Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Swedish Court
coldzera | 
Sweden 4Sweeeden 
Is a fucking joke, 4 guys (between the ages of 18 and 20) stole 60-70.000$ in electronic stuff from a electronic store, they also put pistols on 5-6 hostages (2 of the "hostages" was a mother and her little kid that was around 7-8 years old isch) and the prison sentence is: 20 year old: 2 years and 4 months in prison 1 of the 18 year olds: 1½ year in prison 2nd 18 year old: THREE months in prison 19 year old: 2 years in prison How the FUCK can a person that pointed a gun on a lady and the child (And ofc the staff and others around) get THREE(!) months in prison? They all should get 5-10 years. As you all can see in the video they all have guns (I even think one of them have a small automatic rifle) Video in the article i linked, you can see the robbers enter and point guns on people etc.
2017-10-12 01:44
United States ImHybernate 
well swedish people are cucks so... I can't help ya
2017-10-12 01:46
Swedish government and system*
2017-10-12 01:48
United States ImHybernate 
true but you have all those feminist who let refugees that then take over your streets and sexually harass them
2017-10-12 01:49
I know. And then they blame "Men".
2017-10-12 01:49
United States ImHybernate 
2017-10-12 01:50
That's how i said a few months ago in my own topic what Sweden really need. How to fix sweden? Drop some bomb there and will be great :)
2017-10-12 06:42
No no. Only white straight men.
2017-10-12 17:28
But ur goverment can do whatever they feel like as long as you swedes dont put your foot down and unite, and show some distrust towards them and protest against these things. I bet people would've gathered and united to protest against things like this 20+ years ago in Sweden, but today more and more people live comfortable and dont give a shit unless it's something happening to themselves. And then they vote by how much more money they can get, as long as they get more in their wallet it doesn't seem to matter how much that falls apart next to them.
2017-10-12 03:31
2017-10-12 03:40
Yeah, lets do a Catalonian 2.0 and see what happens.
2017-10-12 03:43
Had to google protests in Sweden to see what it looked like, and these kind of pictures were the first that showed up lol: So I would be suprised if you managed to get anywhere near 10% of the amount like in Catalonian considering swedes just seems to unite and protest if the topic is against racists, otherwise they stay inside.
2017-10-12 04:17
To be fair, we had a real problem with racists skinheads in the 80's and 90's that often rallied in large groups to fight immigrants and migrants. But beyond that, there are thousands of protests in Sweden each year, some get a lot more media attention than others, of course, but we even have a dedicated day for protesting things we don't like. Also, you should look up the EU summit of 2001.
2017-10-12 05:01
Slovakia kokotko1g 
No wonder my little bro got stolen iphone 6 from sweden for 150$ XD
2017-10-12 01:50
JW | 
Sweden osnolsson 
2017-10-12 01:51
gtfo kid.
2017-10-12 02:09
JW | 
Sweden osnolsson 
2017-10-12 02:24
Thanks for bump. /Ignored.
2017-10-12 02:24
JW | 
Sweden osnolsson 
Thanks for Thanks for bump
2017-10-12 02:55
Brazil nyz 
If the ideia is to reintegrate these people into society again, I think 2 years is a fine sentence, (considering they're first offenders) it makes them rethink about their decisions. Now, you can't expect criminals to become better people when you throw them in jail for 10-15 years, wasting the prime of their lives. they will only become worse as soon as they get out
2017-10-12 02:11
Pointing a gun towards a kid and the kids mother = 30 years in prison imo. I dont want to see these idiots out in my country. Also, i am 99% positive that these guys are immigrants and doesnt give a shit about a prison sentence, they will still probably go on a crime spree. THREE months prison for holding a handgun and robbing a store on electronics worth 60-70.000$ mate.
2017-10-12 02:19
Btw, How do you/we know that these guys are first offenders? doesnt say anywhere in the article.
2017-10-12 02:57
Brazil nyz 
I don't know, worded it wrongly. What I meant is, i'm in favor of soft sentences for first-time offenders, except for heinous crimes such as rape, murder, torture etc. Surely point guns to a kid and its mother is bad, but as long as they weren't harm, I think these criminals can be reintegrated into society again. 2-3 years is enough time to think about your mistakes and move on with your life, while 10+ years... you would be spending the prime of your life in jail. 3 months is too little I agree.
2017-10-12 03:28
They want to go to Swedish Prison: NSFW:
2017-10-12 02:23
"Svanka"? The fuck is Svanka? Also, 0/8, Thats American prisons with gangs in them.
2017-10-12 02:24
How will a longer sentence make any difference? Because it's been proven to not make a damn bit of difference in a million different cases.
2017-10-12 02:27
Well, more time wasted on their pathetic lifes? Pointing a gun on a lady and her child should be 10 years in prison imo. But Swedish law is "No no, we rehabilitate them and then they will be fine", thats exactly what they say about the returning ISIS terrorists.
2017-10-12 02:30
Do you even know what you are saying? "Pointing a gun on a lady and her child should be 10 years in prison imo." Because? To waste their time? Fine, but you're paying for it, I don't want to spend my money on shit that doesn't help anyone. "But Swedish law is 'No no, we rehabilitate them and then they will be fine'" That's the basis of law in the civilized world, yes. If you want to go back to medieval times, feel free to move to South Sudan or something, where I'm sure they'll do much worse to you, just because you look funny. And you know why it's the basis of all prison systems? Because the alternative is even more of a shit show. The country with the lowest recidivism rate (that is, people who reoffend after being imprisoned) is Norway - do you know why? Because they treat prisoners like people. They treat them with respect, and they try to get them accustomed to a normal life - something that in most cases, they didn't have on the outside. So the question is this: Would you rather have 10 former prisoners who are now productive members of society after serving a 2 year sentence, or 20 former prisoners who will most likely commit crimes again? Because you are choosing to believe that the latter is more beneficial. My question to you is: To whom is it more beneficial? inb4 "Sweden prison so gut, like 4-star hotel newb lols, get ISIS out ffs!"
2017-10-12 02:39
So "rehabilitate" will work? KEK. it wont. They should be punished with a long prison sentence. These "productive members of society" wont be "productive" they will most likely jump back to crime stuff, its kinda obv, its not like a random arab in a ghetto will just "transform" and become a really nice guy because he got a 1½ year sentence with "rehabilitation", he will most likely go out and do some more dumb shit.
2017-10-12 02:42
It does work. That's what I just explained to you. You clearly have no fucking clue what works and what doesn't and just want to blame "arabs in the ghetto" for your ignorance. How many prisons have you been to? How many prisoners have you met? How many research papers have you read? How many reports or documentaries have you watched about it? I have been to 8 different prisons in Sweden, I have worked with countless inmates, ranging from the three-month stinters to the life sentence ones, and I have researched the topic a lot because I find it fascinating that people like you still exists, and I want to prove them wrong. But please, keep telling me what I know.
2017-10-12 02:48
OK there Mr Robocop. Swedens "rehabilitation" is fucking stupid. The rehabilitation doesnt work on all of them, some people are to fucked up to rehabilitate and should rot in prison (Anders Eklund and Hagamannen as examples). So you think THREE months is a good sentence for a fucking retarded youngster that was aiming a gun towards a kid and its mother (and other people in the store ofc) ? Prove me wrong? kek, you think that every single rat that comes to prison and gets rehabilitated by you (if you work with that shit) will become angels? If you think that then you are brainwashed and stupid.
2017-10-12 02:55
I'm not saying Sweden is perfect. Not even Norway is perfect, but to go the opposite way than rehabilitation is wrong - it doesn't help anyone; not the victim, not the offender, not society, no one. You haven't met Eklund, have you? I have. He's like a damn kid. If anyone can be rehabilitated, it's him. Being able to be rehabilitated has nothing to do with the crime you committed - why would you think it does? No crime is black and white (x killed y, for example), there are always layers and motivations behind them. I think that he got three months because the court determined, by examining the evidence, that the crime he personally committed was not the same as the others'. I don't think that's a big leap to make. I don't rehabilitate anyone. I went there and talked shit with them - I don't want to say more than that. But it was not my job to handle them or anything like that. Angels? Who said anything about angels? I'm saying that the statistics are pretty clear: a focus on rehabilitation and education reduces crime and reduces recidivism, while a focus on retribution (longer or harsher sentences) does nothing at all. This has been proved again and again, like I said. Look up "Breaking the cycle" docu on youtube, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
2017-10-12 03:06
your approach seems to be devoid of any ethics and solely focused on practicality. this makes me a bit curious. consider the following hypothetical situation: some robber broke in a house and murdered someone's wife and children. the victim decided to take revenge and ended up killing the robber as well as murdering his entire family in cold blood as a retribution. before this incident this person has never had violent tendencies, never hurt anyone and was generally a good human being. he was sent to prison for a certain period of time and has shown no signs of being violet or irrational. in addition he managed to recover psychologically from that incident and felt remorse for what he's done. he decided to spend the rest of his life lecturing about the dangers of violence and seeking revenge in different institutions while volunteering in shelters, helping ex convicts etc. all this in a span of a year. in your opinion, what punishment should he have received for the crimes he had committed? assuming he was able to go through rehabilitation in a span of a year, showing no signs of psychological instability, having a clean record and being a big contributor to society before the incident as well as feeling profound remorse for his action should he be released right away? if not how much longer should he spend in jail and why? i'd be glad if you could answer those question honestly and help me satisfy my curiosity.
2017-10-12 05:16
What you are essentially asking is "if there was a machine that you could plug an inmate into, which would turn him into a normal person, should that inmate be let out?" Yes. What's the point of keeping him in? Feeling remorse is not the same as being rehabilitated, and trusting the word of a convicted killer is also not a great thing to do. What is needed is for highly trained professionals to determine whether or not someone is rehabilitated and to what degree. There will always be cracks in the system, the best we can do is to follow the path that does the least amount of harm - to the system, to the people, to society.
2017-10-12 05:25
this is not exactly what i meant but it made me intrigued. i'd like to add some follow-up questions if you don't mind. what separates a normal person from an abnormal person? do you consider "normality" to be an innate quality? is undesirable behavior a result of faulty genes or a result of bad or lacking education? if we had a machine that could override one's traits and qualities to turn them from an undesirable individual into someone befitting our society should we use it? as for my example what i meant to describe is that the individual in question was an exemplary citizen before the incident and a year after it happened showed no tendencies for violence, psychological instability or inclination to break the law in the future. you don't have the machine, you don't really know for certain if he is "normal" or not. for all you know the crimes he's committed were a statistical noise and are very unlikely to be repeated again. would you release him? if not how much longer would you have him remain in jail and why? one more thing if you don't mind. what about car accidents? say someone ran over someone else because of careless driving, perhaps because he was talking to another passenger or answering the phone. if that pedestrian died the driver would go to jail for manslaughter, but is it really necessary? he obviously didn't intend to kill that person by answering his phone. let's assume that person was a middle class hard working individual. sending him to prison would surely be a detriment to both him and society. as for the pedestrian it doesn't matter, he's already dead. what's done is done. shouldn't we just confiscate his license or require him to redo driving school? if we really wanted to be thorough we could ban him from driving and doing a certain range of jobs that might endanger others if done carelessly. what's your opinion on that?
2017-10-12 06:38
"what separates a normal person from an abnormal person?" I don't think there are "abnormal persons", everyone is different, to an extent, and everyone is the same, to an extent. Most people who are incarcerated were fairly "normal" people (= like you and me), before one or a few events transpired that made society cast them out and put them in jail. We already know that factors like social and economic status, level of education and previous abusive relationships play a role in who commits crimes. If we had a machine that could change someone to remove what society deems as "undesirable", and if we should use it, is a much more philosophical question than it is a practical one. I'm torn on it, and can't give you a straight answer, because while being totally fine with killing people is clearly not a trait that we want a free man to have, is it okay to change someone's foundational mindset - i.e. making him someone else - just because others want to? We already condemn cults that have done the same thing through brainwashing, is there really any difference? As for your hypothetical, then yes, I would release him after a year. I thoroughly believe that a justice system built on retribution is one of societies deepest pitfalls. However, for repeat offenders that have clearly circumvented the tests and safeguards that exists to determine if someone is rehabilitated, the amount of rehabilitation needed should be much more rigorous. I don't believe in fixed year sentences at all when it comes to this. "Let them out when they're ready" seems like a better deal to me. I get where you are coming from with the car accident, and I kind of agree with the fact that they should probably only be banned from driving. There's a reason it's called a car "accident". However, when you get your driver's license and get a car, you accept responsibility of the vehicle and the damage it may do. Likewise, you accept and agree to the rules of the road (following street signs, for example), and if you break them, you are clearly not "rehabilitated", for lack of a better term. If you do follow them and still run someone over, it is probably because the other person was not following those rules. I'm sure there's also many other factors to acknowledge and put into the scales of justice that I haven't thought of, but at the end of the day, I don't believe people should be punished, they should be made into something better instead.
2017-10-12 15:42
thanks for taking your time to address all my points. while i might disagree with some of the ideas, at least initially, i do find some of the points you made quite interesting to dwell on later on.
2017-10-12 17:24
"You haven't met Eklund, have you? I have. He's like a damn kid. If anyone can be rehabilitated, it's him." Would you've said the same if it was your kid he took away? Being okay with him getting a few years in prison and then getting rehabilitated. Otherwise it's kind of hypocritical to say such thing.
2017-10-12 05:21
I have no idea how I would react, but then again, that has nothing to do with this. There's a reason victims don't get to sentence their perpetrator. Emotions have no place in a justice system - that would make a farce out of the word "justice".
2017-10-12 05:28
North America Phyxda 
You just want punishment. You take someone and put them in prison for 10 to 30 years, you might as well just fucking execute them cause their lives are over. They come out of prison 100% of the time not rehabilitated, instead they'll be hardened criminals with absolutely nothing left to lose so they'll be more of a danger to society when they're let out. 1 to 2 years they might actually be rehabilitated, and if they're not, just kill them, if you want to take away someone's life by sending them to prison for 30+ years, just take their life for real.
2017-10-12 04:49
Stop baiting with shitposts.
2017-10-12 02:33
Baiting? lol where am i baiting?
2017-10-12 02:34
+1 wtf :(
2017-10-12 04:12
I don't know the details of this thing, but generally when there's a member of a group getting a smaller sentence it's when they had only a secondary role. For example in the case of robbery, the guy who was only driving is likely to get a smaller sentence, things like that. Also, the article seems to mention that these were not real guns, which makes a big difference in most justice systems. It's hard to emit a judgment over a decision of justice without the reasons behind the sentences, and as far as I can tell, like in most news articles, the reasons are not given.
2017-10-12 04:31
are you a swede? :O
2017-10-12 05:19
No, I just read a translated version of the article.
2017-10-12 05:25
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.