They do have to keep him in solitary for his own protection, as well.
So he has ample opportunity to regret.
edit: re below: I don't think he needs an audience so much as public recognition (a subtle distinction). I think he's been solitary most of his life, hasn't he?
Norway's legal system allows for indefinite continued sentence in special cases if the prisoner is deemed not ready to run loose. Breivik is one of those special cases.
And GhostWriter16, the point about giving the guy 21 years rather than killing him is because the Scandinavian prison model isn't about retribution, it's about rehabilitation. We understand that humans are animals whose behavior can be modified. Where the standard socializing institutions of school and parental care failed, the necssary evil of prison will ideally attempt to modify the prisoner's behavior to have him become a better citizen and hopefully secure some sort of dignified future in his wicked world.
Our view of humanity, contrary to the liberal view of humanity that emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility, roots in the idea that humans are fundamentally shaped by their environment. A criminal almost always becomes a criminal due to a bad social circle or neighbourhood and being able to recieve some sense of identity in an unhealthy sphere of crime: Without any proper adult role models, if the parents drink, for example, or if the school teachers are inattentive, the growing human being may take onto itself a sense of self by joining a gang with its own traditions and close-knit sense of security and brotherhood. It's seen with rocker gangs in Denmark where they pick up kids with low social capital and give them their own titles and jackets, making them feel safe within the criminal group. And in that tune, we hold that Breivik as an individual is a product of his environment and as such will not be punished forcefully, but that he shall be rehabilitated, as our society will attempt to help him with the things it failed to do in the first place. We're succesfully socialized people, not murderers. Why would we then cancel that development by acting like them?
He will, of course, still be punished for his actions, he is jailed after all. But it is in a humane way that as a system prefers to work as a system rather than being the blind sword retort of people that feel justified to do bad things to other people.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Here I am of course talking about the general view of criminals. Individuals like Breivik make one feel resentful. But that's why the system is in place to begin with. It's a sad compromise to ensure that civilization remains in the eye of a threat.
EDIT: Or you could be "civilized", as you call it, and chop hands off thieves. Then they won't steal again. Problem solved! I would never feel safe in a country where thieves didn't have their hands chopped off.
@Lorrd Joakim- There's a difference between stealing and murdering. A HUGE difference. Its not even close. Stealing can be undone. The person will get their goods back, and nobody was physically harmed. Murder on the other hand is unfixable. Now, stealing should still be punished, but I don't even see why cutting off hands really logically follows for a punishment for stealing anyway. I think the penalty for stealing should be some kind of double restitution or something similar. If you stole 1,000 dollars, the victim gets 2,000. Or whatever proportion. The exception, of course, is armed robbers. They should be locked up for a very long time.
As for the whole "Helping him" thing, this is not some poor little abandoned child that stole something so he could eat. This is a cold-blooded killer who has killed 77 people. NOT killing him is a disservice to the 77 familes of the murdered.
Only fetuses life is sacred as far as I understand GW's agenda.
You say that stealing can be undone. That's not completely true, but, for the skae of argument, let's assume that it is. What possible purpose could an execution serve, as it won't get you your deceased friends/relatives back? This isn't human sacrifice in order to perform black magic, you know. Jails are for the security of both the people inside and the people outside. Otherwise, let's kill all wrongdoers on the spot, which was done in Japan until the Shōgunate was abolished.
Innocence? Sure, a newborn baby is morally innocent. It hasn't been plowed through socialization yet, and haven't been molded to a civilized human being, and its primitive version of a human brain hasn't matured either, therefore it is still prone to giving in to psychopathically rooted instant gratification, and with its empathical centres being so primitive, it actually hasn't developed a concept of retribution or consequence. After developing a little, the child grasps a sense of "other people" and begins to empathically work with them, but it's not until the age of about 10 that many children understand that hitting other children doesn't exactly prove a point or gratify their needs or wants. It's something you can discipline away with a sense of community within the school system and adults in power.
Now, what do you do when the child in question doesn't develop the empathical centres properly? If something goes wrong during the childhood; if the parents are abusive or its community unhealthy? Let's say the child becomes an adult and is innocent. It kills seven people and is taken to court. Is it it's own fault? Or is it innocent?
Now, I would expect you to simply react with a loud "Killing other people makes you lose your innocence" or the argument of pragmatism: "Well, it's not like it can be saved anyways." But I have this documentary for you, and I urge you to spend some time watching it. It's half an hour long. It's not a propaganda movie, it's a documentary that provides some information of child behavior.
GhostWriter16, your concept of innocence is, when lost, always taken from you unless you're brain damaged at birth due to bad genes.
If this child had grown to adulthood before its behavior was intercepted and killed seven people, you'd have no moral high ground to kill it. All of its pains were brought upon it. And if you understood that behavior was modifiable, you'd do that. You wouldn't kill it by pragmatical reasons (whether the human was economically feasible to keep alive or not) if you were on any kind of moral high ground, which I personally would expect you to for being an Abrahamist.
And yes, this deal has everything to do with crime as it is the fundamental point of how human behavior can be changed and how healthy human beings can kill people due to some sort of estranged socialization. The same thing does apply to criminal behavior and unhealthy behavior. Even with "sane" people such as Breivik.
There is no innocence of birth which you should be held responsible for that should come into question, ever, because humans are always a product of their peers.
@Lorrd Joakim- There's a difference between stealing and murdering. A HUGE difference. Its not even close. Stealing can be undone. The person will get their goods back, and nobody was physically harmed. Murder on the other hand is unfixable. Now, stealing should still be punished, but I don't even see why cutting off hands really logically follows for a punishment for stealing anyway. I think the penalty for stealing should be some kind of double restitution or something similar. If you stole 1,000 dollars, the victim gets 2,000. Or whatever proportion. The exception, of course, is armed robbers. They should be locked up for a very long time.
I merely followed your logic. You feel unsafe that a killer of, say, ten, is free; well, kill him and there should be no more problems with him. That's your argument.
It's also a ridiculously medieval one.
Now, understand, the medieval thing might work to some people, it just doesn't here in Scandinavia. We've tried to adapt to behaviorial studies and social sciences in regards to how people act and build a society around that. You may choose not to believe the studies that support our prison system due to your vague concept of individual morality and to when some individual suddenly deserves to die.
As for the whole "Helping him" thing, this is not some poor little abandoned child that stole something so he could eat. This is a cold-blooded killer who has killed 77 people. NOT killing him is a disservice to the 77 familes of the murdered.
And again, I did already answer what exactly this cold blood was. I never wished to victimize Breivik, but I kind of tried to explain to you how crime comes to be in a society where there is room to survive regardless of crime. If you don't understand human psychology, please don't have anything to do with prisons. The whole point of not killing people over lesser incidents is rehabilitation. The views you hold are excruciatingly unpleasant when coming from an Abrahamist.
Actually it's a monarchy because there was a popular vote about it when we got independence from Sweden, and the constitutional monarchy won out. Then we (well, our great-grandparents) decided to invite this one Danish prince to be our king, and his grandson has the job now.
The logic, in Saudi Arabia, beyond it being Sharia law, is that it discourages others. And it does seem to work - IIRC SA has a very low theft rate.
It also means the thief cannot steal with that hand again. A second offence warrants cutting off the other hand. Just in case he didn't get the message.
How about implementing it in the US? Do you think it a good idea?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
