Ah, Norway. It has luxury prison for common criminals, island getaway for hardened ones, and now, it is looking to hire friends for a mass murderer.
That's right: the Norwegian prison where Anders Behring Breivik, who massacred 77 people - mostly children - last year, is being held, is trying to hire friends for him.
To avoid keeping the confessed killer in total isolation, the high security prison, northwest of Oslo, could let him play sports with the guards and hire someone to play chess with him, among other things, [prison director Knut Bjarkeid] added.
"We are planning a professional community around him, with employees and hired personnel," he told the paper.
Norwegian law forbids keeping prisoners in total isolation for long periods of time because it is considered an unduly cruel punishment.
Link (Photo: Krister Sorbo/AFP)
I'm not speaking out of anger or emotion or cruelty - I'm saying he should be put down humanely, which is better treatment than his young victims received.
And wow, Nick. Way to take things to extremes.
Way to minimize an incredibly horrible act by comparing it to someone stepping on your toes. Your comparison were not eye for eye, but an eye for a sliver.
Sadly, by your logic, Norway is doing the wrong thing by detaining any prisoner at all. What gives us the right to pass judgment on anyone, or to mete out justice at all, no matter how dispassionately?
Complete forgiveness means we should set him free immediately, and he can face his Creator on Judgment Day. What gives us the right to judge anyone, whether it be a thief or murderer or jaywalker?
The entire system of justice and laws is immoral and barbaric. We must put an end to it at once.
As I said, Nick, my argument isn't about Justice being served. My argument is that there is no place in the world for this man, and it would be a better place if his existence on it were terminated. It's not an emotional or barbaric opinion - it's a pragmatic one.
Putting an end to his life doesn't make us "just as bad as he is", unless you feel that the lives of those 77 children (were they all children?) were not not worthwhile lives. His life is not worthwhile. We didn't decide that for him - he chose to do what he did. If we abdicate responsibility to take action against such acts, then are we not as guilty of the act ourselves?
I think Justice is just a bastard stepchild to vengeance once you start talking about *violent crime.* (Matters of property, etc are obviously more straightforward to determine appropriate compensation, etc)
There is no true justice that can be served for violent crime; no amount of jail time or hard labor or whatever can remove the physical and emotional scars left from violence. I do not envy judges or jurors when it comes to making decisions on such things.
Yes, it seems extravagant in some ways that we would worry about the health of a suspect/convict, but I feel that in order for our species to get ANYWHERE, we need to be more empathetic to others. If we (humans) treat Brevik badly, then doesn't that make us just as bad as he is? Doesn't that make his horrific actions seem to have less meaning? What I mean is that if, for example, we tortured him, then wouldn't that make the death of those 77 people be less horrific?
And that is exactly why sentencing of criminals is given to judges, who are not emotionally connected to the victims of the crime.
When talking about 'should Breivik be put to death' we are talking about retributive justice ONLY. Other forms of justice deal with such situations differently, but retributive justice is very much to be equated with vengeance. It's 'an eye for an eye', which may seem to be 'just' to the victims or their families, but really brings those who promote it down to the level of the criminals.
Breivik killed people, so people here are saying that justice would be served by killing him. A life for a life. Justice, they wish to call it.
Okay, so what if someone cuts off someone's arm? A terrible crime, one of course requiring justice. But would anyone here advocate chopping off the criminal's arm in order to pay for what he'd done?
There are many acid attacks on women in various parts of the world. Is it right, is it civilised, to punish the perpetrator by pouring acid onto his face? Surely that would be fair. Surely that would be justice?
No. Such punishments are self-evidently cruel and barbaric. They are actions we would all condemn if we saw that they were to be carried out in other 'less civilised' countries. Google 'Majid Movahedi' for an acid blinding case for which there was a huge international outcry when Iran was about to blind a man with acid because he'd done the same thing to a woman.
Why should a death sentence be seen as any less cruel and barbaric than removal of a limb, or any other 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' sentence? Is murder a worse crime than cutting off an arm? If it is, then the death penalty must also be worse than a sentence in which an arm is removed. As far as I know, no US states support amputation as a form of punishment, but many of them still put people to death. Why have one and not the other?
The USA is not only wrong on upholding the death sentence, it also has a particularly bad record for keeping people in solitary confinement for DECADES at a time, which is itself a cruel punishment - mental torture. Here's a recent story on that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/pelican-bay-lawsuit-solitary-confinement_n_1560918.html
That relates to the original Breivik story, which was a story pointing out Norway's opposition to solitary confinement. 500 prisoners held in solitary confinement for over a decade, and that is just in ONE American prison. That's not justice, it is institutionalised sadism.
21 years may seem lenient, but they can keep him in jail indefinitely if they believe he is still a risk to society after the 21 years is up. Many countries have a system like that. The UK gives mandatory life sentences for murder, but 'life' does not always mean 'the life of the prisoner'. The judge usually gives a minimum number of years to be served, and at the end of that period the criminal is assessed for release. He can be held in prison indefinitely if it's not felt it's not safe to release him.
I imagine that this is exactly what will happen to Breivik. The only difference is that the 'you must serve at least X years' has a limit of 21 in Norway. The 'at least' will still apply because he will be assessed before release.
Last point: I still find it strange that in the USA, where every lawmaker in the country professes his/her Christianity (try to get elected if you don't), the phrase 'turn the other cheek' is never mentioned. Presumably the compassionate words of a certain beardy hippy aren't worth the paper they're now so widely printed on.
I love Norway.
I love the United States of America.
I am in no position to tell Norway how to treat their prisoners, but by all means when Breivik is "rehabilitated" keep him. I think you know what some Americans would want to do to him.
If you really want "bad" prisons you can go to many other countries to find what you are looking for.
In the US, 3 hots and a cot is way more than many humans get anywhere in this world. And no, i do not believe that people who kill in the manner that Breivik did deserve anything more than 3 hots and a cot.
Im sick of the America bashing.
We seem to be placing much more value on the lives of those 77 individuals, which Norway seems to have forgotten. Sure, he wants to live. I bet he also wants to not be in jail. Actions have consequences. I am against the death penalty, not because I don't want the blood of murderers on my hand, but because no organization is infallible and it's inevitable that an innocent person will be executed.
Ted's analogy of killing Breivik to putting a suffering animal to death humanely is almost right. But Breivik is not a suffering animal; he's a vicious one. Any society, even Norway, would kill a wild, carnivorous animal (like a panther or a grizzly bear) that was loose in a public space. Blame is not the issue. Breivik is not currently 'loose,' but humans are clever. He very well could escape. And even if not, the insanely lenient 21-year sentence might actually stick, and he'd be out again. That is NOT in the public interest.
Bran, it's good that you want to step away from your USA bashing. It wasn't helping your argument. But you can't just make a blanket biased statement without expecting a response. It's not about comparing countries for me. Notice how I only poked fun of your obvious bias against the USA, and not Norway itself.
I don't know how people buy weapons. I've never had the need for one or a stockpile. I am inclined to doubt your claims about how fast it is for a lone sociopath in the USA to build up an arsenal - you are making them without any historical or social context. :p
Maybe it only took this guy three years because he had to earn the money to buy them first - not because they were hard to get. And isn't it a worse situation if that were the case? Nobody noticed what was going on for three years!
Animals don't have a voice, that is true. Some would say that if you are a criminal, you don't have a voice, either. Most governments allow criminals to have a voice in their defence. That is justice: to give someone the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. You're attacking Alex's comments on the retribution part of justice, not mine. I really am not concerend with Justice in this argument, and more concerned with expedience - that's probably the coldest statement I'll make in this.
You could argue that he, like an animal, has no voice, that he gave up the right to have any voice once he confessed to his crime, and that it would be the most humane thing to put him down. Surely a rational person would understand the consequences of his/ her actions. If he understands what he did and doesn't care, is it not the most humane thing in the world to put an end to his existence? For his own sake, to allow him to continue on, suffering in his delusion is perhaps crueller than a quick end. If he does understand, or eventually feels remorse, surely he would decide for himself at that point that it would be better not to live with such guilt.
I am not arguing for the death penalty, or its broad use as a tool for retribution in any country. In unique circumstances such as this, it can be warranted without "making all of us murderers" or "uncivilized".
It is simply narrow-minded and elitist to think otherwise.
In a way it's like saying that you're pro life but focusing only on trying to save fetuses from abortion instead of actually helping people who are near death for many other reasons.
The resources spent making up for the deficiencies of this murderers horrible choice could be better used elsewhere.
Be reassured that the USA stands among countries like China, North Korea, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan and many other African and Middle East countries, sharing your interpretation of 'justice'. Although 'vengeance' would perhaps be a more appropriate word.
Which you can do in the states in a matter of hours, or in other countries even faster than that. Breivik spent three years planning and amassing his arsenal. I think that speaks a million. If a person is dedicated enough to spend three years on a cause then it doesn't really matter if you live in the US, Norway or anywhere else. I don't think I even have to go in comparing level of violence, or level of lone gunman shootings, between the US and Norway.
Putting an animal to sleep being humane is because the animal does not have a voice of it's own. It cannot tell you that it wants to live or wants to die, likely it does not even understand that concept. Therefore we, as humans, have to take responsibility in such a situation. I see a big difference between that and the government killing a criminal which does have a say whether he wants to live or die. Once the government starts executing people we are all effectively murderers. Even though Breivik killed 77 people I still do not want his blood on my hands, just as I didn't want the blood of the person who caused my father's death on my hands.
I have one thing to say about your so called "justice": An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
So the guy goes on a rampage and admits to killing 77 people with no remorse. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a deterrent here. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a measure of humaneness or civility.
I just don't see the point in keeping him alive. It has nothing to do with savagery. He was able, in the supposed non-savage much-more-humane-than-the-USA Utopia that is Norway, to amass enough firepower to kill 77 people in the space of a few hours.
I think a civilized society is well within its right to end the life of such a person, without worrying about the "where does it end" factor. The "where does it end" in this case is considerably easier to determine than most "where does it end" scenarios. "Where does it end" is the cry of the Chicken Little who knows his/her point is indefensible by means of rational thought, and so construes an irrational situation to underpin the shaky foundations of their logic.
Simply put, being humane often involves making tough decisions. For example, being humane can involve putting an animal to death rather than allowing it to suffer needlessly.
Then the debate is expanded into a universal health care issue, which has no contextual basis with the issue of why we as humans with civilized governments should suffer someone who is capable of murdering others with no regrets (and would do it again) to continue to live in society. This isn't about chopping off the hands of people who steal, or caning someone who spits on the sidewalk.
Most humans learn that they must live with the consequences of their actions. In an extreme case like this, I see no point in keeping him alive. What point would there be?
By no means is what we have in the United States perfect, but one thing I noticed is that while Norwegian holds humane treatment as being important, there's no talk about justice.
What about all of the pain and suffering of the victims of the crime?
What do you say to the parents of all the kids killed by Breivik? Sorry your kid is dead, but hey, by the way, we're renting some friends for the guy who did it.
Same goes for the prison island paradise of Bastoy. What do you say to the parents or children of the murdered victims? Hey, sorry that your mom/dad/brother/sister/son/daughter got killed. We got the guy who did it his own little private island, where he can enjoy his time in style. (Heck, that island sounds better than the vacations most of us take).
Where's the punishment? Where's the justice?
To Ted, who said "I’m just not sure why they don’t just kill him", here's one possible answer: 'they' are better than that. Better people. More civilised. More humane.
For me, this video has always summed it up perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMho2cP1NE
Do all the people in the world deserve to live? I don't even think so. Should it be up to a government, or when it comes down to it, a few people trained in the letter of the law, to decide who lives and dies? I don't think so either.
It's further more been proven that the death penalty is not working as a deterrent against crime in the United States, so why should making an example of Breivik serve any purpose other than just snuffing out his life? Some might argue that he deserves it, maybe the families of the victims more than anyone, but it still would not serve a purpose. The circle of death has to stop somewhere, but by enforcing a death penalty you are simply feeding into it instead.
As for the other sensationalistic prisons mentioned early in the neatorama-post. You can laugh when realizing that Norway has some of the most well behaved inmates in the world, with one of the most successful rehabilitation rates and reintegration rates in the world. Why not give them prisons where they can show their worth, where they can actually grow as human beings and realize that there is a world outside crime? If they screw up, throw them back into regular prisons. Nah, instead throw them into privately run prisons which act more like factories with financial gain on the agenda. Throw them into small cells and keep the inmates isolated instead, often even from the rest of the inmate population. That's a sure fire way of making sure they will be well adjusted people and will function well once released into society again, right?
The reason why all of this is out of context, is because you (americans) do not value humans like we do. You value money and hard work, but not humans.
The reason why you americans find all of this (Halden Prison, Bastøy Prison, and these mass murder "friends") so weird, is because you have a completely different view on humans than we do.
I'll attempt to explain this. Keep in mind that this is just my understanding of it. I might simplify things too much, or I might even be completely wrong. At least on the facts. But when it comes to the philosophical views I'll present, I don't think you can argue against it, so I won't argue for it either. It's just right.
In the US, you have The American Dream, which is another way of saying that you and only you are responsible for your future, and that this future depends on what you're doing today. You're working hard today, because you want to become rich in the future. I'm no lawyer, but I believe these rights are embedded in your constitution, which prevents the government from doing anything that might prevent you from fulfilling your dreams, so to say. So far so good.
The problem, as far as I can see, is that you project this onto others. That another person is 100% responsible for the situation that person is currently in, no matter what.
I recall someone saying about the US "You're fine as long as you have a job and good health". If you lose your job, and your health is at the point where you can no longer provide income for yourself, that's it. Tough luck. Hospitals won't help you, because they need you (or your insurance) to pay for it. The government won't help you, because everyone around you refuses to pay more in taxes in order to help people in your situation. The reason? Some might say it might be unconstitutional. Others might even say it's a step towards communism.
In Norway, we have a high income tax (approx. 25%), and we have a lot of other fees on top of that, and all that money ends up in the hands of our government. There's a reason for this, "Velferdsstaten", which is what I'll directly translate into "The Welfare State".
This is what pays our hospitals, amongst other things like education (even college, how about that?) In Norway, if I get admitted to a hospital, I don't have to pay for it. I don't need any health insurance, and they will not ask me if I have it either.
And that's the way it should be, and that's where you americans have got it wrong. Instead of providing health care for everyone, you provide health care for:
a) Those who have a health insurance.
b) Those who have money.
Which means, if you don't have a job, and you don't have enough money to sustain a health insurance, then you have a serious problem if you ever get admitted to a hospital.
You find our prisons and our way of treating one particular prisoner funny, interesting, peculiar, weird, or even unexplainable?
I think the exact same thing about your lack of free health care. A lot of people are suffering because they can't afford the health care they need in order to live good lives.
And this is where I get to my point.
Should you care about other people, those who are not related to you? Should you care about the people who can't afford to get their health problems fixed? Should you care about convicts? Should you care about mass murderers?
We do in Norway. There's no reason why you americans shouldn't do the same. At least I can't see the reason why. Even mass murderers are humans, aren't they?
In Norway, we give health care to everyone who needs it.
In Norway, we give convicts a new chance, but not without conditions. The sentence must have been served, and if required by the verdict, the release must be safe for society as well.
So I give it back to you. We aren't the weird ones here. You are. You have yet to abolish the death sentence (which is inhumane), you have yet to provide health care for everyone (and that's inhumane), and your prisons (which are also inhumane) does not help prevent future crimes like our prisons do, in particular Halden and Bastøy.
The prison will provide "friends" for Breivik, because we don't allow isolation for longer periods of time, because that's inhumane. Inmates are humans, and they also deserve to be treated with respect *just because they are humans*, like you and me.
A human is a human, no matter what he has done in the past, how much money he's got, what color his skin is, where he's from, or what he believes in.
Wake up, America. It's time.
I'm just not sure why they don't just kill him. In the extraordinary circumstances, it would seem to be the right thing to do.