21 Years for 91 Murders?
Long-time blogger and friend Damian Penny asks a few difficult questions of the Breivik case.
We’re all familiar with the argument against mandatory minimum sentences. The Breivik case makes a good case against mandatory maximum sentences.
Hardly. “Life” in a jail with pubic-paid food, clothing, meds, library, “retirement” – that is “punishment,” is it? Would a REALLY stiff 99 years be “correctional?”
Jail time… even “life” on the installment plan… will [obviously] not disuade others from taking innocent lives. By rewarding such slaughter are we not indeed encouraging even more of the same? So who will be next? Won’t be Breivik, guaranteed. So… who will it be next time?
Does the Breivik case not rather make an argument for capital punishment, if indeed not for gruesome public death by torture?
There is a cruel paradox to the universe, a Law that can not be avoided: To protect and value innocent life one must first be willing to take life or to give-up one’s own to defend it. This “compassion for the perp” nonsense – by removing ultimate consequences, by denying the murderer final responsibility – we have made life truly cheap.
[Updated 22:55 – Ed.]