Here's Where Norway's Mass Murderer Could End Up

"Norway's unrepentant mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, is now under arrest. And he should count himself lucky for -- if entirely undeserving of -- a penal system in that country that is among the cushiest in the world. There's no capital punishment, and the longest jail term allowed is 21 years (a caveat: if a prisoner is deemed to still be a threat, his sentence can be extended in five-year blocks indefinitely, though it's highly unlikely, according to Norwegian officials). In Norway, rehabilitation is the guiding principle, not punishment -- a somewhat difficult notion to swallow given the gravity and callousness of his crimes.

'Both society and the individual simply have to put aside their desire for revenge, and stop focusing on prisons as places of punishment and pain," one Norwegian prison official told the Daily Mail. "Depriving a person of their freedom for a period of time is sufficient punishment in itself without any need whatsoever for harsh prison conditions.'

Norway's newest jail may hold rapists and murderers, but Halden Prison -- the country's second largest and most secure facility -- looks more like a posh sleepaway camp. In fact, architects say they purposely tried to avoid an 'institutional feel.'

Thoughts?

Admin wrote:

"Norway's unrepentant mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, is now under arrest. And he should count himself lucky for -- if entirely undeserving of -- a penal system in that country that is among the cushiest in the world. There's no capital punishment, and the longest jail term allowed is 21 years (a caveat: if a prisoner is deemed to still be a threat, his sentence can be extended in five-year blocks indefinitely, though it's highly unlikely, according to Norwegian officials). In Norway, rehabilitation is the guiding principle, not punishment -- a somewhat difficult notion to swallow given the gravity and callousness of his crimes.

'Both society and the individual simply have to put aside their desire for revenge, and stop focusing on prisons as places of punishment and pain," one Norwegian prison official told the Daily Mail. "Depriving a person of their freedom for a period of time is sufficient punishment in itself without any need whatsoever for harsh prison conditions.'

Norway's newest jail may hold rapists and murderers, but Halden Prison -- the country's second largest and most secure facility -- looks more like a posh sleepaway camp. In fact, architects say they purposely tried to avoid an 'institutional feel.'

Inmates share common kitchens and living rooms. Some common areas are designated as places where both inmates and guards can meet and mingle.


The prison boasts a state-of-the-art gym, complete with a rock-climbing wall.


The well-stocked library at Halden contains not only books but magazines, CDs, and DVDs.


An inmate in his private bathroom.


Here, prisoners and their instructor get down during a music class.

More

Thoughts?

Damn, that looks nice. If they have internet perhaps I'll need to move to Norway and commit a crime.

I guess we know why that coward Breivik surrendered as soon as the guys with the guns showed up...

They should have shot him down like a rabid dog. Would have saved money and stopped him from using prison as a base from which to continue his crusade of hate. And if the nazis, fascists, religious-nutters and other hate groups want another 'martyr', fine let them have one.

Isakenaz wrote:They should have shot him down like a rabid dog. Would have saved money and stopped him from using prison as a base from which to continue his crusade of hate. And if the nazis, fascists, religious-nutters and other hate groups want another 'martyr', fine let them have one.

I agree, Breivik deserves to meet the most brutal of ends. A quick execution is too humane for such an individual; a slow, torturous death is far more befitting.

I'm not quite sure what the Norwegian state thinks it's accomplishing by allowing murderers and rapists such luxurious prisons—at the expense of their tax payers, no less—but I can only hope this recent tragedy awakens the public to the urgency of deterring crime via capital punishment charges and uncomfortable prison facilities.

Haarvard Gaasbakk said it was a "completely normal arrest", and suggested the gunman had surrendered readily.

Police had yelled to the gunman to surrender and, in limited visibility, he suddenly appeared before them with his hands in the air and his weapon 15m away on the ground, Mr Gaasbakk added. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14317271

Brave bastard isn't he. Perhaps those who will come to admire his committment to the WN cause, but then some commentators actualy said Hitler was the first to dive to the ground when the failed 'Munich Putch' came under fire, but that doesn't stop some from admiring his bravery does it?

I guess this is why i am against the capital punishment, but totally in favour of forced , non compensated labour for prisoners...

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I guess this is why i am against the capital punishment, but totally in favour of forced , non compensated labour for prisoners...

Why do you oppose capital punishment?

Rev Scare wrote:

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I guess this is why i am against the capital punishment, but totally in favour of forced , non compensated labour for prisoners...

Why do you oppose capital punishment?

Well there are two main reasons for that:

- First, i don't think its morally or even racionally acceptable. It reeks of "an eye for an eye", and i was never in favor of some "special status" for the justice system, one that enables it to basically commit crimes as a "punishment" for the crimes people committed.

- Second, i actually don't think it's a hard penalty. Death is oblivion, there isn't much after that. What you rather have, a quick painless death, or all your life mining in chains in Siberia, living in a cubicle, and being reminded everyday that there are things and pleasures you will never have again for example? I know wich one i would prefer.

Besides, forced labour would be usefull for the community, unlike just killing them.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:

Rev Scare wrote:

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I guess this is why i am against the capital punishment, but totally in favour of forced , non compensated labour for prisoners...

Why do you oppose capital punishment?

Well there are two main reasons for that:

- First, i don't think its morally or even racionally acceptable. It reeks of "an eye for an eye", and i was never in favor of some "special status" for the justice system, one that enables it to basically commit crimes as a "punishment" for the crimes people committed.

- Second, i actually don't think it's a hard penalty. Death is oblivion, there isn't much after that. What you rather have, a quick painless death, or all your life mining in chains in Siberia, living in a cubicle, and being reminded everyday that there are things and pleasures you will never have again for example? I know wich one i would prefer.

Besides, forced labour would be usefull for the community, unlike just killing them.

Well, asserting that the criminal justice system commits a "crime" when sentencing a criminal to death is subjective and rather unfounded. The context is of paramount importance, unless you wish to argue that killing in self-defense is also a "crime" and so forth—that virtually all conscious and unconscious acts of killing are crimes. As far as morality is concerned, the irrational nature of such depends upon the individual's own preferences, but I would venture to claim that sentencing a criminal to a lifetime of arduous servitude could also be construed as immoral, whereas death is, in the end, the termination of a particular situation. It simply removes a socially undesirable individual from society permanently and without further consideration, thereby clearing society of a particular burden.

Also, I cannot quite gauge the practical importance of criminal labor within a post-capitalist society, especially when taking into consideration the trend toward eliminating human labor.

I do, however, view forced labor as a potentially more effective deterrent to crime than capital punishment and in that sense do embrace it.

The "morality" of capital punishment does indeed depend on the intersubjective consensus of a given population. Perhaps the Norwegian people collectively decided that capital punishment is immoral, but I suspect that even they realize that there are extenuating circumstances—this massacre being one of them.

I'm typically averse to capital punishment sentences, particularly when applied to cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence. However, when their is physical evidence, and it's as overwhelming as it is in the case of Breivik, I have absolutely no reservations about capital punishment. Serial killers, child molesters, and serial rapists, are undeserving of any sympathy whatsoever, in my opinion. In fact, my only problem with capital punishment is that it's applied too humanely for certain convicts. Like the rest of you, I see the potential value in subjecting society's worst offenders to penal labor, so perhaps several years of harsh labor followed by execution is preferable to mere execution.

However, if we're to entertain the possibility of being exceedingly libertarian on the issue, I once discussed a theory wherein individuals would draft legal documents stating what sort of sentences they'd feel most comfortable having their murderer face—if convicted of the offense, of course. In the case of minors, their parents or guardians could decide the matter.

Celtiberian wrote:The "morality" of capital punishment does indeed depend on the intersubjective consensus of a given population. Perhaps the Norwegian people collectively decided that capital punishment is immoral, but I suspect that even they realize that there are extenuating circumstances—this massacre being one of them.

I'm typically averse to capital punishment sentences, particularly when applied to cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence. However, when their is physical evidence, and it's as overwhelming as it is in the case of Breivik, I have absolutely no reservations about capital punishment. Serial killers, child molesters, and serial rapists, are undeserving of any sympathy whatsoever. In fact, my only problem with capital punishment is that it's applied too humanely for certain convicts. Like the rest of you, I see the potential value in subjecting society's worst offenders to penal labor, so perhaps several years of harsh labor followed by execution is preferable to mere execution.

However, if we're to be libertarian on the issue, I once discussed the possibility of individuals drafting legal documents stating what sort of sentences they'd feel most comfortable having their murderer face, if convicted of the offense. In the case of minors, their parents or guardians could decide for the matter.

My problem with capital punishment is not that it is "too humane," which is something that I do not truly care to debate upon regardless, but that capital punishment, in the United States at least, is haunted by an appallingly deficient appeals process. I believe that if a particularly flagrant crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the sentence of death is imposed, then the execution should be carried out promptly and efficiently. The condemned should not be left to squander valuable state resources by extraneously bidding for time.

I wish only to irrevocably remove parasitical and irredeemable elements of society without hesitation. I do not truly concern myself with the amount of suffering that individuals subjectively perceive to be "necessary" for any given crime committed.

Premeditated crime is imoral, because is the conscious act of removing something that is a not material part of another person against his will. In this case, the most valuable one, his life.

Even if a society deemed murdering "moral", it's an opressive and antagonist action in itself ,and therefore, it's against basic personal rights in any society, and rightly so. Of course in this case, i rather replace the word imoral with something more clear as mudering someone is an act against his/her well being with terminal implications. Therefore the "justice" of such an act is always questionable, EVEN if it's done by the state, and SPECIALLY as some act based on "punishment", or "revenge". Forced lifetime labour on the other hand, doesn't violate this basic principle, while ensuring that the offender won't have any pleasent time like in this Norwegian prison. As for labour in a socialist society, one can always think about something.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Premeditated crime is imoral, because is the conscious act of removing something that is a not material part of another person against his will. In this case, the most valuable one, his life.

Even if a society deemed murdering "moral", it's an opressive and antagonist action in itself ,and therefore, it's against basic personal rights in any society, and rightly so. Of course in this case, i rather replace the word imoral with something more clear as mudering someone is an act against his/her well being with terminal implications. Therefore the "justice" of such an act is always questionable, EVEN if it's done by the state, and SPECIALLY as some act based on "punishment", or "revenge". Forced lifetime labour on the other hand, doesn't violate this basic principle, while ensuring that the offender won't have any pleasent time like in this Norwegian prison. As for labour in a socialist society, one can always think about something.

How can you say that forced labor, or as you said, shackled up and mining in Siberia, is any more "moral" than a quick, painless execution? Are you not already basically taking their life by stripping them of everything that makes life, life? A family, friends, a chance to work and earn? The person would be merely a shell, a vassal of labor for the state. They would be anything but alive. I think a quick painless execution is far more favorable, as far as "morality" is concerned.

I have no objection to forced labor for criminals of this degree; but please do not parade around under the banner of morality. It is even les moral than a painless execution.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Premeditated crime is imoral, because is the conscious act of removing something that is a not material part of another person against his will. In this case, the most valuable one, his life.

Even if a society deemed murdering "moral", it's an opressive and antagonist action in itself ,and therefore, it's against basic personal rights in any society, and rightly so. Of course in this case, i rather replace the word imoral with something more clear as mudering someone is an act against his/her well being with terminal implications. Therefore the "justice" of such an act is always questionable, EVEN if it's done by the state, and SPECIALLY as some act based on "punishment", or "revenge". Forced lifetime labour on the other hand, doesn't violate this basic principle, while ensuring that the offender won't have any pleasent time like in this Norwegian prison. As for labour in a socialist society, one can always think about something.

How can you say that forced labor, or as you said, shackled up and mining in Siberia, is any more "moral" than a quick, painless execution? Are you not already basically taking their life by stripping them of everything that makes life, life? A family, friends, a chance to work and earn? The person would be merely a shell, a vassal of labor for the state. They would be anything but alive. I think a quick painless execution is far more favorable, as far as "morality" is concerned.

I have no objection to forced labor for criminals of this degree; but please do not parade around under the banner of morality. It is even les moral than a painless execution.

~

You didn't understand what i meant with "morality". I will put simply. It is imoral for me to see the state impose a punishment that is similar to the crime just for "revenge", and in the process taking something that is intrinsically personal. It's not "imoral" to punish someone who commit a crime NOONE should, with taking their freedom, and ensuring that from then on, he will repay his debt with society with his work, and his time. The government is not commiting any "crime" in the process, and is adequately punishing the murderer.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:

SSocialistStateSS wrote:

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Premeditated crime is imoral, because is the conscious act of removing something that is a not material part of another person against his will. In this case, the most valuable one, his life.

Even if a society deemed murdering "moral", it's an opressive and antagonist action in itself ,and therefore, it's against basic personal rights in any society, and rightly so. Of course in this case, i rather replace the word imoral with something more clear as mudering someone is an act against his/her well being with terminal implications. Therefore the "justice" of such an act is always questionable, EVEN if it's done by the state, and SPECIALLY as some act based on "punishment", or "revenge". Forced lifetime labour on the other hand, doesn't violate this basic principle, while ensuring that the offender won't have any pleasent time like in this Norwegian prison. As for labour in a socialist society, one can always think about something.

How can you say that forced labor, or as you said, shackled up and mining in Siberia, is any more "moral" than a quick, painless execution? Are you not already basically taking their life by stripping them of everything that makes life, life? A family, friends, a chance to work and earn? The person would be merely a shell, a vassal of labor for the state. They would be anything but alive. I think a quick painless execution is far more favorable, as far as "morality" is concerned.

I have no objection to forced labor for criminals of this degree; but please do not parade around under the banner of morality. It is even les moral than a painless execution.

~

You didn't understand what i meant with "morality". I will put simply. It is imoral for me to see the state impose a punishment that is similar to the crime just for "revenge", and in the process taking something that is intrinsically personal. It's not "imoral" to punish someone who commit a crime NOONE should, with taking their freedom, and ensuring that from then on, he will repay his debt with society with his work, and his time. The government is not commiting any "crime" in the process, and is adequately punishing the murderer.

Well, if we go play this game is it okay for you to capture a person and make them work off some debt to you? No, it is illegal just like it is illegal for you to kill someone. Taking someones freedom is on par with taking their life. The death sentence is a gift to those who would otherwise rot in a cell with no hope of whats outside for the rest of their life.

And why would we want to give a murderer any "gifts"? I don't think a government, or anyone for that matter should go around killing people. But i see no problem with criminals giving back to society in some way. Your debt example isn't a valid one because owning money is not stealing, or murder, so the personal freedom of the person who owns money is still worth more than this debt.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:And why would we want to give a murderer any "gifts"? I don't think a government, or anyone for that matter should go around killing people. But i see no problem with criminals giving back to society in some way. Your debt example isn't a valid one because owning money is not stealing, or murder, so the personal freedom of the person who owns money is still worth more than this debt.

A debt dosn't have to be money in this case. Just like a debt to society dosn't mean a person owes society money. Just compensation for some misdeed.

I don't think we should give them gifts either, I too, am in support of labor camps for the more serious criminals. However; I will NOT say that it is somehow morally righteous and more just than simply giving someone a painless execution.