well you implied he was released back into the general public after murdering 22 people. I am not a fan of the death penalty either due to being against abortion as im against murder at any age or mental capacity.
I did not imply so, I said he was. I merely explained that people like him are not let free unless they are deemed to be not dangerous anymore. He has been more or less free for 15 years and completely free for 5 years and he has not repeated his actions. I deem that a success.
Not disagreeing on the kids but they definitely shouldn't get off free as you seem to favor. I mean seriously they have destroyed the life of someone else completely. That kid will NEVER be normal again.
I am not saying that they should be let of free, but destroying their lives as well is not gonna help anyone. We had a similar case here in Norway where some teens 13-15 year olds tortured and raped another teen. They did not get prison sentences, but they did get treatment, they did get sent to youth institutions which deal with these kind of ****ed up kids. I have not heard anything about what happened to them, but I am hoping they were able to get a somewhat normal life back with a proper support system around them.
The same could be said for a violent criminal of any age. Well, except the "They are still kids" part.
That is true. And that is why I favor treatment over punishment as it usually is far more effective. However, I will agree that in some cases a punishment is the most effective treatment, but if it is too long then it will only make any inherent problems in the criminal worse. And I think the "still kids" part are important. The kids are not adults because the laws recognizes that they are not mature enough to think their actions through and so on. Their parents bear the responsibility when someone is that young and they are too young to be blamed for their own actions. You can not give someone more responsibility without giving them more freedom and rights.
As for serial killers, no we don't have many of those. However, a famous serial killer in the US was born and raised in Norway She is called Lady Bluebird in the US. We also have a Arnfinn Nesset that is more recent. Nesset killed 22 people, he served 10 years and then another 12 a bit more free. He was released 5 years ago. No more murders from him anymore
Well... Norway did have, um, uh... church burnings? There were over 50 of them claimed in Norway during the early-mid 1990's, thanks to the extreme Black Metal scene. But that was just burning some centuries-old buildings, not murder!
Haha, We only had one crazy dude, Varg Vikernes. He was quite mentally ill, burned churches and shot and ate one of his friends He is still in prison or a mental facility as far as I know.
I love the discussion but practically everything I would have to say has been said. America isn't the best country in the world, although I think any country should be praised as the best. America is just purely obessesed with thinking it is the best due to it's economic dominance. Democratically, happiness, social justice, crime rate, equality, and a lot of other things, I think the scandinavians are doing a much better job.
Yes I mostly agree with this. And I think the discussions here have been far more productive then I actually hoped for. But then again, for being an internet discussion forum, this place is rather good
I believe I've told you this before, but the "parties" in the US are more like coalitions in multiparty systems. For instance, the Blue Dog Democrats, a group within the Democratic Party that has recently risen to prominence for giving the Democratic leadership trouble, would almost certainly be a party of its own in Norway.
Yes this is true, and yes you have told me this before. However, that is a very limiting way of doing it. first of all people can not vote directly towards these groups, and secondly you can not have a proper mix of two groups in the two parties.
To give you an example. The parties we have are from left to right in politics: SV, AP, SP, Krf, V, H, Frp. In the last 16 years or so we have had these governments: AP. H. SP+V+H. Krf+V+H. SV+AP+SP. And now we are looking at the possibility of a H+Frp government this fall. This gives you a direct impact on society in the way people votes. You don't only have the choice between a left and a right party. You can vote for the christian conservative party, you can vote for the socialliberal party, you can vote for the liberalconservative party, you can vote for the socialist party, etc. And your vote will get them more power.
Actually no it wouldn't it would create more of it not less. Right because people that live in NM or people that live in the smaller new england states shouldn't have a say in what happens in the country.
everything should just be decided by 4 or 5 states and that is it.
This is the same reason that we don't go by the popular vote. 4 or 5 states shouldn't have the power to tell the others what to do. Equal representation is a constitutional law.
Everyone has the right to be represented in the government.
Lets take an extreme example. Almost everyone moved away from Rhode Island. Only 50 people lived there. Should those people have as much to say in the senate as the entire population of Calefornia? Where does this make sense? You are talking about the representation of each state, but states doesn't really matter anymore. Mostly everything is decided at the federal level.
Also, you are constantly arguing about the whole republic thing. The US is a Federal Constitutional Republic. The whole federal thing is hardly relevant anymore with the federal level making most of the laws. And the Constitutional Republic part is pure democracy. In fact, with the way Constitutional Republic is explained in for example wikipedia, you might as well call Norway a constitutional Republic.
Mystery45: Yes, I am well aware of how the US congress works. What I am arguing for is that it is undemocratic. And as far as republic goes, yes you are a republic. However, that has little meaning today as the federal level has most of the real power. The way Senate works used to be a good idea, but I think it works against the people the way it is now.
Also, you talk about equal footing and such. I don't think the smaller states should have a equal footing with the large one. That is what creates the democratic issues. Imo the US would be a whole lot more democratic and a whole lot better off without the Senate. It would lessen bureaucracy, filibusters, corruption, etc.
Sorry those kids deserve to be in jail for at least 5-10 years(obv juvie) They raped a kid MULTIPLE TIMES over the course of TWO MONTHS. Sorry that to me is insane and should probably put them in a treatment place for a very long time as something is obviously wrong with those kids.
They are still kids and their actions are a result of either bad parenting or mental issues. Most likley a mix. 5-10 years in prison won't make that any better. In fact it will probably just make them worse when they do come out.
Sorry thats a joke. Mass murderers should not be released. He took the life of twenty two people and spent 1 year in prison for each? That is a travesty of justice not something to be proud of. I am sure the fact that he is a productive member of society is a HUGE boon for the families he destroyed. Wonder how far this law would go? Could I perhaps make a small dirty nuke kill a thousand people in norway and only spend 22 years in jail.
Well, we do still technically have death penalty for treason, but it hasn't been used since the end of WW2. And it would never be used today. Death penalty is not very popular here. Most people here thinks it's inhumane.
Also, let me explain something. While we do have a 21 years max sentence, this sentence is the maximum prison sentence. Additionally people can be sentenced to a sort of detention, usually at a clinic. This is used in murder cases or violent cases were mental issues and danger of repetition is an issue. Basicly it allows for a theoretical lifelong prison of sorts. It is used for people that will be a threat to society if released. So if someone is mentally ill and enjoys killing people, then they will be held away from society untill they are deemed healthy enough to return.
I like this approach as I think its far more productive for the society to have people get well and be a productive part of society rather then rot in jail spending my tax money.
By definition, though, your own electoral parties are a minority even when they are most powerful - they are deciding the laws of your country, are they not?
No, it doesn't work like that. Normally several parties prefer to find some grounds on which to cooperate in government. So the politics become a cross-section of the parties (usually 2 or 3). This way we often have majority government. In the event that no majority block is able to cooperate to take the government, then usually the largest party or largest block of parties make a minory government. This happens now and then, but it is often hard for the government to make it work. They do however control the official offices and day to day operations of the government so they do have some power there on the details of how things are run. But for law changes those still need a majority vote in the Storting (sorta like the house of representatives) in which all parties have their representatives depending on their percent of the votes they got last election. So while a minority government have some power, they can't just push laws through without support of other parties.
A minority deciding the laws of a country is neither right nor wrong, intrinsically - it depends upon the law. A majority of the German public elected Adolf Hitler to be the leader of Germany. A minority of the U.S. electorate saw the reforms proposed by Martin Luther King Jr. pushed into action, as Ralph Nader also pushed reform after writing Unsafe at Any Speed and DDT was banned for use (incorrectly, probably) after Silent Spring was published.
Well, that is what I am saying really. A democratic decision is not inheritabely good or bad.
Myself, I am a part of a rather small party in Norway with only 6ish percent of the votes. So while I often disagree with the politics that are being carried out by the government and the votes done by the people it is still a democratic choice, and if the people chooses bad people to govern them then so be it. It is one of the bad sides of living in a democracy.
Most laws are themselves instigated by an energetic minority, not the majority of a nation. The one example I can think of, of laws being passed by majority, is California where lots of bills get put into the forms of Propositions (like the damning Prop 13 that is currently strangling the states purse), and the end result is a choked and bloated state.
The props in Calefornia is an example of Direct democracy, not Representative democracy. I am not in favor of Direct democracy of the very reasons you stated. When it comes to some decisions that boils down to sense of nationalism and sense of morals, I think there is good reason to use it. We for example use to vote for whether or not we should be a member of the EU. So far it has been no, no and no In my country I am quite used to the majority deciding and sure, smaller parties might bring up suggestions for laws, but unless it gets a majority vote then it doesn't matter.
Edit: Moreover, laws are designed to protect the minority, whom need that protection. The apparent form of the desired social contract in the United States is based off of the laissez faire approach - people can do what they please, provided their behavior does not impinge upon others. The course that the nation has taken in the last few decades - legalizing sodomy, abortion, guns in spades, and with the abortive push on gay marriage all point in this direction.
Laws have no such inherent design. However, it is true that laws of most modern democratic societies have such laws. But these laws are not put there by the minority and they shouldn't need to be. A good and civil country will by the majorities choice implement laws that protect the minorities because it's they feel its the right thing to do. We have minorities today that are racist and want Norway to be for white people only. However, the majority doesn't agree with this so they get nowhere, even with their petite political parties.
Also, the direction the you point the US going in is correct. The US are becoming more liberal and imo more modern and up to date in its laws. But this stems from a change in the majority of the people. Politicians won't dare change laws about big moral issues like that if they get the entire country against them if they do.
A better question than "Is the minority deciding the laws of the country?" is, "Is the minority deciding the course of our country?", in which case, the answer is no. If a minority wants a law protecting them from discrimination, or pushes to have a law repealed that bans head scarves in schools and public places (France), is the minority deciding the course of the nation, or are they demanding freedom to express their own values?
I have never said that the minority swaying the public opinion of the majority is wrong. In fact that is the main propagator for social change in a proper democratic fashion.
If a minority pushes for equality with the majority, and gets laws that protect them to that point, is that something you can be proud or ashamed of your country doing? Is the minority deciding the laws of your country, or are they legitimately defending their own interests? Some combination of the both, to be sure, but it's not like the legislature has suddenly become the pawn of a minority group, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Legislation that protects a minority from discrimination is in most peoples views a good thing. But if such legislation is pushed through in a country where most people disagree then that is quite undemocratic. Undemocratic political decisions can have positive effects on society, but they are also imo dangerous and in the long term if such things are common they can seriously damage the power of the democracy resulting in fewer people voting, less people education themselves about politics and so on.
Blinking Spirit: Well, in a proper democratic system, the majority could elect people the next election that could remove these rights. And well, they didn't. But again, I can see this being a bigger problem with a two party system.
Here we have at the moment 7 major parties and they grow and shrink between 5 and 40% after what the people want at the moment. Since the 1980's scepticism towards immigration have slowly grown here and so has a party called the progress party. While not directly racist they want a stricter line on immigration. After 30 years of growth they are for the first time this election major contenders to getting the government offices. This kind of thing doesn't seem to be possible in the US.
But my main point still remains the same, do you think the minority deciding the laws of the country to be the democratic way of doing it?
Blinking Spirit: I am not saying that minorities can not try to influence things. They have their right to speak up as well. But in the case of racism and Martin Luther King, there was not only blacks that supported his case. But yes, I believe that in a democracy the government should try and rule after what the public wants. Ofcourse, there are exceptions. They shouldn't run the country to the ground because most people don't get economics, but in general, minorities deciding directly over majorities is not democratic.
The law doesn't have the luxury of a mature-o-meter that it can point at someone to determine whether they're ready to have sex. It has to draw a bright line somewhere. This also applies to the driving age, the drinking age, the smoking age, and so on.
That is sort of true. The law has the possibility of making laws. Here the law is simply that even with the age limit, this limit is there to protect from abuse, so when the ages are close there is no inherent abuse and as such the law doesn't count in such cases. This is not a mature-o-meter, but the way law is practiced.
Tried as an adult maybe, but punished as an adult, no. I'd say heavy (and I mean heavy) counseling is preferable to adult prison, because when a 13-year-old rapes someone, that is hopefully still a psych problem that can be remedied.
What is the point of being tried as an adult, but not punished as one? Here, if your under 16 you can't even be legally charged of anything. And as long as you under 18 most things would be put upon the parents (fines, etc).
Although, to be fair, in America we have more... creative killers. And serial killers. Has there been a Norwegian serial killer? (What makes us so special...)
I'm not sure I want to go into a prison length discussion I have rather unconvential opinions there and I'm quite extreme even compared to Norwegian punishments.
As for serial killers, no we don't have many of those. However, a famous serial killer in the US was born and raised in Norway She is called Lady Bluebird in the US. We also have a Arnfinn Nesset that is more recent. Nesset killed 22 people, he served 10 years and then another 12 a bit more free. He was released 5 years ago. No more murders from him anymore
Ah. Well it does depend on where someone is from in America. Obviously, rural people and lower-income people may not have those options available, but where I live (a fairly affluent community) people travel to Europe or elsewhere all the time. Some people have time-share houses abroad.
Yeah, we don't have that large differences between rural and city areas as you do. I would like to see stats on this thing though. I can't seem to find any.
Hopefully there are (were) laws regarding safe practices, right?
What do you mean?
edit: Some good info on the worlds best higher education. No surprise, the US is in a class of its own with most of the top 50 universities and all of the top 21. The top Norwegian ones are at 54 and 55 which I things all things considered isn't that bad. Granted this survey has a high webfocus, but I'm sure it gives a good idea of how things are.
actually it can happen, but we need to get the mamby government can run everything for everybody people out of office first.
it can happen if people elect individuals that want to limit the size of government.
And how do you except to get those people into government when you have a two party system? None of the two parties you have seem to be too interested in giving power back to the states.
The senate is still the check and balance to the house. it was designed to stop that over-run by a few states from happening.
How is it better the way it is now with the countries minorities being able to block the majority? Isn't democracy all about the majority being able to decide?
This is exactly why the senate was put into place. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. they didn't want massive changes to come from the federal government but from the state governments.
The federal government was there to produce laws that governed everyone but it was up to the states to make the actual changes.
this gave power to the states rather than the federal government. IMHO the federal government now has to much power period. It has gotten away from the orginial idea of the limited power of congress.
Yes, but don't you see that this change has maken the Senate a bad thing? In the original way with most power to each state the senate is fine, but when that has changed it becomes a hindrence to a good democracy. Yes, giving more power back to the states would also solve the problem, but I think we all agree that is not going to happen.
I think both sides would agree on the facts you put forward. But you're simply assuming what is at question here: whether pure individual representation or mixed representation is better for the country. What are the superior virtues of a "proper" representative democracy, as you've defined it?
Well, I think that one of the most important democratic values in todays modern democracies is that no one persons vote should count more then any others. A poor persons vote and the presidents vote count the same. A New Yorker's vote and a Washington vote count the same. After getting away from the aristocracy where some people decided more then others, and then getting over the democratic discrimination in not allowing certain groups of people to vote, then we shouldn't be going backwards.
However, my main point is that as it is now it does not seem to work as intended. When the us constitution was written the federal level held far less legislative power then it does today. Therefore, Senators was far less important in the legislative and democratic process. Most laws was passed within each state and inside the state it is as far as I have learned a far greater amount of representative democracy. However, now with the federal level doing as much of the legislation as the federal level of any other country, the senate system is simply out of date, not fitting the current democratic form of the US.
I refuse to believe this. Maybe when it's sunk in and I've done some background research I'll be able to comment, but for the moment all I can say is .
No one I have ever met would ever allow that sort of thing to happen to a child. Ever. That an entire society allows it to happen - Like I said, I refuse to believe it.
The US has a disgusting habit of charging kids as an adult. http://www.tressugar.com/3248281
Yes the kids did a terrible thing. but they are 13! they need good parents, not lifetime in prison.
I am not able to find the link to the florida case, but it is 3-4 years ago so it can be a bit hard to find.
IDK your laws are worded almost the same. Plus I would say that regardless of how it makes it to the internet adding pornography of underage people to the internet is kind of the definition of child pornography regardless of who is doing the adding. As for the first one, you are either forgetting the state or something as foridas laws definitely allow exceptions on that.
Also Norway's laws are worded the same as ours. if your under 16 you arent supposed to have sex.
No, our laws are far from the same. The only similarity is that 16 is the legal age for sex. However, if its consenting and the difference in age are no more then 3-4 years it is not a problem and any judge will simply dismiss the case.
Also, we don't ever judge people as an adult unless they are. That is kind of the point of having the age of accountability which here is 16. We also have max punishments of anything at all of 21 years which is only used for extreme cases of murder.
But the point is, you can spend a weekend in any of a bajillion (didn't want to count) nearby countries and it's not a big deal. We're long hours from anything more "exotic" than Mexico or Canada.
But I am not talking about visiting nearby countries. Calling that common is a huge understatement. I would really surprised if I met someone that hadn't been out of the country here. My parents are out of the country right now, and my ex just came back from portugal. This is fairly standard. However, I am talking more distant travel. I have friends that have been to Japan, South Africa, China, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Cuba, etc. And all of my grandparents have been to almost every country in the world that border the sea.
I think Blinking Spirit's statement can be applied to both metric and soccer. Actually, soccer's huge in the States... until you turn 12 or so. We just don't have the major league teams, but youth soccer is pretty popular. I think it's because the other major league sports are faster, more violent, or more score-y.
Well, your major teams are not that terrible. And recently the LA Galaxy bought one of the worlds most famous soccer players ever. Also, its only the us that calls it Soccer. The rest of the world call it football, even when talking english. Soccer is just a special word so you can understand. What you call football we call American football.
To be fair, since scientists use metric measurements, so do we in science and math classes.
That is good at least.
In this case, probably. I think that's why there are close-in-age exemptions trying to be passed. But legally it gets on shaky ground, because really you're trying to assess whether the minor was mature enough to willfully engage in sex.
Saying that somone at 15 is not mature enough and someone that is 16 is, that is being on shaky grounds.
But in regards to both of these, the law really shouldn't need to make judgments of morality. What it should do is protect the health and welfare of the victim and/or society.
I agree with that. I am sad that we have gotten morality police back in norway when the idiots in government managed to make buying sex illegal. It will probably get removed soon hopefully.
Eh, most young kids that play soccer don't keep score. That doesn't really count as a 'sport' in my book. Its frickin lame.
They don't? Has to be an american thing. I've played soccer since I was old enough to walk and run. And even in primary school we always kept scores and divided into proper teams. Keeping scores is half the fun.
Yeah... maybe the EU should dissolve its member states, as thats essentially how the usg was made to be setup.. Plus we would have to change our name and no one wants that.
I believe that the EU, while not disolving the member state will become more and more like a country, for better and for worse.
Sheesh, why am I paying school taxes so that people can even think that our system that represents STATES should somehow be changed to be representative of PERSONS.
Well, this was fine when the federal system didn't decide much when the US was first formed. Today the US at a federal level decides just as much about how the country is run that other countries do. So there is no longer a proper democracy as the lawmakers needs to be decided by representative of persons and not of states. Otherwise you simply don't have have a proper representative democracy.
That's part of the American spirit (stubborness?), we value (maybe even actively seek out ways) our differences from the rest of the world. That's why soccer isn't popular over here either.
Being different for the sake of being different is not always a good thing I believe math for example would be easier to teach using the metric system.
But it's so boring.
Its math so that hardly matters
Nan that is because we have laws that say you can't post nude pictures of kids under the age of 18 on the internet more so without consent at 18.
Yes I know that, we ofcourse have the same laws here. I have nothing against this being illegal and that wasn't what I was arguing either.
the boy was 17 and the girl was 15. you are not allowed to engage in sexual acts with someone with an age difference of that much.
also i think the kid was going on 18. which would make it a rape charge.
Somone getting his life ruined for consensual sex with someone two/three years younger then him is sickening and disgusting. At most he should have gotten a slap on the wrist if anything.
the pictures is also against the law.
It wasn't as if they were spreading them around. They were private pictures between a couple. They were charged as sexual offenders. And worst of all the only victim of the charges were themselves. That is a kind of justice that also makes me sick.
Anyone supporting such use of the laws are in my opinion less then human. Its sickening and so morally objectable to ruin the lives of young kids like this that it's comparable to the laws in Iran and similar places.
The lack of foreign travel ought to be understandable; it's not like we can hop a train and spend the weekend in Berlin. I'd very much like to see numbers on the lack of interstate travel, though. The call of the open road has a powerful pull in modern American culture. (Not that the interstate highway system is always that "open" in places - try saying that Americans travel very little after driving up and down the East Coast a couple of times!)
I don't have any numbers on that. It is just the impression I get from Americans I do meet here and from people I know that have traveled over there. And I can' exactly hop on the train to berlin myself Going from here to berlin with train would take 2-3 days of travel through 3 countries. And planes are usually cheaper and ofcourse much faster.
I agree that its likely that oil prices will increase to result in $4 gasoline, but the only thing certain in life is death and taxes....come to think of it I guess you could guarantee $4 gas via taxes...ugh.
You guys have such low gas prices. Here its about 1.8 bucks per litre. And it has been as high as 2.2 bucks per litre. And a litre is a hell of a lot less then a galleon.
Another strange thing. The metric system. Why not? It is arguably better and easier for math and more or less the entire rest of the world uses it.
I did not imply so, I said he was. I merely explained that people like him are not let free unless they are deemed to be not dangerous anymore. He has been more or less free for 15 years and completely free for 5 years and he has not repeated his actions. I deem that a success.
I am not saying that they should be let of free, but destroying their lives as well is not gonna help anyone. We had a similar case here in Norway where some teens 13-15 year olds tortured and raped another teen. They did not get prison sentences, but they did get treatment, they did get sent to youth institutions which deal with these kind of ****ed up kids. I have not heard anything about what happened to them, but I am hoping they were able to get a somewhat normal life back with a proper support system around them.
That is true. And that is why I favor treatment over punishment as it usually is far more effective. However, I will agree that in some cases a punishment is the most effective treatment, but if it is too long then it will only make any inherent problems in the criminal worse. And I think the "still kids" part are important. The kids are not adults because the laws recognizes that they are not mature enough to think their actions through and so on. Their parents bear the responsibility when someone is that young and they are too young to be blamed for their own actions. You can not give someone more responsibility without giving them more freedom and rights.
As for serial killers, no we don't have many of those. However, a famous serial killer in the US was born and raised in Norway
Haha, We only had one crazy dude, Varg Vikernes. He was quite mentally ill, burned churches and shot and ate one of his friends
Yes I mostly agree with this. And I think the discussions here have been far more productive then I actually hoped for. But then again, for being an internet discussion forum, this place is rather good
Yes this is true, and yes you have told me this before. However, that is a very limiting way of doing it. first of all people can not vote directly towards these groups, and secondly you can not have a proper mix of two groups in the two parties.
To give you an example. The parties we have are from left to right in politics: SV, AP, SP, Krf, V, H, Frp. In the last 16 years or so we have had these governments: AP. H. SP+V+H. Krf+V+H. SV+AP+SP. And now we are looking at the possibility of a H+Frp government this fall. This gives you a direct impact on society in the way people votes. You don't only have the choice between a left and a right party. You can vote for the christian conservative party, you can vote for the socialliberal party, you can vote for the liberalconservative party, you can vote for the socialist party, etc. And your vote will get them more power.
Lets take an extreme example. Almost everyone moved away from Rhode Island. Only 50 people lived there. Should those people have as much to say in the senate as the entire population of Calefornia? Where does this make sense? You are talking about the representation of each state, but states doesn't really matter anymore. Mostly everything is decided at the federal level.
Also, you are constantly arguing about the whole republic thing. The US is a Federal Constitutional Republic. The whole federal thing is hardly relevant anymore with the federal level making most of the laws. And the Constitutional Republic part is pure democracy. In fact, with the way Constitutional Republic is explained in for example wikipedia, you might as well call Norway a constitutional Republic.
Also, you talk about equal footing and such. I don't think the smaller states should have a equal footing with the large one. That is what creates the democratic issues. Imo the US would be a whole lot more democratic and a whole lot better off without the Senate. It would lessen bureaucracy, filibusters, corruption, etc.
They are still kids and their actions are a result of either bad parenting or mental issues. Most likley a mix. 5-10 years in prison won't make that any better. In fact it will probably just make them worse when they do come out.
Well, we do still technically have death penalty for treason, but it hasn't been used since the end of WW2. And it would never be used today. Death penalty is not very popular here. Most people here thinks it's inhumane.
Also, let me explain something. While we do have a 21 years max sentence, this sentence is the maximum prison sentence. Additionally people can be sentenced to a sort of detention, usually at a clinic. This is used in murder cases or violent cases were mental issues and danger of repetition is an issue. Basicly it allows for a theoretical lifelong prison of sorts. It is used for people that will be a threat to society if released. So if someone is mentally ill and enjoys killing people, then they will be held away from society untill they are deemed healthy enough to return.
I like this approach as I think its far more productive for the society to have people get well and be a productive part of society rather then rot in jail spending my tax money.
No, it doesn't work like that. Normally several parties prefer to find some grounds on which to cooperate in government. So the politics become a cross-section of the parties (usually 2 or 3). This way we often have majority government. In the event that no majority block is able to cooperate to take the government, then usually the largest party or largest block of parties make a minory government. This happens now and then, but it is often hard for the government to make it work. They do however control the official offices and day to day operations of the government so they do have some power there on the details of how things are run. But for law changes those still need a majority vote in the Storting (sorta like the house of representatives) in which all parties have their representatives depending on their percent of the votes they got last election. So while a minority government have some power, they can't just push laws through without support of other parties.
Well, that is what I am saying really. A democratic decision is not inheritabely good or bad.
Myself, I am a part of a rather small party in Norway with only 6ish percent of the votes. So while I often disagree with the politics that are being carried out by the government and the votes done by the people it is still a democratic choice, and if the people chooses bad people to govern them then so be it. It is one of the bad sides of living in a democracy.
The props in Calefornia is an example of Direct democracy, not Representative democracy. I am not in favor of Direct democracy of the very reasons you stated. When it comes to some decisions that boils down to sense of nationalism and sense of morals, I think there is good reason to use it. We for example use to vote for whether or not we should be a member of the EU. So far it has been no, no and no
Laws have no such inherent design. However, it is true that laws of most modern democratic societies have such laws. But these laws are not put there by the minority and they shouldn't need to be. A good and civil country will by the majorities choice implement laws that protect the minorities because it's they feel its the right thing to do. We have minorities today that are racist and want Norway to be for white people only. However, the majority doesn't agree with this so they get nowhere, even with their petite political parties.
Also, the direction the you point the US going in is correct. The US are becoming more liberal and imo more modern and up to date in its laws. But this stems from a change in the majority of the people. Politicians won't dare change laws about big moral issues like that if they get the entire country against them if they do.
I have never said that the minority swaying the public opinion of the majority is wrong. In fact that is the main propagator for social change in a proper democratic fashion.
Legislation that protects a minority from discrimination is in most peoples views a good thing. But if such legislation is pushed through in a country where most people disagree then that is quite undemocratic. Undemocratic political decisions can have positive effects on society, but they are also imo dangerous and in the long term if such things are common they can seriously damage the power of the democracy resulting in fewer people voting, less people education themselves about politics and so on.
Here we have at the moment 7 major parties and they grow and shrink between 5 and 40% after what the people want at the moment. Since the 1980's scepticism towards immigration have slowly grown here and so has a party called the progress party. While not directly racist they want a stricter line on immigration. After 30 years of growth they are for the first time this election major contenders to getting the government offices. This kind of thing doesn't seem to be possible in the US.
But my main point still remains the same, do you think the minority deciding the laws of the country to be the democratic way of doing it?
That is sort of true. The law has the possibility of making laws. Here the law is simply that even with the age limit, this limit is there to protect from abuse, so when the ages are close there is no inherent abuse and as such the law doesn't count in such cases. This is not a mature-o-meter, but the way law is practiced.
What is the point of being tried as an adult, but not punished as one? Here, if your under 16 you can't even be legally charged of anything. And as long as you under 18 most things would be put upon the parents (fines, etc).
I'm not sure I want to go into a prison length discussion
As for serial killers, no we don't have many of those. However, a famous serial killer in the US was born and raised in Norway
Yeah, we don't have that large differences between rural and city areas as you do. I would like to see stats on this thing though. I can't seem to find any.
What do you mean?
edit: Some good info on the worlds best higher education. No surprise, the US is in a class of its own with most of the top 50 universities and all of the top 21. The top Norwegian ones are at 54 and 55 which I things all things considered isn't that bad. Granted this survey has a high webfocus, but I'm sure it gives a good idea of how things are.
And how do you except to get those people into government when you have a two party system? None of the two parties you have seem to be too interested in giving power back to the states.
How is it better the way it is now with the countries minorities being able to block the majority? Isn't democracy all about the majority being able to decide?
Yes, but don't you see that this change has maken the Senate a bad thing? In the original way with most power to each state the senate is fine, but when that has changed it becomes a hindrence to a good democracy. Yes, giving more power back to the states would also solve the problem, but I think we all agree that is not going to happen.
Well, I think that one of the most important democratic values in todays modern democracies is that no one persons vote should count more then any others. A poor persons vote and the presidents vote count the same. A New Yorker's vote and a Washington vote count the same. After getting away from the aristocracy where some people decided more then others, and then getting over the democratic discrimination in not allowing certain groups of people to vote, then we shouldn't be going backwards.
However, my main point is that as it is now it does not seem to work as intended. When the us constitution was written the federal level held far less legislative power then it does today. Therefore, Senators was far less important in the legislative and democratic process. Most laws was passed within each state and inside the state it is as far as I have learned a far greater amount of representative democracy. However, now with the federal level doing as much of the legislation as the federal level of any other country, the senate system is simply out of date, not fitting the current democratic form of the US.
The US has a disgusting habit of charging kids as an adult. http://www.tressugar.com/3248281
Yes the kids did a terrible thing. but they are 13! they need good parents, not lifetime in prison.
here is the link to the cp case:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/02/21/court-issues-unbelievably-stupid-sex-crime-ruling/
I am not able to find the link to the florida case, but it is 3-4 years ago so it can be a bit hard to find.
No, our laws are far from the same. The only similarity is that 16 is the legal age for sex. However, if its consenting and the difference in age are no more then 3-4 years it is not a problem and any judge will simply dismiss the case.
Also, we don't ever judge people as an adult unless they are. That is kind of the point of having the age of accountability which here is 16. We also have max punishments of anything at all of 21 years which is only used for extreme cases of murder.
But I am not talking about visiting nearby countries. Calling that common is a huge understatement. I would really surprised if I met someone that hadn't been out of the country here. My parents are out of the country right now, and my ex just came back from portugal. This is fairly standard. However, I am talking more distant travel. I have friends that have been to Japan, South Africa, China, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Cuba, etc. And all of my grandparents have been to almost every country in the world that border the sea.
Well, your major teams are not that terrible. And recently the LA Galaxy bought one of the worlds most famous soccer players ever. Also, its only the us that calls it Soccer. The rest of the world call it football, even when talking english. Soccer is just a special word so you can understand. What you call football we call American football.
That is good at least.
Saying that somone at 15 is not mature enough and someone that is 16 is, that is being on shaky grounds.
I agree with that. I am sad that we have gotten morality police back in norway when the idiots in government managed to make buying sex illegal. It will probably get removed soon hopefully.
They don't? Has to be an american thing. I've played soccer since I was old enough to walk and run. And even in primary school we always kept scores and divided into proper teams. Keeping scores is half the fun.
I believe that the EU, while not disolving the member state will become more and more like a country, for better and for worse.
Well, this was fine when the federal system didn't decide much when the US was first formed. Today the US at a federal level decides just as much about how the country is run that other countries do. So there is no longer a proper democracy as the lawmakers needs to be decided by representative of persons and not of states. Otherwise you simply don't have have a proper representative democracy.
Alot of it is taxes yes, but far from all of it.
Being different for the sake of being different is not always a good thing
Its math so that hardly matters
Yes I know that, we ofcourse have the same laws here. I have nothing against this being illegal and that wasn't what I was arguing either.
Somone getting his life ruined for consensual sex with someone two/three years younger then him is sickening and disgusting. At most he should have gotten a slap on the wrist if anything.
It wasn't as if they were spreading them around. They were private pictures between a couple. They were charged as sexual offenders. And worst of all the only victim of the charges were themselves. That is a kind of justice that also makes me sick.
Anyone supporting such use of the laws are in my opinion less then human. Its sickening and so morally objectable to ruin the lives of young kids like this that it's comparable to the laws in Iran and similar places.
I don't have any numbers on that. It is just the impression I get from Americans I do meet here and from people I know that have traveled over there. And I can' exactly hop on the train to berlin myself
You guys have such low gas prices. Here its about 1.8 bucks per litre. And it has been as high as 2.2 bucks per litre. And a litre is a hell of a lot less then a galleon.
Another strange thing. The metric system. Why not? It is arguably better and easier for math and more or less the entire rest of the world uses it.