My opinion after watching the pilot of Breivik-show

[Jonluw]

Seriously though, he'll be out in 21 years

Nope. He will be evaluated, deemed unsuitable to be released back to society, and the next evaluation will be 42 years from now.

Yes, it works. Norway's fallback rates are far lower than those of the US.

You're saying "it works" but you have to take into account that Norway is not the US.

Do you prefer to be released in Norway or released in the US? In the US chances are that you will probably not get a job, live in a poor and crime riddled area and actually be encouraged to commit crimes again. Totally different cultures and socioeconomic factors can't make a good comparison.

I'm not pretending the prisons are the only factor, but we're talking about less than half the recidivism rate of the US here. I refuse to believe that the state of the prisons and the treatment prisoners receive aren't a major factor in making that happen.
Actually, what you mention about how you might not be encouraged to commit more crimes after being released in Norway is a part of the prison policy as much as it has to do with society in general.
It's about not building a relationship of resentment with the prisoners. Encouraging them to get back on the right tracks when they're doing time.

There is also the factor that the criminals that are put in prison in the first place in Norway are generally more serious criminals than many criminals in US prisons. The reason being that we don't have a privatized prison system that benefits from jailing people for relatively minor offences.
i.e. The US incarcerates ten times as many people per capita per year as Norway, and their recidivism rate is still 3 times that of Norwegian prisoners'.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

This is the only part that snags me. I still advocate the death penalty in situations where the criminal could never be reformed, and I deeply resent the anti-death penalty crowd merely for the fact that they could high-five the moon with their high horse... But even if the death penalty is out of the question, 21 fucking years for 77 people dead? Charles Manson didn't kill a single person but he's been in jail for like, 50 years or something. This guy kills over six-dozen people and he can get out in 21 years? HOW? That is unfathomable to me! He needs to be put away for good not for the sake of punishment, but for the sake of the next 77 kills he'll carry out if he's released.

That's the reason why I advocate the death penalty, actually. There are many cases where the offender kills, goes to jail "for life," is released, and kills again in no time. That is what the death penalty is for. It's not a bunch of right-wing vengeance-hungry psycho-babble, it's a way to make sure that those with no hope don't take innocent lives.

Actually, no, thats what prisons and rehabilitation programs are for. (Not saying that Breivik can be rehabilitated, but you seem to be talking in general terms anyway.

It's just that he's not the only one. I don't remember any of the names involved because I studied the death penalty in my senior year of high school, but there have been people who have been sentenced "for life," been released on the grounds that they were rehabilitated, and then killed again.

I feel people like Breivik need the death penalty. Not people who kill in the moment or out of anger or anything. Those people can be rehabilitated even if they aren't released into the public again. People who kill because that's just who they are (or it's part of some weird agenda) simply need to be put down. Or at least put away forever in a system that isn't broken and capable of releasing people who were never supposed to be released. I dunno about the effectiveness or capability of their prisons, but here in America, it's a superbly flawed bureaucracy that does not advocate logic or sanity.

 

[Thyunda]

To be honest, I can understand why so many would prefer him to be executed. Emotionally, I would like to see him in the gallows for what he has done. But that wouldn't do more than sate our thirst for some form of revenge and to prove his point. He wants to be executed, because it's an integral part of his christian martyr fantasy/delusion. Furthermore, there are people out there who idolize him already, and killing him will only make it simpler for them. Dead heroes can't disappoint, after all.

Really, the best solution, in my opinon, would be to simply toss him into the loony bin, where he belongs. He's not mentally fit, and not only is it his human right to recieve mental care, it's also the only way to both ensure his safety and the safety of society from him.

Some may be shouting: "But that's not a punishment! He needs to suffer, and putting him in an asylum is like putting him in a smart hotel! Why is he being rewarded for his crime?!"

Well, throwing him into an institution -would- be the more severe of punishments available for Breivik. It's the last thing he'd want. It both devalues his cause as well as his bloated self-image. He wants to be killed, both to prove his point about the evil, vile multiculti-dictatorship and to get his role as a martyr confirmed. If he's being put to death, then he and his cause are taken seriously, as opposed to a violent delusion in a mentally ill person's head.
It'd be the ultimate show of disrespect and devaluation to him and his repulsive agenda to treat him and it as a mental case to be treated.

Furthermore, a mental institution isn't some sort of luxurious resort, and a person scentenced to psychiatric care doesn't "get away scot-free". Dangerous mental patients are still kept locked-up and often sedated and on powerful drugs. Also, Breivik will always run the risk of being killed by another patient, or some other assassin. He'll never be safe from someone's need for revenge as long as he live. Even assuming he is ever let free, he's still going to be a target for the rest of his life.

Trust me, a prison or a cell doesn't have to look like a 18'th century dungeon with barren rock walls and moldy bread to be a suitable punishment. Considering everything Breivik have is his twisted fantasy ideology, seeing it for what it is, delusions and hatred, is already a punishment in itself.

Breivik is a sad, sad mental case, and he failed miserably at what he set out to do. He belongs in an institution, reguardless of if he can be cured or not. What truly matters isn't making sure he's miserable enough to sate our natural need for retribution, but to heal the damage he's caused, ensure it will never happen again, and to learn and grow stronger from the experience.

As for silencing him... That would also only prove his point, and it would make clear that we fear what he has to say. And that would give his words much more value than they deserve.

...his point is that Norway is too lax on immigration and on criminals...

 

[Vegosiux]

It's a shame that the opinion of one monster reaches further than the opinions of millions of decent but unremarkable human beings. Alas, such is the nature of controversy. If you want to be heard, do something outrageous.

I can understand why he did it, and he was utterly wrong. What I can't understand is why he is still allowed to live; why it is considered somehow wrong to kill him.

You think he'd have less of an impact if he was executed? Surely there are more extremists like him hiding among the population, but who haven't manifested. Execute him, and suddenly you've given them a martyr. Which can be enough for someone else to follow in his tracks.

When he's out he's going to be mass murdering again? Fat chance. His life will be pretty much reduced to begging for a minimum wage job, for one. He'll be wtached at every step. No way in hell he could pull off a stunt like that again, because the resources he had at his disposal now are not going to be there for him when he gets out - the society will make sure of it.

 

[MammothBlade]

It's a shame that the opinion of one monster reaches further than the opinions of millions of decent but unremarkable human beings. Alas, such is the nature of controversy. If you want to be heard, do something outrageous.

I can understand why he did it, and he was utterly wrong. What I can't understand is why he is still allowed to live; why it is considered somehow wrong to kill him.

When he's out he's going to be mass murdering again? Fat chance. His life will be pretty much reduced to begging for a minimum wage job, for one. He'll be wtached at every step. No way in hell he could pull off a stunt like that again, because the resources he had at his disposal now are not going to be there for him when he gets out - the society will make sure of it.

The point is not to somehow impoverish him enough that he won't be able to commit the crime again. I don't consider it just that he is allowed to live after killing 77 innocent people. And I'm sure unscrupulous publishers and editors would be jumping head over heels for the rights to his story if he were ever freed.

I think you have it wrong. Our answer (to the problem posed by criminals getting out of prison and committing crimes again) should not be "Then kill them", it should be "Then we have to do better". The death penalty is the easy and frankly downright disgusting way out.

Explain to me why society should rehabilitate scum such as Breivik. Explain why it is so "disgusting" to kill him. Makes your stomach churn? Well, it makes me violently sick that people would give him a second chance.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

They'd never let him out, he's clearly not safe to society. This man is never going to taste freedom again.

They'd have to if he minds his manners, it's the law.

Even if they don't, he's still getting rewarded. Look at this shit, it's far nicer then what anyone working a minimum wage full time job gets (and most of those people didn't even kill anyone, for the record).

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/norway-prison-6.jpg

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/norwegian-prison-2.jpg

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/shower.jpg

I'm not saying he should be drawn and quartered, but the idea that you can murder 77 innocent people and get such a nice reward for doing so makes me both angry and sad.

Admittedly there is an understandable injustice there. But you also have to remember that the aim of such facilities is to correct and rehabilitate, not necessarily just to punish.

I think Breivik is a monster, but I'd still rather see him reformed into a productive member of society and redeem himself than simply wasting away in a cell or executed.

 

[Vegosiux]

The point is not to somehow impoverish him enough that he won't be able to commit the crime again. I don't consider it just that he is allowed to live after killing 77 innocent people.

"Allowed to live" is such an odd way to put it, it's not like you can "forbid" it and you don't really have to ask for anyone's "permission". I could be snarky here and say something about taking the concept of "killing X people makes you forfeit your right to live" to its logical extreme, but then we'd get into a contest of who can shift the goalposts the most.

But really, some people make Vhailor look relatively moderate.

And I'm sure unscrupulous publishers and editors would be jumping head over heels for the rights to his story if he were ever freed.

And if he were ever executed, too. They'd just unscrupulously dig up stuff through other channels, just cause he can't tell his story doesn't mean there's no more chance of that "big scoop" for those carrion locusts.

 

[theultimateend]

Killing people who aren't a threat is wrong and it is illegal.

Laws can be changed. And I don't believe it's wrong to kill mass murderers, armed or not.

What of euthanasia and abortion? Maybe you should come up with a more consistent criteria for wrongful killing, it is by no means a tautology.

Yes it is. This is why you don't see it happen outside of developing nations, Japan and America.

The man himself has noted that he wants the death penalty so he can be a martyr in his screwed up little fantasy. I find it worrying that you're so eager to help him achieve his goals.

That doesn't explain anything. Japan and America are two of the most successful countries in the world, they're not exceptions by any means.

Breivik's political goals are irrelevant. What he wants does not matter. There are criminals who take a prison sentence as a badge of honour, yet few people suggest they should not be punished at all.

Uh, I was enjoying it till you tried to equate abortion to murder.

Wow, way to murder your argument and feed shallow minded folks more ammunition. :/

If it wasnt so downright terrible one could almost laugh about it. A good portion of these serial killers are born like this. And every single time, people look at it and ask "How could this happen? Oh well, death penalty plox, and lets carry on as we did before." I havent seen one single person on this forum asking why Breivik did what he did, what pushed him that far, yet I have seen hundreds arguing about his punishment or lack of one.

It's easier to act high and mighty and treat the world as a black and white puppet show rather than actually trying to address the issues.

Being proactive requires thoughtfulness, being reactive is easy.

People take the easy route often.

I'm pretty much with you, what he did is horrifying but the best response to these situations is to try and identify them.

Anywho, you are in the middle of the escapist, I wouldn't expect that level of inquiry. Not that it isn't here, its just a few things get really uptight fundamentalist responses. Tragedy and Piracy are two that almost never get reasonable discussions going. Just quickly devolves into a pitchfork fest.

Basically if you are willing to kill someone for a certain reason then you've established that killing can be OK. Then its just a matter of drawing the line and that line will slowly shift over time.

 

[MammothBlade]

Killing people who aren't a threat is wrong and it is illegal.

Laws can be changed. And I don't believe it's wrong to kill mass murderers, armed or not.

What of euthanasia and abortion? Maybe you should come up with a more consistent criteria for wrongful killing, it is by no means a tautology.

Yes it is. This is why you don't see it happen outside of developing nations, Japan and America.

The man himself has noted that he wants the death penalty so he can be a martyr in his screwed up little fantasy. I find it worrying that you're so eager to help him achieve his goals.

That doesn't explain anything. Japan and America are two of the most successful countries in the world, they're not exceptions by any means.

Breivik's political goals are irrelevant. What he wants does not matter. There are criminals who take a prison sentence as a badge of honour, yet few people suggest they should not be punished at all.

Uh, I was enjoying it till you tried to equate abortion to murder.

Wow, way to murder your argument and feed shallow minded folks more ammunition. :/

No, I was pointing out the moral/cognitive dissonance when it comes to killing people. You can't deny that abortion or euthanasia are acts of killing human life at some stage. Yet they are not necessarily considered "murder". So, when someone says killing people/humans who aren't a threat is illegal and wrong, they obviously didn't consider that statement very well.

 

[Vegosiux]

No, I was pointing out the moral/cognitive dissonance when it comes to killing people. You can't deny that abortion or euthanasia are acts of killing human life at some stage. Yet they are not necessarily considered "murder". So, when someone says killing people/humans who aren't a threat is illegal and wrong, they obviously didn't consider that statement very well.

And this is the logical extreme debate I dipped into earlier. When someone says killing a number of people forfeits your right to live also didn't consider that statement very well.

 

[Slayer_2]

They'd never let him out, he's clearly not safe to society. This man is never going to taste freedom again.

They'd have to if he minds his manners, it's the law.

Even if they don't, he's still getting rewarded. Look at this shit, it's far nicer then what anyone working a minimum wage full time job gets (and most of those people didn't even kill anyone, for the record).

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/norway-prison-6.jpg

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/norwegian-prison-2.jpg

http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/shower.jpg

I'm not saying he should be drawn and quartered, but the idea that you can murder 77 innocent people and get such a nice reward for doing so makes me both angry and sad.

No way he gets to live there... That's nicer than my apartment, if slightly more cramped.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

man what happened to the Scandinavians. They should go old school and bury a battle axe into his skull

 

[MammothBlade]

Who said anything about a second chance? We were talking in general here, my friend, as both of us said at least once.

I consider his continued life a "second chance", albeit with limitations on his freedom.

So, explain it eh? Are you really so bitter that you cannot see why killing a human is a despicable act? Do I really have to point out the horrid nature of murder? Its pretty obvious.

Killing innocent teenagers with a bright future is a horrible, horrible act. Monsters such as Breivik will still feel physical pain and often fear, but try as I might I don't see killing them as something horrid. Or even the same thing as the act of murder.

It almost seems like an insult to the victims to compare their violent, untimely murder to the clean and humane execution of their killers.

Because you win NOTHING by killing him. All you do is sooth your own primal revenge driven urges. The same urges Breivik gave into when he killed 77 people.

I'm well past the "primal" urge of revenge. That would constitute breaking every bone in his body and some quite sadistic punishments which I will not describe in graphic detail. All I see now is a man who has committed acts of unforgivable evil. He has no place in this world, and needs to be erased. It's not about winning or losing, but ending a person of malice and evil.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

It's a shame that the opinion of one monster reaches further than the opinions of millions of decent but unremarkable human beings. Alas, such is the nature of controversy. If you want to be heard, do something outrageous.

I can understand why he did it, and he was utterly wrong. What I can't understand is why he is still allowed to live; why it is considered somehow wrong to kill him.

You want to be the person to make him a martyr? Be my guest. I'll be in the bunker waiting for the race war you fueled for him to blow over.

In all seriousness though it's all too easy to think that we can just make people disappear and that will make everything they did ok, but a good justice system needs to look further than that. It's not a question of what he deserves. Name me one example where tit for tat justice has ever solved anything, seriously.

All around the world, countries have been executing people on a massive scale in the name of justice for thousands of years. Does it look like it's worked?