An interesting topic, indeed!

Here we can discuss the the differences in the laws, prisons and legal systems of the world. How is it where you live, and what effect does your system have on criminals? Positive or negative? And what is the worst punishment a criminal can get sentenced to in your country/state?

The prison system in Norway is pretty liberal. I think inmates are relatively comfortable during their incarceration.

This is actually a picture from Bastøy prison. A convicted murderer relaxing on his porch. It's an island. The prisoners have their own bungalows to live in, they have "jobs" on the island, and weekends off, like a normal life. This is only for prisoners that has shown genuine improvement and will to change. They get transferred there from other prisons after having served a few years.


Maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, but people rarely get that. Varg Vikernes did though. But that generally means that you will be released on parole after 14 years. The worst sentence here is what you refer to as suspended sentence. you might get 16 years, then there will be an evaluation, and you might get another 16 years. Breivik got sentenced to that. He will most likely never be released from prison. And those people who get these sentences are the worst kind. they serve pretty isolated to, with a lot of restrictions.

Other than that, sentences here is generally too short. You'll get a stricter sentence for scamming the government on taxes than if you rape someone.

Our legal system doesn't work properly. Some laws are too strict, some are not enough, and some of them are make me do "facepalm"))
The last mind-blowing law that was passed here is about "believers' feeling offensive": absurd law with blurred wording. No one knows how it works)

In our prisons it's hard to live normal life. They are really tough and strict. Even ordinary prisons. But there is a row of extremely strict prisons (for serial killers, rapists, terrorists, pedos, cannibals), for example well-known Black Dolphin. They are all imprisoned for life. 2 persons in the cell, except cannibals (they are isolated), control every 15 minutes, videocameras operate 24-hours, light is on 24-hours, every prisoner is convoyed by security guard with dog. The feature is when a prisoner has to be transported to another building, his eyes are covered by bandage and he is convoyed by 4 security guards with dog; walks are 1,5 hour a day and in the closed box. No one has escaped. I think, this is good place for Brejvik.

Written by toxx on 16.05.2014 at 09:52

You'll get a stricter sentence for scamming the government on taxes than if you rape someone. True capitalism.

wrong, government is a fundamentally anti capitalist institution, and especially taxes are
capitalism is based on resource distribution through trade between people choosing to engage in it
taxes are wealth taken from people through threats and violence
those things are directly opposed to each other
also it is impossible to scam the government on taxes, as it is not a situation of luring a victim into acting differently through misinformation in a situation of both victim and perpetrator having choice, but an act of self defense against getting robbed

Written by theFIST on 16.05.2014 at 13:26

wrong, government is a fundamentally anti capitalist institution, and especially taxes are
capitalism is based on resource distribution through trade between people choosing to engage in it
taxes are wealth taken from people through threats and violence
those things are directly opposed to each other
also it is impossible to scam the government on taxes, as it is not a situation of luring a victim into acting differently through misinformation in a situation of both victim and perpetrator having choice, but an act of self defense against getting robbed

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'll remove the capitalism remark right away. But not paying taxes is not an act of self defense imo. More an act of egoism and greed. The reason we have free healthcare here is because we pay income tax.

Still don't think that it's right with strict punishment for it though.

An example. 1. A mayor was convicted for sexually abusing a young, underage girl on several occasions, over a period of two years. He got sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.
2. An artist was accused of not paying taxes on an income of about 2 mill USD, he was convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 10 months in jail. And he had to pay the missing tax money.

Can't see the logic in it..

Liberal ... its paradise for criminals, belive me... Braivik says Nrge prison is harsh, he should be send to Russia, India or Afga .... sometimes I disagree whit Swe prison. I am death penalthy supporter and 20 years in jail for murder ... out after 10 ...

Written by toxx on 16.05.2014 at 13:45

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'll remove the capitalism remark right away. But not paying taxes is not an act of self defense imo. More an act of egoism and greed. The reason we have free healthcare here is because we pay income tax.

Still don't think that it's right with strict punishment for it though.

An example. 1. A mayor was convicted for sexually abusing a young, underage girl on several occasions, over a period of two years. He got sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.
2. An artist was accused of not paying taxes on an income of about 2 mill USD, he was convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 10 months in jail. And he had to pay the missing tax money.

Can't see the logic in it..

thank you very much

it is not free healthcare, but quite expensive, just not directly paid by the users, but financed indirectly thus making its users not the customer in control of the services they get
also, taxes are not paid, as a payment is the choice of the person giving up something of value in exchange for something else, while taxes are taken using threats of violence, the violence being used in case of resistance, which is robbery
defending against robbery is an act of self defense

also, i don"t understand how resisting robbery could be considered an act of greed, but paying yourself from that robbery, directing it (politicians) and perpetrating it (enforcers) not

i can see the logic behind it
as soon as an institution fundamentally reliant on robbery has control over a population it makes sure that people are more terrified of resisting their robbery than of the punishment that follows comitting any actual crime

Written by theFIST on 16.05.2014 at 15:27


thank you very much

it is not free healthcare, but quite expensive, just not directly paid by the users, but financed indirectly thus making its users not the customer in control of the services they get
also, taxes are not paid, as a payment is the choice of the person giving up something of value in exchange for something else, while taxes are taken using threats of violence, the violence being used in case of resistance, which is robbery
defending against robbery is an act of self defense

also, i don"t understand how resisting robbery could be considered an act of greed, but paying yourself from that robbery, directing it (politicians) and perpetrating it (enforcers) not

i can see the logic behind it
as soon as an institution fundamentally reliant on robbery has control over a population it makes sure that people are more terrified of resisting their robbery than of the punishment that follows comitting any actual crime

So, you're saying that taxes is a form of robbery, because we can't choose for ourselves? If everybody just stopped contributing for the good of society, the system would collapse. I prefer being "robbed" over anarchy any day.

Written by theFIST on 16.05.2014 at 15:27

it is not free healthcare, but quite expensive, just not directly paid by the users, but financed indirectly thus making its users not the customer in control of the services they get
also, taxes are not paid, as a payment is the choice of the person giving up something of value in exchange for something else, while taxes are taken using threats of violence, the violence being used in case of resistance, which is robbery
defending against robbery is an act of self defense

i can see the logic behind it
as soon as an institution fundamentally reliant on robbery has control over a population it makes sure that people are more terrified of resisting their robbery than of the punishment that follows comitting any actual crime

With this logic, any form of norm, value or rule a society has adopted (and considered as "the right thing to do") might then be considered as violence/oppression by anyone who does not wish to adhere to them.... which would make any form of structured society and government useless (now I know some types of ideologies buy this sort of argument, but honestly, it's bullshit ).

Written by toxx on 16.05.2014 at 15:40

So, you're saying that taxes is a form of robbery, because we can't choose for ourselves? If everybody just stopped contributing for the good of society, the system would collapse. I prefer being "robbed" over anarchy any day.

robbery is taking wealth from someone using threats or violence
taxation fits this definition perfectly

contributing is a voluntary choice, that is something completely separate from what you are arguing

society is an aggregation of individuals, there is no such thing as a good of society separate from the good of the individuals that make up the society

an institution relying on threats and violence collapsing is not a bad thing at all

anarchy is not having imposed rulers, which is something you most likely already consider of high value in most aspects of your life

Written by Vombatus on 16.05.2014 at 15:49

With this logic, any form of norm, value or rule a society has adopted (and considered as "the right thing to do") might then be considered as violence/oppression by anyone who does not wish to adhere to them.... which would make any form of structured society and government useless (now I know some types of ideologies buy this sort of argument, but honestly, it's bullshit ).

no, people in a society adopting a value is something they can apply to their lives and might base their contacts on as well a openly express, but is something freely chosen by those people, as well as possible to freely reject
government on the other hand uses actual violence to enforce its decisions

i am not arguing against structured society, structure coming up through the decisions and interactions people choose, i am arguing against an institution based on threat and violence

calling an argument bullshit does not invalidate it, only showing that it is does

Written by theFIST on 16.05.2014 at 16:02


no, people in a society adopting a value is something they can apply to their lives and might base their contacts on as well a openly express, but is something freely chosen by those people, as well as possible to freely reject
government on the other hand uses actual violence to enforce its decisions

No, the decisions of the government usually emanate from the legitimity giving by the people (if we are talking of "western societies"... but of course, one might argue of the imperfection that democracies are subject to, which is a different matter). So governments use cohercitive mesures when mesures accepted by the society are not respected. Some exeptions occure, but I highly doubt taxation is among them.

Quote:
i am not arguing against structured society, structure coming up through the decisions and interactions people choose, i am arguing against an institution based on threat and violence

Any form of structured society comes through decisions and interaction of people, for any impersonal institution has it's genesis in the action of man. The use of threat and violence is only one of the many means to maintain it's purpose.


But you know, I think you're logic is quite flawed as you don't seem to fully grasp the concepts here exposed. An example by quoting you:

Quote:
robbery is taking wealth from someone using threats or violence. taxation fits this definition perfectly.

It's wrong as you forget an important part. When you rob, you do not give anything in exchange. When the government gets your taxes, he uses them to provide services, so technically it is not robbing, simply resdistributes wealth.
Another question might be the correct redistribution, % of taxation, corruption and blablabla but that has nothing to do with this issue.

People who look at taxation as robbery are typically refusing to understand that, as a race, the goal is to contribute to the greater good.

Funny how this thread turned into a discussion about taxation interesting theme, but so are prison systems! Any input on that, Mr fist?

In South Africa it all depends on how much money you can give to the police. Also there is just so much crime that it is impossible to keep track of everything. I think we have the 2nd highest crime rate in the world behind Colombia, but i'm not entirely sure.

But a lot of the townships try to take the law into their own hands and lynch people they see as guilty of a crime. A popular punishment is 'necklacing' where they fill a tire up with tar, hang it around the accused's neck and set it on fire, then throw stones at them until they either burn to death or are stoned to death.

As for prisons, well I hope you really are guilty if you end up in a South African prison.

Written by Vombatus on 16.05.2014 at 17:02

No, the decisions of the government usually emanate from the legitimity giving by the people (if we are talking of "western societies"... but of course, one might argue of the imperfection that democracies are subject to, which is a different matter). So governments use cohercitive mesures when mesures accepted by the society are not respected. Some exeptions occure, but I highly doubt taxation is among them.

Any form of structured society comes through decisions and interaction of people, for any impersonal institution has it's genesis in the action of man. The use of threat and violence is only one of the many means to maintain it's purpose.


But you know, I think you're logic is quite flawed as you don't seem to fully grasp the concepts here exposed. An example by quoting you:

Quote:
robbery is taking wealth from someone using threats or violence. taxation fits this definition perfectly.

It's wrong as you forget an important part. When you rob, you do not give anything in exchange. When the government gets your taxes, he uses them to provide services, so technically it is not robbing, simply resdistributes wealth.
Another question might be the correct redistribution, % of taxation, corruption and blablabla but that has nothing to do with this issue.

even in the ideal of democracy the measures are not accepted by society, but just by a majority of it, in a representative democracy usually only by a minority
still, regardless of which fraction of the population approves of certain decisions that does not give them the right to use whichever violence they want to force participation on those not approving
also the question of how many people approve of a certain form of robbery is separate from whether it is robbery

if forcing your decisions on others through threats and violence is just another acceptable tool for getting your way then either that is universal, making murder, rape and taking hostages something anyone has a right to do, or mysteriously just something a certain minority of the population calling itself government can do
ignoring the contradiction of people that don"t have those rights having those rights that would be a justification for anything a government does, even the mot totalitarian ones

what a robber does with the stolen wealth is a separate question from whether robbery has happened
while a robber can offer compensation for the damage, that at best can make it a forgiven robbery, not something that hasn"t happened
the robber giving out the stolen wealth however he pleases ignoring what the victims accept as compensation does not even make it something that has been compensated

if the politically well connected decided to rob the rest of the population on their own that form of redistribution of wealth to them would not be accepted even by you
there is no fundamental difference between perpetrating a crime yourself and getting someone you know will certainly do it to do it for you, other than the latter being a more cowardly action, not even taking the risk of achieving what you consider right yourself

Written by theFIST on 17.05.2014 at 16:00

snip

Well, I'm gonna answer briefly as it's off-topic, hoping you understand (I doubt so however). From a point of view of Law, robbery has an "illegal" component. Something that is absent when collecting taxes, as it is contemplated in the legal system that applies to the society that has accepted it. You might like it or not, but hey, if you feel so oppressed by the threat and violence of the State you can always become a hermit living in a cavern where no fictive institutional powers might bother you

------------------

As for the topic, I don't have much to say. deadone pretty much summed up my opinion in his first post. Have no faith in legal justice nowadays.... I'll live with it

Written by Vombatus on 17.05.2014 at 16:31

Well, I'm gonna answer briefly as it's off-topic, hoping you understand (I doubt so however). From a point of view of Law, robbery has an "illegal" component. Something that is absent when collecting taxes, as it is contemplated in the legal system that applies to the society that has accepted it. You might like it or not, but hey, if you feel so oppressed by the threat and violence of the State you can always become a hermit living in a cavern where no fictive institutional powers might bother you

governments use prescriptive law, meaning they define what is legal or illegal
Furthermore the government pays the judges deciding over such cases
any criminals that get to define what is accepted and what is not will of course make sure to define their crimes as accepted

your argument would only be valid in a descriptive legal system in which societal standards have significance in determining judgements

i am not arguing against society, but rather that a civilized population needs to get rid of those uncivilized ones that try to get their way through brute force
so if anyone should be excluded from society, it is them

Written by theFIST on 17.05.2014 at 21:14

governments use prescriptive law, meaning they define what is legal or illegal
Furthermore the government pays the judges deciding over such cases
any criminals that get to define what is accepted and what is not will of course make sure to define their crimes as accepted

your argument would only be valid in a descriptive legal system in which societal standards have significance in determining judgements

i am not arguing against society, but rather that a civilized population needs to get rid of those uncivilized ones that try to get their way through brute force
so if anyone should be excluded from society, it is them

Governements decide what is legal or illegal through laws they promulgate as they have the legitimity to do so, and justice is a separate entity from legislative and executive branches (separation of powers... does it ring a bell ?)
In an argument like this, you can only use descriptive legal systems (as in "what is suppose to be"), otherwise you are just making assuptions that may vary in forms and results. Of course we all know that there is a far stretch between theory and practice so we end up with a pretty fucked and deformed system but, c'est la vie.

Again, I don't doubt we all want that those "uncivilized ones" stop getting there way, but in that case, the problem is the people that form the State and not the institution itself. The use of force is not the issue, otherwise good luck consolidating a State that has no means to maintain it's legitimacy (Hobbes. He knows a thing or two about this....).

Written by toxx on 16.05.2014 at 09:52

Maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, but people rarely get that. Varg Vikernes did though. But that generally means that you will be released on parole after 14 years. The worst sentence here is what you refer to as suspended sentence. you might get 16 years, then there will be an evaluation, and you might get another 16 years. Breivik got sentenced to that. He will most likely never be released from prison. And those people who get these sentences are the worst kind. they serve pretty isolated to, with a lot of restrictions.

Other than that, sentences here is generally too short. You'll get a stricter sentence for scamming the government on taxes than if you rape someone.

didn't Breivik got like life term in jail ? i think that they sentenced him to several 21 sentences? i might be wrong though ...

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 17.05.2014 at 23:33

Written by toxx on 16.05.2014 at 09:52

Maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, but people rarely get that. Varg Vikernes did though. But that generally means that you will be released on parole after 14 years. The worst sentence here is what you refer to as suspended sentence. you might get 16 years, then there will be an evaluation, and you might get another 16 years. Breivik got sentenced to that. He will most likely never be released from prison. And those people who get these sentences are the worst kind. they serve pretty isolated to, with a lot of restrictions.

Other than that, sentences here is generally too short. You'll get a stricter sentence for scamming the government on taxes than if you rape someone.

didn't Breivik got like life term in jail ? i think that they sentenced him to several 21 sentences? i might be wrong though ...

He got sentenced to what we call "forvaring", in English the.word is containment, but after his 21 year sentence he'll be evaluated. There they'll decide if he can be released or not. He will most likely never be released, he'll just get another 21, then he will be evaluated again, and so on.

Written by IronArkadius666 on 17.05.2014 at 11:56

In South Africa it all depends on how much money you can give to the police. Also there is just so much crime that it is impossible to keep track of everything. I think we have the 2nd highest crime rate in the world behind Colombia, but i'm not entirely sure.

But a lot of the townships try to take the law into their own hands and lynch people they see as guilty of a crime. A popular punishment is 'necklacing' where they fill a tire up with tar, hang it around the accused's neck and set it on fire, then throw stones at them until they either burn to death or are stoned to death.

As for prisons, well I hope you really are guilty if you end up in a South African prison.

I watched a documentary about security companies in South Africa a while back. They talked about the necklace
necklace. Pretty rough form of justice. They also had makeshift police stations in the slum, but they had no real power.

I hate to be "that guy," but...

Written by deadone on 17.05.2014 at 15:59
Greater good as in...

I pay $30,000 in income taxes so I'm definitely contributing. I don't mind paying it if is used wisely.

Obviously pointing out all the flaws of the system is easy to do. The same things can be pointed out for every system in place in the history of civilization.

All I'm saying is that taxation isn't robbery in black and white terms. At least the idea behind it in regards to benefiting the general population isn't.

As you said, if implemented wisely, taxation is something most people likely wouldn't mind.

Written by deadone on 19.05.2014 at 07:05

Written by Troy Killjoy on 19.05.2014 at 06:39

As you said, if implemented wisely, taxation is something most people likely wouldn't mind.

Totally agree.

Personally I think there's a bad and rather recent trend in the west of cutting taxes whilst maintaining or increasing government services.

This makes government debt spiral out of control (e.g. Greece).

I think people either have to accept higher taxation or cuts to services.

Correct. And if people understood this, there would be less whining about paying income tax. I pay about 33% of my income, and I'm happy to contribute.

Im not aloud to poop in public.
satanism is a recocnized religion.
prostitution is legal as long as you have a license.
but i wish weed was legal.

and i still hate the party in power lol



i also pay 40% income tax

In new zealand it's pretty much exactly what deadone said about Australia apart from the rambling, i have worked with plenty of youths and older guys who have been inside to confirm the fact with how cushy it is in there as well. For a lot of the youths it's more comfortable than home which is all the more reason to stab that kid for his bike.

Another thing though is how they handle the drugs and alcohol offences. Rehab is basically just a get out of jail early card and just seems to be a place to hang with other druggy crims untill your let out. This is from what i have heard from people i know who have been there through prison.

Why is it when people are on there tenth or so conviction and have been to jail several times that they just keep throwing them in there, don't they ever get that there might be a mental health problem or something that needs to be addressed.

Whoa, you a bit touchy on this topic or something!!...anyway

I myself have committed a fair amount crimes due to my mental issues and i would have just kept committing them and it would have got worse if i had been thrown in prison.

I'm not talking about violent crimes like you mentioned, i'm talking about people getting repeat arrests for things like drugs, binge drinking and drink driving. A lot of the time its a mental illness not a crime, i know this from self experience and from work mates with similar cases. Repeatedly putting them in jail isn't solving anything and they always repeat again.

And i doubt if it's not a violent episode like the ones you talk about they will get any "forensic mental health team" in to see what the problem is, just some prohibition officers who try to make you look worse than you actually are.

Sounds to me like Australian law enforcement handles cases involving those experiencing mental illness with a closed-minded standpoint. no one brings up some good points.

We're going to have to agree to disagree because we have fundamentally different standpoints when it comes to this topic. Yes I work in the field and yes I have a leftist point of view, and from what I can tell you seem to be rather conservative and look at people as the problem rather than circumstance. That said, I do take into consideration that there are people who are solely to blame for their behavior.