CDZ Breivik's human rights

[there4eyeM]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

Breivik's human rights
yea. XXXXXX right.

 

[there4eyeM]

A seeming oxymoron, perhaps.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So where does this land you? You're against capital punishment, but you're for it?

 

[there4eyeM]

The post did not express favoring capital punishment necessarily, merely posed the existential conundrum. Can we think of something other than 'life' and execution? Some special condition where such 'rights' as this criminal claims need not be respected in the same way as lesser offenses?

 

[TNHarley]

I just cant see how someone can think he deserves to be treated with respect. Or even live, for that matter.

 

[Pogo]

The post did not express favoring capital punishment necessarily, merely posed the existential conundrum. Can we think of something other than 'life' and execution? Some special condition where such 'rights' as this criminal claims need not be respected in the same way as lesser offenses?

He should certainly be put to work as free labor, for life. Get at least something back.

 

[there4eyeM]

They are trying to treat him humanely in order to maintain their principles. What we may question is whether such principles apply when a being has so blatantly rejected all basis for them.

 

[Pogo]

A seeming oxymoron, perhaps.

Not really. He's still a human, whatever else he is. Unless we profess that humans are perfect, the definition fits.
Just a question of which rights we're talking.

 

[Pogo]

They are trying to treat him humanely in order to maintain their principles. What we may question is whether such principles apply when a being has so blatantly rejected all basis for them.

Treating humanely applies to all of what are called "God's creatures". That cannot be negotiable.

Before we get further into this wandering in the dark, care to provide a link to what exactly we're talking about? What kind of "conditions" are/were in question?

 

[there4eyeM]

We can as easily say humans are perfect as the opposite. There is nothing to compare humans to except some human standard. If we are imperfect, so are our standards. We would have to be perfect to know what perfect even would be.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was just a report in the Washington Post, quoting the AP
Perhaps this will help:
Anders Breivik, killer of 77, convinced a Norwegian court his human rights were violated

 

[Elvis Obama]

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

One possibility would be to allow a member of one of the families the choice of committing the crime of murdering him, then being sent to this resort prison for a while.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Without referring specifically to Breivik I always thought that humane treatment was as much to do with the well being of his captors as the prisoners "rights".
The detention is the punishment and that is a job with dignity.To go to work with the object of inflicting pain would create more problems for a society which had to deal with brutalised prison officers.
If we want people to do these dirty jobs for us we need to take care of them.
I cant see him ever being released. It would be madness.

 

[there4eyeM]

He will certainly be released at this rate.

 

[Muhammed]

To hell with his human rights. I support a mandatory death penalty for murder, rape and voter fraud.

 

[jwoodie]

The only just basis for punishment is the Biblical "eye for an eye." However, in modern societies we translate this into incarceration and/or monetary penalties. The alleged conundrum is that no amount of jail time and/or fines can equate to certain crimes (e.g., murder). The death penalty is the rational answer, but the bed wetters have made it prohibitively expensive to administer. I wonder how they feel about the Nuremberg Trials: Should the Nazis have been given a pass on the Holocaust?

 

[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.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.