Humanities desk
< July 23	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 24 Information

Lately, my wife and I have gotten into watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares show on Netflix. A detail of one episode caught my eye. The sign above the restaurant of the week included the words "Fully Licensed". What does this mean to have an eatery that is fully licensed? Is there such a thing as partially licensed? Dismas| ^(talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Alcohol licensing laws of the United Kingdom#On-licence answers that nicely for you-- Jac16888 ^Talk 01:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yup. This is licensed as in 'licensed to serve alcohol': they can sell you wines, spirits etc with a meal - but you can't buy alcohol to consume off the premises. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I see. So it doesn't have to do with the food at all, just the alcohol. Interesting. Here in the States it would be strange to see a restaurant use this as a selling point. Thanks!! Dismas| ^(talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It isn't so much a selling point as a requirement. I'm no lawyer (blah, blah, etc), but I think that a notice regarding the license has to be displayed. I'd certainly expect a restaurant to be licensed, but not the local McDonalds etc - so it is probably in the interests of the proprietor to make indicate this anyway if there might be any doubt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

"Fully licensed" is also distinguished from " BYO licence" - bring your own - whereby patrons are welcome to bring their own alcohol, which will be opened and served to them by the staff, and there may be (an exorbitant) corkage charge, but they generally cannot purchase alcohol there because the restaurant is not licensed to sell it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps my use of the term "selling point" was a bit off. The sign in the episode was for a nice sit-down restaurant and the words were painted on their sign. I understand the "displayed prominently" bit of the law, after all bars over here in the States have to have their liquor license displayed prominently as well. It's just that the sign had three pieces of info on it. The name, "fully licensed", and the telephone number. That seems a bit over the top for the prominent display provision.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion but the only places that I've seen where you have to BYO here in the States were at places that had relatively restrictive blue laws in the city/county. Of the examples that I can think of, all of them were strip clubs. The local laws said that you couldn't sell alcohol if there were strippers performing there. Dismas| ^(talk) 02:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well if you're looking to have wine with your meal, it helps to know that you can buy it on the premises or that you have to bring it with you! So putting it in big letters I would consider to be a plus point. -- TammyMoet ( talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Different cultures, different customs, different laws. Vive la différence. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It's possibly worth pointing out, that in the UK, something like 99% or more of "nice sit-down restaurants" will sell you alcohol, and will object to you bringing your own (or at least, inflict a "corkage charge"). McDonalds and similar establishments, along with generic pizza or fried chicken places and so on, don't serve alcohol and also don't generally expect you to bring any. I've only been to two "proper" restaurants (the sort that have table-cloths) that didn't have alcohol available for sale, and both had that arrangement because of their adherence to Islamic principles. (Though I think the smaller of the two also had an eye on the cost savings.) Of those two, one encouraged you to bring your own, and one, allegedly, did not want any alcohol on the premises. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

McDonalds, generic pizza, and fried chicken places are the same here. I think this topic has been run to the ground though. I feel it's something that would be expected for a nice sit-down place and therefore not worth mentioning in such a prominent way. As HiLo said, vive la différence. Dismas| ^(talk) 08:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This topic is done to death, but I thought I'd just mention that it's a similar situation in Australia. I think most restaurants here are BYO and always have a prominent sign, many are "beer and wine only", and the restaurants that sell booze will also say fully licensed. Vespine ( talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

When did women in Britain attain legal majority? I have difficulty in finding the answer for this question, and the expression I get is often contradictory. Normally in European countries, women where minors up untill about second half of the 19th-century.

Unmarried women where under the guardianship of the closest male relative no matter how old they where, and married women under the guardianship of their husbands. They where, for example, not allowed to handle their own money, and could not take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of their guardian. Only widows where their own guardians. My question pertains about the unmarried women. In Sweden, for example, unmarried women attained legal majority in 1858, but I have found no such year for Great Britain.

I have heard that Great Britain (and the Unites states) was different then all the other Western countries, and that unmarried women where in fact of legal majority by old English law already in the 18th century. But, despite of this, many films and novels, such as for example Affinity (novel), states that unmarried women where not allowed to handle their money and take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian. This is confusing and contradictory.

If unmarried women where not allowed to handle their own money, then the term legal majority could not have had the same meaning in Britain as it had in other countries. When, in that case, was the law regarding legal majority changed to give women the same rights as men?

I heard some one mention that it was in 1873, and that the reform was completed in 1893, but it don't remember where I heard that. Does any one have any knowledge of this? I have not found this anywere in wikipedia, though perhaps it should be mentioned here, as it is an important question. It seems strange that such an important thing is so hard to find an answer to. I would be most gratefull for any information of this! Thank you. -- Aciram ( talk) 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

See Married Women's Property Act 1882 and femme covert. I don't know if those articles will answer your question, but at least they're a place to begin. Dickens' novels describe several women (e.g. Betsey Trotwood in David Copperfield) bound by moribund marriages and separated or reappearing husbands. —— Shakescene ( talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think a time frame is needed here... the legal rights and status of women have changed over the years... So what era are we talking about? Anglo-Saxon Times? Middle Ages? Tudor Age? Victorian Era? Blueboar ( talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The question, I would say, pertians to the unmarried women of the early modern age, say 1500-1900. -- Aciram ( talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for raising this question, Aciram. It interests me, in and of itself, and it annoys me that I don't have a definitive answer to give you. I can give you some background within the English legal system for the period between Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) and the winning of the vote on equal terms to men in 1928. (See Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Note that even England and Scotland have different laws, let alone the United States, although at that time Canada took most of its laws from England; see the "Persons" case, also of 1928. You may need separate answers for each jurisdiction. The answer you find depends on where you look.)

Legal majority is concerned with more than just property, but it is worth remembering that the vast majority of women had no wealth to worry about. (The same was true of a large majority of men.) If you are considering women's rights to be accepted as witnesses in a trial, to sit as jurors, to be elected to a public office (which happened earlier in some municipalities than gaining the right to vote in general elections), to marry without their father or (male) guardian's consent, to initiate divorce, to keep their children after a divorce, to decide where to live and what to study, and so on, the question becomes much broader, as each of these rights may have been won discretely -- I don't know.

Looking at money alone: a woman could inherit and she could earn, but if she married, this money went to her husband. For class reasons, by and large if one inherited one did not earn, and vice versa. Girls who grew up as heiresses were aware that they were targets for fortune hunters, and their fathers or other guardians made financial arrangements accordingly. We have pre-nuptial agreements and so did the Victorians, although they were called "marriage settlements" and were making provision against death rather than divorce. Victorian literature is rich with examples; I commend Wilkie Collins, who wrote about the effects of the marriage, divorce and property laws in several of his novels, e.g. The Woman in White (1859). In real life, we have the examples of Caroline Fitzgerald, one of the richest heiresses of Ireland at a time when that country was ruled from London; her story is set out in Janet Todd's Rebel Daughters: Ireland in conflict 1798 (2003). (CF was the mother of Margaret King, and thus finds an anonymous place in MW's Vindication.) Another woman held up in her day as the wealthiest in the land was Angela Burdett-Coutts (1814-1906), who took the decision not to marry (knowing that if she did so, she would cede personal and financial power to her husband), and spent her life, with a female best friend (companion? lover?), as an innovative philanthropist, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of her day. I hope this provides a beginning to an answer. By the way, a few times you confuse the word "were" with "where"; I've used both in my answer so you can see that one is a verb (I was, you were) and one points to location. BrainyBabe ( talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Just a linguistic point, not really related to the substance of the question: Has it ever been the case that women were described as minors? I have never heard of this. I understand what you're getting at as far as being able to dispose of their own property and make contracts and so on, but calling this "minor status" seems to be a bit of an extrapolation. Unless that's the way the term was really used, in which case I'd be interested to know that. -- Trovatore ( talk) 05:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The article pointed to above, Coverture, doesn't use the word "minor". It says:

Under traditional English common law an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman"). A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name.

BrainyBabe ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I simply used the word "minor" just as a way to describe my question, because unmarried women, in all countries it seems except Britain, was placed under a male guardian untill they were granted legal majority. If unmarried adult women were not allowed to take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian, then could they be considered to be adults in a legal sence? In that case, it does not seem that legal majority for a woman had the same meaning as legal majority for a man. In Sweden, unmarried women were granted legal majority in 1858, and that ment that they were given the same rights as adult males (with exception of the right to vote). I see that many of you above mention the rights of married women, which is interesting, but my question is mainly about unmarried women. It seems Britain is an unusally complicated case. In the other countries I have read about, there is usually a specific year in the period of 1860-1900, were unmarried women was granted legal majority, which gave them the same legal rights as men with the exception of the right to vote. Thank you for the replys so far. It seems to be a very complicated question. In France, were the term covert etc seem to have its origin, women does not seem to have been granted legal majority untill 1904. I wonder why England was such an exception from the rest of Europa in this regard. -- Aciram ( talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The concept of "majority" encompasses a variety of legal domains. If you are only concerned with the right of women to own their own money and property, this happened in 1870 in the UK. Of course, women were only allowed to own property if they inherited it (until 1882), so it's debatable if this counts as "majority" status either. Kaldari ( talk) 19:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, thank you, but this still seem to regard married women rather than unmarried women? It does mention that unmarried women were allowed to own property, but so are children; it does not say that unmarried women were allowed to take out their money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian. -- Aciram ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I am looking for accounts of life in New York City while British forces occupied it, from early in the American Revolution, in November 1776, until Evacuation Day November 25, 1783, when the British left and George Washington rode in, quite a while after the end of fighting in the war. My preference is for period accounts, by American or British writers, such as books, diaries, or newspaper articles, or reminiscences written years later, but I am also interested in historical fiction. Have there been comprehensive books about the period, in which historians have incorporated and evaluated all the primary (and self-serving) sources? I have recently read some of the Alexander Kent novels about British Navy officer Bolitho, some of which are set during this period. Novels set in the period would also be of interest. After the war, I expect that people remaining in the US who had resided in New York 1776-1783 claimed to have always supported the revolutionary cause, and to have spied on the British and sabotaged their every effort, like Frenchmen who were in Paris during the Nazi occupation. During the war, many of the same individuals were doubtlessly declaring their undying loyalty to the King. Outside the city, in nearby US held zones or in the "no-man's land" of Westchester County were raiders or bandits called "Cowboys" and "Skinners" who preyed on farmers in the neutral territory, or on civilians in "enemy" territory, and robbed them of cattle and other goods. Cattle from neutral areas got sold to the British in New York City. Did each share with the local military authorities, and did they hold high level summits like modern gangsters? [1] says that "The two parties often operated in concert, the Cowboys bringing contraband from New York to exchange for the property plundered by the Skinners." While researching Revolutionary War era original documents at the Westchester County archives, I found evidence that the "patriots" who captured Major Andre were likely Skinnres, outlaws or highwaymen. They were later highly honored as heroes of the American Revolution, and given pensions, but originally they said they had agreed to share all the loot they got, and they hid until a horseman rode along, and pounced on him like common highwaymen. Who did law enforcement and investigation of crimes? How did the criminal courts function? What types of corruption existed? Has anyone written mystery novels set in this interesting setting? It would be a fascinating setting for detective novels. I have read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Edison ( talk) 21:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That's a specific question. I'm guessing HMS Jersey (British prison ship)#American Revolutionary War might give you some keyword leads if you haven't already read that one. [2] has a few NYC mentions, and I suspect years '77-'82 do too. Some books are at [3] and [4]. This seems like a job for a university library. 99.2.148.119 ( talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

If you have access to a university library, take a look at American diaries : an annotated bibliography of published American diaries and journals for potential leads. — Kevin Myers 09:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks to both for the suggestions. It looks like there is fair coverage of the period in histories of the city, lumped in with the entire period of British control, from the late 1600's to 1783. My hope is to find something comprehensive, will all historical accounts, and in life in the "no-man's land" where farms and villages were raided of everything portable by both British and American irregulars. I've found from those sources that the city did have a civilian police force and police courts, with no jurisdiction over the military. Edison ( talk) 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I have read the book " autobiography of yogi " by paramhansa yogananda which contains his own experiences which can not be explained by science.It contains bi-location of a yogi ,a women which eat nothing for many years ,the charater of mahavatar babagi,a person rama raised from the dead , Resurrection of his guru yukteswar etc . is it mean that there may be some truth in religious stories although religions have many false ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.4.118 ( talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The most likely explanation is simply that the events described in the book aren't true. Either he's mistaken or lying. It is possible that they really happened and that science is completely wrong, but it's not likely. -- Tango ( talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Not using these books as proof, no. Since they are autobiographies, the authors can claim whatever they want and claim it as things they experienced. The problem is that there is no proof that any of these events actually happened other than on the author's word. Like wikipedia, you can't take it all on faith (unless you want to, at which point it is religion, but that doesn't make it true). You need well-documented, reliable third-party sources to back it up. Now, some of the events of the book could be based on true stories, but have been exaggerated for exactly the reason to make them seem like miracles. For example, eating very little can look like not eating at all if you do it right. And people can be raised from a state that appears very much like death. Mingmingla ( talk) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

David Hume had a good rule of thumb: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The Emperor's New Clothes is a helpful allegory applicable to many cases in both religion and science. Schyler ( one language) 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Where can I find a list of the names of those killed? (This is NOT for any article.) Bielle ( talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Given that Norway is a modern liberal state with decent privacy laws, I'd expect nowhere. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

At least as of the BBC news at midnight, the names have not been released. The police seem to think there are likely to be bodies remaining undiscovered on the island and maybe in the damaged buildings. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

One could hope that you are right, Steven, but there will likely be memorials that will list the names. (I went to check, but Norway is not listed in the article you link.) Does anyone have Norwegian sources? Names of some of the survivors are given, I note, but perhaps they are all of major age. Bielle ( talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Why would someone want to keep the names private? 88.8.79.148 ( talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

E.g. to protect the families from unwanted attention. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, in general is understandable. But in this case, you'll get the the attention divided by many families. And it can be that they want what you call unwanted attention, that could be a healing process for the families. 88.8.79.148 ( talk) 00:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well if one family wished to make their loss public and give the name, I don't think they are legally prevented from doing so. Googlemeister ( talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

CBC News (Canada) said this morning that the names of the victims had "not yet been released". Thanks. Bielle ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The only person I've seen named is Trond Berntsen, who was an off-duty police officer and the half-brother of Crown Princess Mette-Marit (he was the son of the princess' mother's second husband). [5] -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@Bielle, I don't know how much you can pick up from Norwegian newspapers but the list of victims will almost certainly appear at www.vg.no and www.aftenposten.no immediately the police announce them. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It's clear that you won't get executed, but does Norway has an upper limit for maximum time in prison, like many European countries? 88.8.79.148 ( talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

According to the table here, Norway has no life imprisonment, and the maximum sentence is 21 years in prison. I don't know they handle multiple offenses and concurrent service, though, but I would not be surprised if 21 years is the actual maximum, regardless of legal wrangling. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I have read otherwise, in a discussion among Norwegians and others, in which the circumstances do apparently allow for consecutive sentence terms, but I can cite no authority confirming this. 99.2.148.119 ( talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

We have an article on Life imprisonment in Norway.

Speculation: From the sparse information on the motives of the suspect one can conclude that the defense may claim insanity of the perpetrator (or the Norwegian equivalent). It seems that he has immersed himself in a paranoid world of a crusade against the forces of cultural Marxism who destroy the fabric of a Christian Europe. The little I know of his voluminous manifesto implies that he sees himself as a combatant against these conspiratorial forces whilst being perfectly aware that nobody else will.

The prosecution may even support this plea if it were the only possibility to detain the suspect for a period exceeding 21 years. -- Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM ( talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

(moved from below) Returning to the original question, there is an apparently authoritative article here which suggests that, in theory (but regarded as unlikely in practice), the sentence could be extended beyond the 21-year maximum, for periods of up to five years at a time, if the inmate is deemed to be a high risk of repeating serious offences. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This isn't nearly as unusual as it sounds. Canada has a similar restriction, where the maximum sentence is 25-years-to-life. For all practical purposes, this is a life sentence, but it creates a situation where even Clifford Olson and Willie Pickton can apply for parole every couple of years and in theory get out if they were good. They way it sounds, the law in Norway would work in a similar way to keep him locked up. Mingmingla ( talk) 17:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That's incorrect; you are confused about Canadian law. There is no sentence of "25-years-to-life" in Canada. There are many offences in the Criminal Code for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Two examples are robbery and aggravated sexual assault; there are many more. Somebody given a sentence of life imprisonment would be eligible for parole after a period of time, but even if parole is granted, it would still be a life sentence: the person would be "on parole" for the rest of his or her life (unless a pardon is issued). Mathew5000 ( talk) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Justification for mandatory short sentences ?

I find the 21 year limit difficult to comprehend. By what logic do Norwegians believe that any crime, no matter how heinous, should be fully forgiven in 21 years, and the perpetrator released and left to his own devices ? I certainly understand objections to capital punishment, but the thought process here baffles me. StuRat ( talk) 04:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant Forum discussion WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not to say I disagree with you (and saying that is also not to say that I agree with you), but just to play the devil's advocate here for a second, one could imagine a Norwegian similarly claiming "By what logic do the residents of the (insert country name here) see any crime as heinous enough that one would want to remove a person from society forever (either by death or life imprisonment without posibility of release)." Expressing incredulity doesn't imply anything more than you come from a different culture with differing standards of punishment and retribution. People tend to have a form of confirmation bias which holds that their own culture's standards are somehow the "normal" for the world, and other cultures whose standards lie outside of their own are somehow "wrong". Thus, a culture that imprisons a serial killer for 21 years maximum is considered dangerously light on punishment, while one which issues the death sentence for simple theft would be cruel and inhumane, but only when viewed from a culture whose standards lie between those extremes. People who live in those cultures probably (on the balance) see their standards as, well, standard. I could see the arguement for relatively light prison sentences as being justified if prison isn't seen as punishment, but rather as rehabilitation. If a culture does not value retributional punishment in any form then life imprisonment makes no sense to them. This is not to say that the Norweigian system is right, or that it is wrong, but merely that it is different, and without objective evidence as to its effectiveness, we really shouldn't express incredulity solely on the basis of its being different than what our culture values. -- Jayron 32 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You fail to address the "...and left to his own devices" though. A prisoner locked up for the rest of his natural life cannot go back out at age 53 and do it all over again, and again at age 75. Nothing to do with retribution or rehabilitation but simply deterence. Rmhermen ( talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Well, there are many reasons to imprison a mass-murderer longer. Here are a few: 1) As noted above, they might kill others, if given the opportunity. 2) Presumably there is a risk that they will be harmed by the families of the victims, once released. 3) There's the Old Testament "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Or, more broadly, doesn't a punishment equivalent (although not necessarily identical) to the crime seem appropriate to most cultures throughout history (noting that, at times, punishments were vastly disproportionate to the crime, as well) ? 4) The risk of long sentences presumably might discourage at least some future mass murderers. So, I'm looking for arguments like these, but that reach the conclusion that letting mass-murderers go is the best way to handle the situation. There is Jesus' advice to "turn the other cheek", but that seems to be aimed at individuals dealing with minor insults, not to nations dealing with mass murderers. Then there's the liberal concept that once a person is reformed, healed of their mental disorder, or perhaps attains salvation, that they should be completely forgiven. However, why would an assumption be made that this will always occur within 21 years, or, indeed, at all ? StuRat ( talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Actually, what I am saying is that there is no reason to be anything except perfectly equivocal on which system is better, in absense of actual evidence one way or the other. That is, you can't claim "life imprisonment is better than the lighter sentence". Of course, you can't claim the reverse either, but that was the point of my comments. You can't just say "My way is better because its my way", which is so far all you are saying. You've proposed lots of hypotheticals, which I suppose could be ways to grant some objective way to measure "better", but the hypotheticals you propose don't necessarily encompass all the ways that one could measure "better". You've presumed that someone wouldn't be rehabilitated in 21 years, but have provided no evidence that they wouldn't be. Again, that's not to say that evidence might not exist to prove your assertions correct. You just can't assume them correct without at least some evidence one way or the other. -- Jayron 32 06:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Pope John Paul II forgave his attempted assassin, but that has nothing to do with whether he should be kept behind bars. Life imprisonment is not so much "punishment" as it is "permanent removal from society", for the protection of society. Which is also what capital punishment does too, except that it's truly permanent, with no legal loopholes (except for the one around the murderer's neck). ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply The question becomes whether "permanent removal from society" is justifiable. Certainly, one could issue the exact same "protection" for things like petty shoplifting; i.e. steal a pack of gum, get life imprisonment without the possibility of release. After all, the incarcerated shoplifter can no longer steal gum from stores anymore! To merely describe the definition of "life imprisonment" doesn't in itself provide justification for its practice. People in prison cannot, by definition, commit crimes on society outside of prison. To state that fact is meaningless in solving our dilemma here, which is "what level of incarceration is appropriate." So far, no one has proposed any evidence one way or the other, other than making supposedly self-evident assertions that life imprisonment for mass murderers is somehow "better" in some non-defined way than a shorter sentence of defined length. I've also not claimed that the shorter sentence is better. I have just claimed that no one has presented any evidence either way. We don't even have a defined metric by which to measure "betterness" in this case. Again, for those advocating that Norway's system is somehow inadequate, I am not arguing that you are definitively wrong, I am just arguing that you can't claim yourself right without presenting some evidence (like data would be nice) to support the stance. -- Jayron 32 06:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply My comments weren't directed at you, but I wasn't sure where to put the proper indentions. The question comes down to whether society has the right to permanently protect itself against murderous predators like the guy in Norway. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply "But mercy is above this sceptred sway, It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." DuncanHill ( talk) 08:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Sure, and that's why we use lethal injection now, instead of drawing and quartering. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, that was poor even by your standards. It may that nothing would give you greater pleasure than torturing someone to death, but please allow for the possibility that such feelings are not shared by the rest of mankind. DuncanHill ( talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply At least my comment makes logical sense, as opposed to the quotated gibberish in your previous comment. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, your comment above sounds like a non sequitur to me. What do you mean? What does using lethal injection have to do with mercy? It's not as if execution by lethal injection is less barbaric than execution by drawing and quartering. Such a double standard certainly doesn't apply to the so-called "murderous predator", does it? (Using dehumanizing terminology makes it so much easier to treat perpetrators of crimes as monsters rather than people.) After all, the guy in Norway shot his victims quickly, and most of them died immediately. Does that mean he should get off more lightly than if he had tortured them to death slowly? Pais ( talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Lethal injection is a much more humane execution method than drawing and quartering. As to showing mercy to the killer in general, perhaps the killer can figure out a way to undo the grief he caused. Then he could ask for mercy. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, the thing about mercy is that it is given - it isn't deserved or earnt or whatnot. It is given, and as pointed out in a more famous section of the "quotated gibberish" above "It is twice blessed; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes". Dehumanising the person you want to kill is probably exactly what the culprit in the current case did - and it certainly appears that he believed the killings were necessary for the good of society. Do you really want to stoop to his level? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply ( edit conflict) But you brought up lethal injection in response to a reference to mercy, not a reference to humaneness. Pais ( talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Apparently you're unaware of the term "mercy killing". ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Oh, is that the latest euphemism for the death penalty? Pais ( talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply A lot of folks think the death penalty is much less of a punishment than life imprisonment would be. They miss the point that it's not about punishment, it's about permanent removal. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply And permanently removing people is so much easier and cheaper than rehabilitating them. Then why bother putting people in prison for 10 or 20 years first before executing them? Why not just take them out behind the courthouse after sentencing and dispatch them quickly with a bullet to the back of the head? Pais ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Because it gives them the opportunity to exhaust all legal remedies. Taking them out back and stringing them up is indeed how it used to be done. Now the convict is given a much better shake. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply How long have you entertained these desires to kill? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You're funny. How long have you entertained these desires to return murderers to the streets? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You really don't get it do you? Are we to strive to be better humans - more merciful, less hate-filled, and do we try to fashion society to support that, or are we to obsess over vengeance and live life according to our basest instincts and fears? Do we try to build the New Jerusalem here on earth or just sit back and let the cycle of hatred continue? DuncanHill ( talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply It is you who don't get it. We are not robots. We choose our actions. I'd like to hear your theory on how someone like this character in Norway could be "rehabilitated", i.e. to somehow magically change his views that (1) Islam and multiculturalism are evil; and (2) his own countrymen must be killed for tolerating and supporting those things. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Sorry, but the fact that you haven't changed an opinion in the last 20 years does not mean that nobody does. We don't have a completely reliable method for changing personal views, but then we also don't have a completely reliable method of getting people into orbit and back again. Errors can kill people in either case, but we still do both. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 10:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Since this is a Reference Desk, not an Opinion Desk, let's take a look at some facts. Incarceration rates - US: 743 per 100,000 population; Norway: 71 per 100,000. Intentional homicide rates - US: 5.0 per 100,000: Norway 0.60 per 100,000. The evidence is that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not reduce the rate of serious crime. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply 76 / 4.9 million or 1.55 per 100,000 in Norway were killed in the 2011 Norway attacks, suggesting that Norway's 2011 intentional homicide rate will likely be in excess of 2.0 per 100,000. -- 203.82.81.103 ( talk) 04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply Long sentences and capital punishment are not about serving the needs of the criminal, they are about protecting society from that criminal. The criminal chooses to commit his crimes. He thus also chooses his sentence in the process. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, so you'd rather have long sentences and a high crime rate than shorter sentences and a low crime rate? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs - my point is that the statistical evidence shows that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not act reduce the rate of serious crime, and so clearly do not act as a deterrent. If your "rational choice" model of criminal behaviour was correct then serious crime rates in the US would be lower than those in Norway, not 8 times higher. If you know of facts that suggest the contrary, rather than just opinions, then please show them. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, if that were the case, equivalent crimes would serve equivalent sentences in different societies. Since that clearly is not the case, the society plays a major part in the decision. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply ( edit conflict) Another non sequitur. The point is that long sentences and capital punishment do not protect society from criminals. You're also creating a false dichotomy: it's not as if "criminals" and "society" are mutually exclusive groups. Criminals are a part of the society, and if society wants to protect itself from crime, it should work harder on preventing the causes of crime in the first place rather than waiting for the crimes to be committed and then either locking people up and throwing away the key or simply executing them. Pais ( talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply It has long been argued that these things are not a deterrent to crime. That's not what it's about. It's about protecting society from these characters. I recall a prison warden talking once about the value of criminals aging. They are much less likely to be violent when they turn 60 or 70 than when they are in their youth. Your argument seems to be that society does not have the right to protect itself against these folks. That's what I call "liberalism gone mad". ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You say "it's about protecting society from these characters", but the fact is it doesn't protect society at all. Your argument is proved wrong by the facts, and yet you stick to it. That's what I call "conservatism gone mad". (Well no, not gone mad, it's conservatism as usual.) Pais ( talk) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You're wrong. John Gacy freely chose to kill 33 victims. Once he was incarcerated, his murders stopped. And once he was executed, there was no possibility he would kill again. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply And yet society was not one iota safer for it. Pais ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply How do you figure? Society became temporarily safe from Gacy once he was behind bars, and permanently safe from Gacy once he was snuffed. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Safe from Gacy ≠ safe. It's not like he was the only killer out there. Pais ( talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply So? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply So executing Gacy made no one safer. Pais ( talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Sure it did. It took a murderer out of the populace. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply And made a murderer out of whoever executed him. Lose one, gain one. Pais ( talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Wrong. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply So the guards at the concentration camps weren't murderers, since Nazi Germany had no law against killing Jews? Pais ( talk) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs, which do you prefer - 5 murders per 100,000 people or 0.6 per 100,000? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Neither. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Unless, of course, the murder victims are themselves murderers, in which case you prefer 100,000 per 100,000. Pais ( talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Meaning what?? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply That's the difference between us, I prefer there to be fewer murders. That's what I call "Liberalism". DuncanHill ( talk) 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Stats don't commit murder, individuals do. And stats mean nothing to the actual victims. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You honestly don't think that a high murder rate is worse than a low one? You honestly don't mind seeing more victims? More families torn apart? You disgust me. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Yes, it's worse statistically. But a rate doesn't matter to a victim. With those status, you've offered a fool's choice. I would prefer a rate of ZERO. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Of course he doesn't. The more murders, the more executions he gets to exult in. Pais ( talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply You have no clue. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply I think this is disintegrating now. Bugs, you have been flailing without a valid or consistent argument for a while now. Everybody else, please assume good faith at least on a general level. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply My argument is consistent, you just don't agree with it. Meanwhile, I'd like to know how the mercy-ites would rehabilitate a guy who thinks of himself as a modern day John Brown or something. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply I agree that Bugs' argument is consistent. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is a consistent argument. Pais ( talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply My argument is that society has the right to protect itself. Sorry you don't agree. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Of course society has the right to protect itself, but when its method of protection is both morally repugnant and demonstrably ineffective, it should try something else. Pais ( talk) 10:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply The Norway shooter claims he has not actually committed any crime. Maybe you agree with him? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply He's just like you Bugs - he thinks it's legitimate to kill in order to protect his view of what society should be. And like you, he's wrong. DuncanHill ( talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bugs these views are unpleasant in the extreme! What would have happened if the UK had capital punishment in the case of Barry George? Your argument may well be 'consistent', but so are the arguments of a load of froth-mouthed psychopaths! I am so happy we have never met because if we did I might accidentally stick a rusty nail in your foot. Jeremy Wordsworth ( talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Your personal attacks are a joke, and you have no clue what my actual opinion about the death penalty is. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Hello Pot! This is the Kettle! I have noticed we share the same colour! I think your statements above give a pretty good indication of what your opinion of the death penalty is. You have no clue. Jeremy Wordsworth ( talk) 09:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply You're wrong. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply So in conclusion, if you want to go on a crime spree and want to get off light, go to Norway and do it. Googlemeister ( talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply Bingo! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply How so? The facts presented in the unhatted section of this question clearly states that there are a good possibility that the murderer will indeed end up in jail for the rest of his life. So unless you mean "if you want to go on a crime spree and not get executed for it, go to <insert majority of countries in the world here> and do it. But as has been stated below "of course, one should never allow actual facts to get in the way of a good argument". -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 11:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Back to the topic, please

Some comments:

1) The comparison of murder rates between the US and Norway would only be valid if the two nations were identical in every way except for prison terms. There are other major differences, though, like the availability of handguns, which make the conclusion that "long prison rates don't prevent crime" invalid.

2) About recidivism: Do you really need statistics ? That's like asking for proof that a melted down handgun kills fewer people than one on the street. As long as their is any recidivism, then imprisonment MUST eliminate that, with some possible exceptions:

2a) Some crimes may still be committed from jail, like telephone fraud.

2b) Other crimes may be committed in jail, against other prisoners or guards. However, I'd expect that this is universally preferred over crimes committed at large (except by the prison victims).

2c) Others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of the imprisoned person. I could see this in the case of bin Laden, for example, had he been imprisoned (or perhaps hostages taken and killed if he wasn't released). For some types of crimes, like dealing illegal drugs, the removal of one dealer may create an opportunity for another to fill the vacuum. However, none of this seems to apply to your average murderer.

For items 2a and 2b, those seem like arguments for improving the prison system (such as adding the disclaimer "The following is from a prison inmate" before each call or letter, in the case of 2a, or isolating prisoners more, in the case of 2b). 2c is an argument for the death penalty, in the case of the bin Ladens, and addressing society's underlying problems, or perhaps legalizing drugs, in the case of drug dealers. StuRat ( talk) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

2c is hardly an argument for the death penalty, since others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of an executed person as well. Perhaps even more so since an executed person will be seen as more of a martyr - and more in need of avenging - than a merely imprisoned person. Pais ( talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Stu, can I just ask you never to change my indents or otherwise refactor any comment of mine in any way ever again. Especially do not refactor hats to end a discussion on a point with which you happen to agree, as you did earlier in this thread. It is frankly rather dishonest of you. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• I didn't. I merely broke the question in two. Others added the hats (see the talk page) and removed them (was that you ?). StuRat ( talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Don't lie. You actually moved where the hat started. I then removed it altogether with an appropriate edit summary (something you seem incapable of). DuncanHill ( talk) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not lying, I neither added nor removed the hats. My question was in the hat, so I took it out, along with some helpful responses, but left the bickering between you and Bugs in there. That belongs on your talk pages, not here. Also, while I didn't, you need to learn to use {{outdent}}, since your prolonged fight with Bugs has run clear off the edge of the screen. StuRat ( talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I never said you added or removed them, I said you refactored it by moving it, which you did. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I moved stuff out of the hats, not in, so if your complaint is that your stuff was inside, your complaint is not with me. Also, please don't put complaints like this on the Ref Desk, it all belongs on talk pages, not here. StuRat ( talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You moved what suited you out of the hat. So yes, my complaint is with you. As I made clear in my edit summary at the time, hat all or none. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

So, what I'm looking for here are links to articles (or the text itself) where Norwegians (or others) argued for shorter prison terms for serious crimes, preferable translated into English. There's just some POV I don't understand here, and I want to, even if I disagree with it. (I also read Mein Kampf, not because I agree, but because I wanted to understand the thought process behind it.) StuRat ( talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

On (1), see List of countries by gun ownership. No other country in the world comes even close to the US gun ownership figure of 88.8 guns per 100 residents. However, Norway has a similar tradition of private gun ownership for hunting and recreation purposes, and is 11th in the table, with 31.3 guns per 100 residents. And yet if we look at List of countries by firearm-related death rate, we see the US rate is 7.07 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population per year, whereas the rate for Norway is only 0.3 per 100,000 per year. Gandalf61 ( talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)For #1: that would also mean that the need for differing standards regarding prison rates would also, by necessity, be different. Norway, (hypothetically, just for the sake of arguement) may have more resources availible for intensive rehabilitation of criminals, so it is able to lower its recidivism rate solely because it can better rehabilitate those criminals. That is, insofar as cultural, social, and other differences may be responsible for the difference in crime rates, the same exact reasoning could also fully justify distinctions in sentencing standards. That is, the Norway sentencing standard works fine in Norway, but it would never work in the U.S. and visa-versa. Furthermore, we have no idea how they deal with issues of non compos mentis, for example it may allow for involuntary commitment to a secure mental facility for life, which would allow for reasonable exceptions to their 21-year maximum sentence. About #2: Yes we do need data. Like I said above, stating that lifetime imprisonment eliminates recidivisim (with your caveats about internal prison crime, etc.) doesn't in itself justify its own existance. You've merely stated a corrolary of what the concept "life imprisonment" means, without justifying its existence. We can imprison someone for life for stealing gum from the corner store; such a person wouldn't ever steal gum again. Such a fact does not itself justify the need to imprison them for life. Regarding 2c specifically, there is no distinction here; since one may take up the cause from the dead as well; there is little distinction between taking up the cause for an imprisoned comrade vs. taking up the cause for a martyr. -- Jayron 32 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I really should have divided 2C into 2Ci, the terrorist case, and 2Cii, the drug dealer case. For 2Ci, after the results of the imprisonment of some of the PLO terrorists from the 1972 Munich attacks, Israel decided that targeted assassinations were the better option. The US seemed to reach the same conclusion regarding bin Laden. Yes, murders may be committed to commemorate a dead martyr, but most dead martyrs fade quickly, unlike an imprisoned martyr, which can continue to attract new generations of followers for decades. StuRat ( talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Murder to avenge murder. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

If you don't want your indents changed, you need to do a better job yourself. You neither placed your comment after my relevant comment, nor indented it to show it was a response to mine. As written, it appears to be a response to Jayron. StuRat ( talk) 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You changed your indents, apparently at the same time as I was posting. This is how it was indented when I posted. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, but please change your indent now, and, since you didn't place your response after my relevant post, I will move my subsequent posts. StuRat ( talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not changing them as no dount you'll come along and change yours again (as usual, with no explanation) just confusing things even more than you have already done. I don't know what weird kick you get from fucking things up. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Geez, will you assume good faith, please ? I made a mistake by not indenting my response to Jayron enough, and then immediately fixed it. Had your response to me been placed after my relevant comment, which was properly indented, it never would have been an issue. Also, can't you at least make your text small, when it has nothing to do with the topic ? StuRat ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

As for the death penalty or life imprisonment for stealing gum, there was a time when such extremes were the norm, but those do seem to violate the Judeo-Christian norm of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". StuRat ( talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Now, Jayron, I'm still trying to decipher your argument. Is it that, if the recidivism rate is low enough, that the risk to society is better than continuing to punish the criminal ? StuRat ( talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• First of all, understand that I am not endorsing one system as better than the other. What I am arguing for is some standard more consistent than the argument from emotion; that is before we can properly say "The Norweigian system is inadequate" and "The U.S. system is better", we need to first define a) what is meant by "better" and b) allow for a metric to measure "better".
• To provide a counter the arguement made by Bugs in the collapsed section (which I think was inappropriately collapsed), his standard seems to be "no murder is acceptable". I agree with that, but to then define a policy which reduces the murder rate to literally zero murders is a literal impossibility. One may only prevent all murders always by imprisoning all persons in solitary confinement from birth until death. To allow two people to interact socially is to allow for the non-zero possibility that one may murder the other. Once you realize that you cannot prevent all murders, you need to define a system which is based on other standards. You need to decide how much you are willing to sacrifice your own very humanity to ensure your own security. Bugs's standard of "no murder ever" isn't reasonable. Is he willing to personally, himself, spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement just to ensure that no one else may commit murder? I would suppose not, since I think he does occasionally interact with other people face-to-face.
• Our goal should still be to prevent murder, but that needs to be counterbalanced with not imprisoning someone who would not have committed murder had they not been in prison. After all, lets say that I have a non-zero chance that I will murder someone. If I am walking free, and it can be determined that some other individual has a smaller chance of committing murder than I do, it would be unjust to imprison that person. That is, if you stand less of a chance killing someone than I do, by what right do I have to keep you in prison while I walk around free?
• If we allow that the right to imprison someone is based solely on preventing future crimes (which I have seen several times as an arguement) and I simultaneously demand justice in the sense that we should not imprison people who are not going to commit a crime (for any given minimum standard of "are not going to") then we need to allow for the possibility that merely committing a crime in the past does not automatically mean that I am guaranteed beyond any doubt to commit a crime in the future. That is, people seem to be arguing that "once someone has killed, they have a higher chance of killing again", and they are arguing that without presenting any evidence that such a fact is inevitable.
• If we allow for all of the above, then there is at least the possibility that murderers in Norway who are released after 21 years in prison kill less people than the general population at large. If the only justification for keeping someone in prison is to prevent murder, then how can one justify keeping people in prison who are actually shown to be less likely to commit murder than other people who are not imprisoned. I am not arguing that this fact is true, I am merely arguing that if it were shown to be true, then Norway's system could be then said to be working. I am perfectly open to the possibility that such evidence may present itself to show the exact opposite (that Norway's system isn't working) but I am not open to the idea of declaring Norway's system somehow inadequate based solely on the "We don't do the same thing here" standard, which is so far all that has been presented by those which are attacking it as such.
• Of course, all of that still doesn't mean that the Norway system is universally better. We also need to allow that:

• a) One may reasonably define other justifications for keeping someone in prison, which have nothing to do with justice, OR have nothing to do with keeping society safe. For example, one merely needs to redifine that which is just, and the Norway system can be invalid under those standards even if it released murderers kill less people.
• b) One may also reasonably argue that even if the Norway system works in Norway, that it may work in no other place on Earth. That is, insofar as societies are different, they must respond to crime in different ways.

• All of my above arguements can be summed up simply. Before one can say "The Norway system is unreasonable" one must first a) define what reasonable looks like b) define a way to measure it. and c) show evidence that it does not meet that definition. So far, with the exception of some statistics above regarding murder rates (which may or may not be valid for proving anything yet) no one has yet presented any actual objective arguement one way or the other. -- Jayron 32 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

While I appreciate the idea of backing up to decide what the goals of imprisonment are, there is such a thing as backing up too far. The fact that mass murderers are more likely to commit murders than the general population is so blatantly obvious that commissioning a study would be seen as a waste of money (although figuring out exactly how much more likely they are to commit murders might be justified). We could even back up further and ask if murder is a bad thing, or if we really even exist, but this also isn't very helpful to the question at hand. Rather than us discussing our goals, perhaps the better question is how the population of Norway defines them, in such a way that those goals are best achieved by releasing prisoners after 21 years. StuRat ( talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

(pre-EC response before you added the bit at the end)It may be blatantly obvious that, absent of any intervention, a mass murderer presents a real threat to society that must be stopped. It is not necessarily blatantly obvious that the mass murderer is irredeemable however, in the sense that some hypothetically proper intervention could rehabilitate the person who commits many murders. You earlier cited "Judeo-Christian" ethics, which I should note does not include anywhere in it the notion of "eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth". It is absolutely not in the "Christian" part (any reading of Christian scriptures cannot possibly come to that conclusion) and one can also not reasonably say that even Jewish scriptures and traditions (even pre-modern ones) demand such a standard either (Jewish standards during ancient times do mandate a highly legalistic tradition of atoning for one's wrongs via a highly proscribed system of temple sacrifices, for example; however I don't think that modern Jewish thought even goes this far.) Judeo-Christian ethics holds that the individual is, hypothetically, always redeemable, and never mandates that proper justice includes meting out punishment identical to the crime. (post-EC response just to StuRats addition of the last sentence) YES YES YES! That is pretty much exactly what I have been arguing all along!!! Jeez, thanks for finally understanding! -- Jayron 32 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

StuRat can read of Eye for an eye (see article) in the Old Testament. However StuRat is wrong to quote it as a Christian norm because that is denied here:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ( Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

Jayron32 is right about this. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I am aware that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ. However, a larger percentage of those who call themselves Christians believe in such Old Testament justice, nonetheless, at least in the US. Is this not the case in Norway ?

As for reform, yes, always a possibility, but the question is not if it ever happens, but if a mass murderer can ever be guaranteed not to commit more murders, at least to the same level of confidence as the average citizen who hasn't been convicted of murder. That is, can they ever be released without putting the public at additional risk ? I'm pretty confidant that the answer here is no, they will always be more of a risk than non-convicts. If so, what benefit do Norwegians think the release may offer, that equals or exceeds the risk ? StuRat ( talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm bit puzzled by the argument here about Norwegian system. If you look at the article Life_imprisonment_in_Norway than you can see that Norway does allow for imprisoning people for life, if they are considered a danger to society. The maximum sentence served as punishment is 21 years, but after that the prisoner is judged whether he is a danger to society and can get his sentence prolonged by 5 years. Meaning that dangerous people can be kept of the street in Norway. 94.208.67.65 ( talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks, that's useful, and I didn't get that from News reports here in the US. StuRat ( talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

See, there's the other possibility that we're all just arguing the wrong arguement to begin with. Since Norway doesn't automatically release mass murderers after 21 years, then it kinda makes this entire thread silly. of course, one should never allow actual facts to get in the way of a good argument. :) -- Jayron 32 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Related Question

What is Norway's felony re-offence rate, and how does that compare to the re-offence rate in the US? Googlemeister ( talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This states that for Norway 20% of convicted criminals are back in jail within 2 years, while the figure is around 60% in the US (2005-6 numbers). However there is apparently also a disclaimer about differences in definition and measurement, so they should probably not be taken at face value. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It actually says between 50% and 60% for the US and UK. And, how many end up "in jail" isn't the same as how many re-offend. They could end up in jail for doing something non-criminal, but which is a violation of parole, such as failing to show up at the parole officer's office for mandatory check-ins. Also, one nation may tend to let ex-cons go without jail time for minor offenses, while the other does not. StuRat ( talk) 21:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply