CDZ Breivik's human rights

[frigidweirdo]

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who massacred 77 people in 2013, has won a suit against his keepers for violations of his human rights. According to EU regulations, some of his conditions of incarceration were in violation.
It is laudable that a free society can even be free of vindictive behavior to such a one as he. At the same time, it is perhaps exactly for such a case that capital punishment is justified, though in general this poster is strongly opposed.
Here, we have an individual who has placed himself in a special, almost unique category. He was not judged insane, so his acts have to be considered those of a rational being. To end his life would be no loss to humanity, as he has divorced himself from it. Further, his continued maintenance in the world of the living is an ongoing reminder of pain and suffering for his victims and their families. The thought that they are paying for his upkeep must be painful as well.
Society needs to have a way of addressing such a crime on a more serious basis than the current maximums. If 'life' is the most one can get, the logical end is that taking life is reduced to no more serious than taking secrets or other material goods of sufficient importance or value.
Emotional responses to this post are sure to come, and macho expressions of virile punishment with them. Better would be some extended reflection on the paradox presented.

You have to remember something very important.

Human Rights were developed in Europe, then went to the US where they developed more, and then went back to Europe.

The US has a view on human rights that when someone has committed a crime they can have their rights infringed upon. In Europe this message simply didn't get conveyed to them.

They think that someone must have all their rights and none of them be infringed against, except when it comes to locking them up in prison because that's always been done throughout history.

It's a very frustrating thing to see educated judged fumble and bumble around with rights and not understand how they work at all.

 

[there4eyeM]

That seems to be something of a simplification. It certainly depends on the country. 'Europe' cannot be taken as a whole the same way as the US, especially not historical 'Europe'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That seems to be something of a simplification. It certainly depends on the country. 'Europe' cannot be taken as a whole the same way as the US, especially not historical 'Europe'.

No, Europe is different, however I'm struggling to find anyone in Europe who knows that you can infringe on most rights of criminals if you choose to make it the law.

Now, the main part here is the European Court of Human Rights, and no judges there have much of a clue about Human Rights.

The European court of human rights’ judgments that transformed British law

"• Hirst v UK. The 2005 ruling by the ECHR granting some prisoners voting rights has yet to be enforced by the British government."

I mean, seriously? They believe that prisoners should have the right to vote, and not have it infringed when they're in prison. I disagree massively and there's NOTHING in the theory of Human Rights that suggests a prisoner should have the right to vote uninfringed when in prison.

"In 2010 Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a Kurdish asylum seeker who caused the death of a 12 year girl in a driving accident, avoided deportation. Tabloid papers seized upon the fact that he had claimed the right to a family life, enshrined in article 8 of the convention, to avoid deportation at an immigration tribunal."

The right to a family life has got to be the biggest dog turd they've got going. YOU'RE IN PRISON or you're not in your home country, but they claim you should be able to have a family life. And they don't just mean you can send letters to your wife and get visitation rights either.....

 

[there4eyeM]

Obviously, and as mentioned previously, a criminal has broken the social contract, at least to some extent. Abrogation of contract has consequences both ways. Solidarity is a two way street. Co-operation is not possible with a person, nation or other entity that refuses to co-operate.
Breivik has clearly renounced his membership in the collective of the rest of us. We are not obliged to extend any courtesies. Any that we do are out of respect for life and values, but should not diminish these, either. To pretend that such a criminal is equal in status to a functioning member of society is falsehood.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obviously, and as mentioned previously, a criminal has broken the social contract, at least to some extent. Abrogation of contract has consequences both ways. Solidarity is a two way street. Co-operation is not possible with a person, nation or other entity that refuses to co-operate.
Breivik has clearly renounced his membership in the collective of the rest of us. We are not obliged to extend any courtesies. Any that we do are out of respect for life and values, but should not diminish these, either. To pretend that such a criminal is equal in status to a functioning member of society is falsehood.

Yes, I agree. Criminals, and other people, must be made aware that this is the case. However in Europe people talk about their rights but don't understand them (happens in the US and other places too).

 

[there4eyeM]

Absolutely. People seem to miss that, hidden within the word 'liberty' is the concept 'responsibility'.

 

[oldsoul]

It is impossible to have a logical discussion about this subject, because we don't know what we're trying to do. Punish or rehabilitate? We can't rehabilitate. We don't know how. We try, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that we're succeeding. We know how to punish, but I've never seen the point. Certainly you can't do both simultaneously, which is what our current theory of penology calls for.

So, what to do with this useless lump of dung? Lock him in a closet? Treat him like a bad boy being sent to his room? Norway is going to release him in a few years? That strikes me as a bad idea. He's an unrepentant, white supremacist mass murderer. How could you ever let this guy go? I can't say I care at all about the level of comfort he receives while we are waiting for him to die.

In a case like this, rehabilitation is mostly irrelevant. There is no real attempt - weather or not we know how - to rehabilitate a criminal of this magnitude. Punishment is, IMHO, silly. I gain nothing in punishing criminals. Society gains nothing. The victims gain nothing. Punishment is pointless. I think that there are 2 core reasons for what we do with criminals:

Deterrent is one of the keys in locking the guilty up. You could say that deterrent is a function of punishment but I separate them because the punishment is not the purpose here - the deterrent is. There are a lot of people that obey the law and continue to do so because they do not want to face the consequences of breaking the law. Clearly people like the above are not deterred but they serve as an example to the rest of us. In this regard, harsher conditions obviously do a better job but the returns are diminishing and there is simply nothing that will deter the worst criminals. Resource should be a concern here as well.

The other core reason is safety. By removing the criminal from society in general you remove the threat. This is obvious and effective. Rehabilitation fits here and is the best outcome that we can achieve though I think is misguided with the more heinous criminals like the one the OP mentions.

As far as recognizing rights in these cases I think it has a lot to do with US rather than with the criminals themselves. One poster already mentioned this. There are extreme cases like this one (and why I actually do support the death penalty unlike the OP) that kind of break the mold but in the general sense how far we are willing to go into depravity defines us as a people and does have a very real effect. What do we gain by being brutal to prisoners no matter how horrific they are? Nothing other than a sense of retribution. That is not a particular human trait that I wish to encourage or would support society encouraging. Should we then recognize when rights have been violated and correct the error? Yes, we should no matter what the case. Should we release those guilty - hell no.

Norwegian Mass Killer Wins Human Rights Case Over Prison Conditions
Now, for this specific case I think the idea his civil rights are being violated is ludicrous. Here is a horrible cell in the specified prison:

The cite does not specify that it is his cell but baring any overt journalistic lies I do not see the real issue here. His chief complaint, as far as I can tell, is that he is in solitary to often. He is a mass murderer - I have no idea what he thinks his prison sentence is supposed to look like but what he is getting is the Ritz compared to what he really deserves.

Wholly crap!!! I've paid to stay places that where not this nice. WTF is he complaining about? Didn't get turn-down service? No mint on his pillow? Wi-fi too slow? Jeez.

 

[oldsoul]

Literally, though, if a family member of a victim were willing to take on the onus of execution and its legal consequences, that might be seen as absolving collective guilt.

An intersting proposal. With 77 families, one could surmise there would be a pretty good chance of finding one, or more, amoung them willing to partake. There enlies the first problem, how would the "one" be decided upon, assuming there are two, or more, willing? What would be the "legal consequences"? How would society prevent this from becoming a legalized family feud? Just to name the few questions that come immediately to mind. I like the concept, it would need to be defined, and then refined before implimentation, but I would be interested in seeing this persued. In this case, I see no down-side large enough to cause me to even pause at the notion of persuing this option. Why keep the man alive? What purpose would it serve, if the were a family member of one of his victims willing to "pull the trigger"?

 

[FA_Q2]

It is impossible to have a logical discussion about this subject, because we don't know what we're trying to do. Punish or rehabilitate? We can't rehabilitate. We don't know how. We try, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that we're succeeding. We know how to punish, but I've never seen the point. Certainly you can't do both simultaneously, which is what our current theory of penology calls for.

So, what to do with this useless lump of dung? Lock him in a closet? Treat him like a bad boy being sent to his room? Norway is going to release him in a few years? That strikes me as a bad idea. He's an unrepentant, white supremacist mass murderer. How could you ever let this guy go? I can't say I care at all about the level of comfort he receives while we are waiting for him to die.

In a case like this, rehabilitation is mostly irrelevant. There is no real attempt - weather or not we know how - to rehabilitate a criminal of this magnitude. Punishment is, IMHO, silly. I gain nothing in punishing criminals. Society gains nothing. The victims gain nothing. Punishment is pointless. I think that there are 2 core reasons for what we do with criminals:

Deterrent is one of the keys in locking the guilty up. You could say that deterrent is a function of punishment but I separate them because the punishment is not the purpose here - the deterrent is. There are a lot of people that obey the law and continue to do so because they do not want to face the consequences of breaking the law. Clearly people like the above are not deterred but they serve as an example to the rest of us. In this regard, harsher conditions obviously do a better job but the returns are diminishing and there is simply nothing that will deter the worst criminals. Resource should be a concern here as well.

The other core reason is safety. By removing the criminal from society in general you remove the threat. This is obvious and effective. Rehabilitation fits here and is the best outcome that we can achieve though I think is misguided with the more heinous criminals like the one the OP mentions.

As far as recognizing rights in these cases I think it has a lot to do with US rather than with the criminals themselves. One poster already mentioned this. There are extreme cases like this one (and why I actually do support the death penalty unlike the OP) that kind of break the mold but in the general sense how far we are willing to go into depravity defines us as a people and does have a very real effect. What do we gain by being brutal to prisoners no matter how horrific they are? Nothing other than a sense of retribution. That is not a particular human trait that I wish to encourage or would support society encouraging. Should we then recognize when rights have been violated and correct the error? Yes, we should no matter what the case. Should we release those guilty - hell no.

Norwegian Mass Killer Wins Human Rights Case Over Prison Conditions
Now, for this specific case I think the idea his civil rights are being violated is ludicrous. Here is a horrible cell in the specified prison:

The cite does not specify that it is his cell but baring any overt journalistic lies I do not see the real issue here. His chief complaint, as far as I can tell, is that he is in solitary to often. He is a mass murderer - I have no idea what he thinks his prison sentence is supposed to look like but what he is getting is the Ritz compared to what he really deserves.

Wholly crap!!! I've paid to stay places that where not this nice. WTF is he complaining about? Didn't get turn-down service? No mint on his pillow? Wi-fi too slow? Jeez.

No kidding. First thing I had to see is what the conditions looked like because that is very important. I would say that there certainly are prisons out there that a good case can be made for violating his rights even with a horrible person like this. The picture though tells us a thousand words and all of them are hell no his rights are not being violated.

I very much doubt that it is 'nice' or 'comfortable' to live in this place alone all the time. I also very much doubt that this can be construed to be remotely cruel to a mass murderer. Comfortable is not the aim here, adequate is.

 

[FA_Q2]

Killing people is by definition antisocial. For society to do it is schizoid to say the least. Capital punishment presents many problems. The fundamental issue, to me, devolves to equating murder with theft. Another solution needs to be found. Work, even forced, to return some good to the common wealth might be something. Literally, though, if a family member of a victim were willing to take on the onus of execution and its legal consequences, that might be seen as absolving collective guilt.

?
I have no idea where you get that from? How are we equating murder with theft through the death penalty?

I don't see why we need another solution when there is already one. The DP certainly is not a starting point nor is it perfect but there are people, IMHO, that simply are not worth keeping around. There is no 'work' that you can force them to do that is going to add value to anything. These people are dangerous and have no moral code that a sane person could recognize pretty much removing any possibility of adding value to society in general.

 

[FA_Q2]

Literally, though, if a family member of a victim were willing to take on the onus of execution and its legal consequences, that might be seen as absolving collective guilt.

An intersting proposal. With 77 families, one could surmise there would be a pretty good chance of finding one, or more, amoung them willing to partake. There enlies the first problem, how would the "one" be decided upon, assuming there are two, or more, willing? What would be the "legal consequences"? How would society prevent this from becoming a legalized family feud? Just to name the few questions that come immediately to mind. I like the concept, it would need to be defined, and then refined before implimentation, but I would be interested in seeing this persued. In this case, I see no down-side large enough to cause me to even pause at the notion of persuing this option. Why keep the man alive? What purpose would it serve, if the were a family member of one of his victims willing to "pull the trigger"?

How about the fact that destroying the life of one of the victims here is simply a barbaric 'solution.'

I have no drive to pigeon hole even a willing victim into becoming a killer because our justice system does not want to take the onus of such an act upon itself.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the maximum penalty is 'life', then a robber might get that sentence for taking an object of great value. If 'life' is the maximum for murder also, the equivalence becomes evident.

As for the idea of a person accepting the jail sentence for killing the perpetrator of such a crime, that would be based on a purely personal choice. If no one accepted the option, it would not be carried out.

 

[oldsoul]

Literally, though, if a family member of a victim were willing to take on the onus of execution and its legal consequences, that might be seen as absolving collective guilt.

An intersting proposal. With 77 families, one could surmise there would be a pretty good chance of finding one, or more, amoung them willing to partake. There enlies the first problem, how would the "one" be decided upon, assuming there are two, or more, willing? What would be the "legal consequences"? How would society prevent this from becoming a legalized family feud? Just to name the few questions that come immediately to mind. I like the concept, it would need to be defined, and then refined before implimentation, but I would be interested in seeing this persued. In this case, I see no down-side large enough to cause me to even pause at the notion of persuing this option. Why keep the man alive? What purpose would it serve, if the were a family member of one of his victims willing to "pull the trigger"?

How about the fact that destroying the life of one of the victims here is simply a barbaric 'solution.'

I have no drive to pigeon hole even a willing victim into becoming a killer because our justice system does not want to take the onus of such an act upon itself.

The proposal would be pigeon holing noone that is not willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. It would be the same as if I punched someone for punching by brother, knowing full well what the consequences of said action would be. What, in your mind, is the difference?

 

[FA_Q2]

Literally, though, if a family member of a victim were willing to take on the onus of execution and its legal consequences, that might be seen as absolving collective guilt.

An intersting proposal. With 77 families, one could surmise there would be a pretty good chance of finding one, or more, amoung them willing to partake. There enlies the first problem, how would the "one" be decided upon, assuming there are two, or more, willing? What would be the "legal consequences"? How would society prevent this from becoming a legalized family feud? Just to name the few questions that come immediately to mind. I like the concept, it would need to be defined, and then refined before implimentation, but I would be interested in seeing this persued. In this case, I see no down-side large enough to cause me to even pause at the notion of persuing this option. Why keep the man alive? What purpose would it serve, if the were a family member of one of his victims willing to "pull the trigger"?

How about the fact that destroying the life of one of the victims here is simply a barbaric 'solution.'

I have no drive to pigeon hole even a willing victim into becoming a killer because our justice system does not want to take the onus of such an act upon itself.

The proposal would be pigeon holing noone that is not willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. It would be the same as if I punched someone for punching by brother, knowing full well what the consequences of said action would be. What, in your mind, is the difference?

The difference is that you are asking the victim here to deliver the verdict of the criminal.

The state does that. It is the purpose of the justice system.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the maximum penalty is 'life', then a robber might get that sentence for taking an object of great value. If 'life' is the maximum for murder also, the equivalence becomes evident.

As for the idea of a person accepting the jail sentence for killing the perpetrator of such a crime, that would be based on a purely personal choice. If no one accepted the option, it would not be carried out.

No, it really does not.

You are not given a death sentence for stealing something or you should not. No matter how valuable.