesn’t do these things again he is not put to prison, where he would be released after 12 years or so. instead they put him in niuvanniemi hospital. because of his condition he cannot feel empathy and thus has no internal restrictions for using extreme violence in order to get what he wants. he is considered dangerous and due to escape risk and repeated violence against staff and other patients he cannot be let even to slightly less closed department. because these traits are essential parts of his personality and cannot be changed ( you cannot teach empathy to adults ) he will have to spend his whole life in maximum security hospital ward. you know 300-600 euros per day. if he’s 30 years old it means that you have to spend lets say 400 euros per day for 40 years ( it’s a hospital, they have better healthcare than any civilians get, annual EKG:s, monthly blood tests. so no hope of him dying naturally very early ) so you’ll have to spend 6 million euros for keeping this guy from doing any more harm to innocent people. (plus you have to take account all the legal costs, because keeping him in hospital has to be approved by hallinto-oikeus biannually. and he can make as many complaints as he wants. and he will get a small pension every month.) there’s no way that executing him would be more expensive.

so when an innocent persons dies in car accident his family cries: why wasn’t this prevented? why wasn’t the road looked after better? why wasn’t the opposite lanes separated with metal bars?
and the answer is: we have no money for that, because the state things that it is better to let innocent people to die, than kill guilty people. and it is a valid argument, but you have to understand the people who disagree.
(and road safety is not really the cheapest way to prevent deaths, but it is fairly popular, more popular than preventing coronary disease, diabetes or alcoholism.)
Everything is a cost issue.

i’m sorry about the pathetic and fictional examples.

“The prevalence of crime is a good objective measure of the justice system”
no, it is not. it has more to do with social structures and other cultural things. american system would decrease the amount of crime if installed in finland, but finnish system would have the opposite effect on america.

and death sentence doesn’t mean that we would have to start executing paranoid schizophreniacs and 8-year-olds. schizophrenia can be controlled quite succesfully with proper medication, and schizophreniacs are not likely to renew their crimes, because monitoring them and changes in their condition is comparatively easy. i have sympathy for schizophreniacs, they are normal people when not in psychosis. i don’t have very much sympathy for those serial offenders who are considered so dangerous that they have to be put to preventive detention. but i might support keeping them alive in prisons until natural death. because of principle. the n:th commandment and such. even though with that money some statistical person could be saved.

Franklin,

There is a middle ground somewhere. Right now I think the US does not execute enough murderers. Are there exceptions? Sure there are, and they are sad cases, however, if the family does not care enough, then why should I. Take the DC snipers. One is getting the death penalty and the other is not, because he was 17 when he pulled the trigger. That’s just wrong. As for the 8 year old, if he understood that he was ending a life, sure execute him too. I am not aware of any that young, but I remember two young murderers in the UK who murdered a smaller kid, just to do it. So I saw execute them. But no. Hell, take the supreme court case that excluded minors from the death penalty. That kid murdered knowing that he would never be executed because he was a minor. And he bound up some poor old woman and threw her off a bridge. For laughs.

My wife was completely against the death penalty until we were living each day with the DC snipers out loose. It’s not fun to be caught up in traffic knowing that they had just struck again, or arriving home from Home Depot to see the news of the snipers striking at a Home Depot. that went on for three weeks. You actually felt goo when he had struck because you knew that you were safe for the rest of the day.

As for the Helsinki shooting club shooter, I care less of her problems. Just keep her locked up.

As for police shooter Steen Viktor Christensen, keep this in mind:

“The 34-year-old Dane shot two Finnish police officers dead in the streets of Helsinki after stealing the equivalent of DKK 3,000 from a bank. A three day manhunt followed the shootings and Christensen was eventually apprehended in a Helsinki hotel room. He was later found guilty of double murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The incident focussed attention on the running of the prison system in Denmark. Christensen was already serving time in Vridløselille State Prison here when he fled to Finland while out on unaccompanied weekend leave. Prison authorities failed to make public the man’s escape despite the fact that he was still due to serve 15 years of his sentence. Christensen was handed down a 12-year sentence on June 1 1992 for a total of 95 criminal actions. These criminal actions included 12 robberies totalling DKK 5.5 million as well as taking a total of 45 people hostage during the robberies. He was also found guilty of rape, fraud, grand theft, and illegal possession of firearms. He was later sentenced to a further three years in prison after he was found guilty of organising the smuggling of heroin into Denmark from Thailand. Christensen apparently organised the smuggling operation from his cell in Vridløselille.”

Forget the death penalty, how about stopping these idiotic jail vacations?

Oh, yes, lets revamp health care to address the mentally ill. There was some story of the Medical insurance industry drafting something. Lets see if they come up with anything.

Kill ‘em all. Let God separate them

Actually “dead criminal is a cheap criminal” -logic doesn’t work. Death penalty in the USA has been studied to cost ultimately more than life-ong inprisonment, because of the long detailed court process with all possible pleading rights and last straws pulled.

I’m late to the discussion, but I was about to cite exactly what ‘Cheap is relative’ says above in 32.

Studies in the US have shown that to incarcerate someone for life costs much less than to condemn someone to death, while at the same time giving him all the legal rights the Constitution provides. For if someone cannot afford a lawyer, all of his legal costs – lead defense attorney, a second, paralegals to do research, assistants, etc. are paid with public tax monies, as with the costs of the prosecution. In one year alone a million dollars can be spent easily, if not more, and most executions tend to take some ten years before they’re actually carried through.

The other aspect that I find disturbing (and I agree here with Phil) is that executions are so final. There have been many cases where it was discovered later that the executed one might have been innocent (these cases mostly involve DNA).

I wind up supporting the death penalty, however, for non-US citizens, as US citizens tend to value life more than others. Yes, it’s come down to moral relativity: Europeans demean life when they pardon murderers with a mere slap on the wrist, while many people in the developing world create life without any thought to protecting it. Muslims, of course, “love death”, so it really doesn’t matter what we think of them. And the Chinese are not interested in any commonality at all with the rest of the world.

In a multicultural world, justice has become culture-specific. All the evidence points to the erosion of the notion of “international” justice: just witness how Europeans are willing to accommodate Sharia Law in their own countries, for example. Not only has “international” justice been a colossal failure, it also exacerbated differences to the point of being one of the conditions producing 9/11.

In such scenarios, it is better to abandon the idealism behind “international” forms of justice, and concentrate on the development of jurisprudence within your own, culture specific societies.

There have been many cases where it was discovered later that the executed one might have been innocent (these cases mostly involve DNA).

Never happened so far, obviously because any investigations after executions have been made next to impossible (the evidence is destroyed, authorities refuse to co-operate etc). But at least in one case there were two alledged murderes of whom the “first” one was executed while the the “second” one was released because it turned out that a crucial witness had been lying. Then – talking about spies – it’s now certain that the FBI, prosecution and apparently even the judge knew very well that Ethel Rosenberg was not quilty when she was executed.

Hell, no.

Since they’ve committed a crime against the state & made us lose a lot of tax income: a life sentence in a work camp… preferably growing potato in the wastelands of Lapland… yep, that should teach ‘em good…

I wind up supporting the death penalty, however, for non-US citizens, as US citizens tend to value life more than others.

Ah, Finnpundit, you think you’re being clever, but I see right through you. You pretend to represent American neo-cons: “American values are above all other values and thus the Americans must be allowed to kill and torture whoever they wish. It’s all for the betterment of the rest. But you tend to go too far. Even the most stupid neo-con would be too embarrased to say out loud what you say.

The only remaining question is: who are you really? Whose cause are you trying to advance by discrediting the neo-cons and the Americans in general?

“Actually “dead criminal is a cheap criminal” -logic doesn’t work. Death penalty in the USA has been studied to cost ultimately more than life-ong inprisonment, because of the long detailed court process with all possible pleading rights and last straws pulled.”

Yes, people tend to quote this study as much as they quote the study telling that chocolate is healthy. I would be interested in knowing some details about this. i’m not convinced yet.

and even if death penalty is not cheap in USA it doesn’t mean that it isn’t in finland. I don’t know, but i assume that legal costs in general are smaller in finland than in america. also the prison costs more in finland than in america. and when there’s life sentence isn’t there going to be legal costs to tax payers throughout his life? why is he less likely to challenge the life in prison sentence than the death sentence. at least in mental hospitals criminally insane patients who have cognitive ability to do it tend to make a lot of complaints about their sentence and treatment. i think a lot of prisoners have the same hobby. and while alive a lot of these people are all the time a health risk to other prisoners and staff.

“less and less Americans are supporting…”

Fewer Americans are, not less Americans.

Fewer Americans are, not less Americans.

My apologies for being tedious. But, the original post didn’t say less Americans, as you yourself quote. It says “less and less” Americans, which means something different to my understanding. I clearly remember the way I was taught English at school in Finland. I had a very elderly English teacher (she may well have been old enough to meet Shakespeare in person!), but she was incredibly good. I clearly remember her telling us that ‘less and less’ = fewer. I remember she had a rigid position of never resorting to speaking Swedish (Swedish speaking school) in the classroom unless it was absolutely essential, so she would descibe and explain words we didn’t know by giving us their opposite or a word that meant next to the same. I am sure that for “less and less” this was fewer.

Fred Fry – “One Finnish criminal that deserved the death penalty was the Dane who executed the two policemen a couple years back. Instead of the death penalty, he is not in Denmark, with his Finnish wife, that he acquired while in jail for murder, and at least one kid, both living off of the Danish welfare system, since dad can’t work.”

Presuming you meant “now in Denmark” rather than “not in Denmark”, can you explain what you mean by “living off the welfare state”? According to Wikipedia at least he is in prison:
“Christensen was sentenced to life imprisonment, and is serving it at the Herstedvester prison in Denmark. He was also sentenced to pay the families of the police officers he killed, the state treasury, and the watchman at the Hotel Palace a total of almost 275 000 Finnish mark (about 46 300 euro) and to pay a life support of 3873 Finnish mark (about 651.40 euro) per month to one underaged child. ”
Is this wrong? Do you have other sources?

And what does “European Justice” mean? Do you think that the Romanian justice system is the same as the Scottish? Or the Portugese the same as the Swedish? If you know they are all “broke” presumably you must be a leading expert on comparative legal and justice systems across Europe. What do you think of the current Bulgarian corruption reforms?

Arguing against the death penalty on the grounds that it is irreversible has the flaw that so is imprisonment. You lock someone away for umpteen years, you can’t give those years back if it turns out they were innocent. So it’s really an argument for being very careful with that reasonable doubt thing.
Any system of justice using the death penalty could be greatly improved by holding the police and the prosecution really responsible for making sure the condemned were guilty. You could treat suppressing or fabricating evidence in a capital case as a conspiracy to commit murder, and punish it accordingly.

And what does “European Justice” mean?

Broadly speaking, European justice is based on the preponderance of civil codes in their jurisprudence (old Roman codes, and the Napoleonic Codes), which gave the state pre-eminence in the conduct of law. Civil codes tend not to be effective unless the pre-eminence of the state is also accepted as a moral authority.

In contrast to this, common law places emphasis on trials by jury. The state subordinates itself to the findings of the jury, even when the state itself (!) can be a defendant. The moral authority of the state is limited to the role of a procedural referee. Morality itself becomes defined by forces outside of the state’s purview.

Common law is mostly practised in Britain and the US, though all westernized countries have a mix of the different legal traditions. However, it should be noted that welfare states are more enabled under civic codes, in addition to all sorts of strong, statist systems, such as the fascist and communist states of Europe’s recent past history.

Finnpundit wrote: Civil codes tend not to be effective unless the pre-eminence of the state is also accepted as a moral authority.

That’s a nice non-falsifiable claim, Pundy. Should someone point out that plenty of nations with civil codes have generally law-abiding citizenries, you can counter that those nations obviously accept the “pre-eminence of the state” “as a moral authority”.

The moral authority of the state is limited to the role of a procedural referee. Morality itself becomes defined by forces outside of the state’s purview.

What a horribly statist view of the world you have if you truly believe that court decisions define morality.

43. You really are without any light, aren’t you?

Should someone point out that plenty of nations with civil codes have generally law-abiding citizenries, you can counter that those nations obviously accept the “pre-eminence of the state” “as a moral authority”.

Exactly. I agree.

What a horribly statist view of the world you have if you truly believe that court decisions define morality

Not exactly. States with civil codes tend to define morality. The courts rarely define morality, but since they simply follow the set civil codes, the state’s morality is reflected in the decisions.

I clearly remember her telling us that ‘less and less’ = fewer.

JG–I have to disagree with your teacher. The same rule applies, despite the idiomatic form. Therefore, it would be more correct to say ‘fewer and fewer Americans…….’ to imply a decreasing integer quantity.

But, from a colloquial usage perspective, I don’t see anything wrong with the sentence. It’s an example of writing english how it’s commonly spoken. Of course you don’t have to believe me. After all, I’m known for speaking several languages, albeit all of them rather poorly. But, I could care fewer

Kristian, I believe you. Along with my Finnish, my English is not beyond fault at all… in fact, I am sure it has more holes in it than a slice of emmental. Just my English teacher was quite a woman, they don’t make teachers like her thesedays I am sure. I think my Finnish is also getting more and more clumsy by the day the less I use it.

But don’t ask me how, but I am sure less and less was idiomatic for fewer (and therefore not same meaning as just the word ‘less’ when it stands alone… oh well, I prob have been getting it wrong all this years. But then, given my original story, I can blame it on my teacher at least!

I think you should all speak Norden’s Latin anyway… but I dare not speak the name of that language on this forum for fear of a reaction!

Also, on the subject of common law.. It seems to me that in common law jurisdictons, the judiciary has a lot of power, even to effectively make laws or the intentions of them change significantly. This takes power away from the part of the state that is mandated with law making (i.e. the democratically elected parliament and government). To me this seems to be a big flaw with common law systems. Although, I am no legal expert at all, but that is how it appears in my eyes.

47.It seems to me that in common law jurisdictons, the judiciary has a lot of power, even to effectively make laws or the intentions of them change significantly.

The judiciary has no power to make laws. That’s pretty much certain. The judiciary does have the power to interpret laws, yet this is all done on the basis of precedence – how the laws have been interpreted before – and on the system of appeals: judges always have to worry that the appeals judge might overturn their decision (and that’s bad for a judicial career). Should a law be too prone to ambiguity Congress is supposed to step in and correct it.

A lot of attention is paid in the US on the ideological leanings of the Supreme Court, and of the lower courts. Often, judges are accused of social engineering, instead of the conduct of justice. Judges, in their defense, resent the fact that Congress sometimes doesn’t do its job of making good laws. There is a lot of friction there sometimes – but that friction is a good thing. The checks-and-balances system between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary should have ongoing systemic debates if it would be healthy.

This kind of systemic friction is not that prevalent in civil code states. The friction, of course, takes place in the preponderant legislative sector, in the form of political party debate. The judiciary and the executive do not act as a checks-and-balances at all. A civil code is worthwhile in those cases, as parliamentary politics is so fraught with populist tendencies. Those populist tendencies also make parliamentary democracies so incapable to act decisively on the one hand, and so yearning of strong leadership on the other, making Europe historically very unstable.

A civil code is, essentially, a two-edged sword: it works well to do the job of justice since parliament is so fragmented. However, it also works well to do the job when a strongman takes over through populist politics. Thus, as an institution, the civil code doesn’t exist as a support for maintaining democracy, the way common law does.

But that is what I don’t understand. In common law, a judge can rule that e.g. abortion is illegal… which I understand would be within the scope of the American Supreme Court should it be so inclined in the future. Yet in civil law, the courts just ensure the law made by parliament is followed. They can’t change it. If the law says abortion is allowed, then the court can not change that.

That is what concerns me with common law, that it can override the institutions that are supposed to be charged with law making.

I can therefore see your point about it being far easier for a “strong man” or dictator to make lots of totalitarian laws and then civil law courts would just enforce them more or less to the letter. But there again, if one is a dictator can one not just close the courts (whether they be common law or civil law) in any case or make a judges life rather dangerous should he “interpret” things the wrong way.

But, again, I make the disclaimer: I am no legal expert!

We can discuss ‘superiority’ all we want, but Pundy’s point about American courts conducting social engineering is enough for me to lean-away from the common law system.

That is what concerns me with common law, that it can override the institutions that are supposed to be charged with law making.

That’s ok, after a judge strikes-down a law, just resubmit in a different form. But hey, what do I know?

#50 And Pundy, that was a rhetorical question. Not meant for you to answer

49. That is what concerns me with common law, that it can override the institutions that are supposed to be charged with law making.

There is a distinction: the Supreme Court can override Congress, but it can’t override the Constitution. The Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution, based on precendence. The Court, the Executive, and Congress all have powers clearly defined by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can find, in a legal decision, that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional (and thus, null and void). It is up to Congress to pass laws that are constitutional. But everything has to correspond to the Constitution, including Supreme Court procedure.

That’s also why the Constitution was designed (and has to be) a set of simple rules that are about 7 or 12 pages long (depending on the font). There is very little question as to the meaning of these simple rules, because they are so simple. All laws stem from these rules (which include the Bill of Rights, the original model for the Declaration of Human Rights).

The framers of the Constitution never pretended that they knew all the answers, and their own experience in legislatures (which were very contentious), and their own familiarity with common law trials by jury made them set up two outside forces to balance legislative indecision, bottlenecks, and excesses: an Executive branch (the president), who can only act in accordance to the Constitution (thus nipping strong-man politics in the bud), and a Judiciary that has expertise enough to know when the Constitution has been breached.

There are rules for changing the Constitution, though it’s usually quite difficult, as it requires some 2/3s majority in Congress, as well as (IIRC) 2/3s majority of all state legislatures in the United States. But it’s been done, several times, in the form of Constitutional Amendments.

The simplicity of the Constitution is key, even though it’s rather dictatorial in setting up these rules of conduct. But it’s proven its worth over time. It is simple enough for simple people to understand, and value.

That was why Giscard d’Estaign’s authorship of the European Constitution drew so much derision, because at more than 400+ pages, it really wasn’t seen as a document whose value was easily comprehensible. It attempted to codify too much too fast, in civil code manner, without clear distinctions on how government power was to be divided in Europe, though it certainly made clear that all government power was going to be increased.

@52,
Constitutional amendments are indeed hard to make, but you can get around this restriction. The Prohibition was passed as a constitutional amendment, the various federal laws against other popularly enjoyed substances have been passed as something else. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_tax_act and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Toby,

“what you mean by “living off the welfare state”? According to Wikipedia at least he is in prison:”

I mean the wife and child of Steen Christensen are sucking off the welfare state in Denmark. He obtained the wife while in a Finnish jail and the liberal jail policies in Europe permitted this murderer the opportunity to have a child and create a ‘single mother’ for the state to support.

Which part of this picture is NOT wrong?

(Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanksgiving you know.)