Slashdot Mirror
Anders Behring Breivik, Norway Murderer, Wins Human Rights Case
An anonymous reader writes: Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has won part of his lawsuit against the state over his solitary confinement in a high-security prison, the Oslo district court ruled on Wednesday. Breivik, who killed 77 people in a shooting rampage and bombing attack in 2011 (the country's worst acts of violence since the second world war), was served with "inhuman or degrading treatment," the court found, adding that his conditions must be eased. The court said that the prison violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Brevik had noted that "solitary confinement, as well as frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed while moving between cells, violated his human rights." The court, in addition, also ordered the government to pay legal costs of roughly $40,600 for the right-wing extremist. The Guardian reports, "Although Breivik is detained in a three-cell complex where he can play video games, watch TV and exercise, judge Helen Andenaes Sekulic of the Oslo district court ruled that the Norwegian state had broken article 3 of the convention. The prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment "represents a fundamental value in a democratic society", she said in a written decision. "This applies no matter what -- also in the treatment of terrorists and killers."
Are we supposed to be dismayed that the courts aren't going to ignore his human rights?
Or is this based on the french concept of prison, where basically you have no rights at all and can be treated like complete shit?
Long-term solitary confinement is cruel and inhuman, and should be illegal. Period.
If you are so confident that "Europe" is so wrong, then why is it necessary to misrepresent the truth? The issue is about solitary confinement. Yes this guy is a piece of shit. He is still a human being, and I applaud Norway for having the humanity and integrity to treat even it's worst people as human beings. It's easy to protect the rights of likeable people.
He his human. A human murdered those people. You are literally de-humanizing him because you don't want to accept the fact that another human, much like yourself, committed horrible crimes. He deserves to be treated like a human. That's the difference between us and his victims.
The US is the only high income/developed country that still executes people. 1% of American citizens have been through the criminal justice system, more than any other developed country. The American justice system is nothing to compare everyone else to.
This is where we went all wrong.
I'm norwegian myself - but the guy killed over 70+ people. This is the net result of our touchy-feely idiotic social democrat society where even the mass murderers have social rights. THE GUY KILLED OVER 70 PEOPLE - HIS RIGHTS WENT FLYING AWAY WITH THAT.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.
What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.
Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.
First, you need to give up your freedom. Be denied all contact with all other humans, and be cut off from the world. You'd need to accept spending the rest of your natural life like that. Never again see a sunrise, or a rolling ocean. Never again join a motorcycle club. Never again say "Gee, it's nice out, I think I'll go for a walk!" Never again become excited with the arrival of spring. Never again feel the wind in your hair or the sun on your face. And accept that there is no hope, none, not ever, that that will ever change.
If you're willing to give up all that in exchange for a few video games, a treadmill, and three square a day, well sir, kudos to you. I wouldn't.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
But you've failed to deal with all the other arguments against the death penalty.
For a start, execution is more expensive than long-term imprisonment. (If you doubt this, do some reading.)
Executing nutters like this doesn't act as an effective deterrent, as crazies can't be deterred.
There's also the issue of accidentally killing the wrong person, which is always a risk with the death penalty, but admittedly doesn't seem like much of an issue in a case like this.
And for comparison, here's what the US did to [then] Bradley Manning.
She was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into her mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded.
Her cell was 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink. The jail had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other. Her lawyer said the guards behaved professionally, and had not tried to harass or embarrass Manning. She was allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals were taken in the cell, and she was shackled during visits. There was access to television when it was placed in the corridor, and she was allowed to keep one magazine and one book.
On January 18, 2011, after Manning had an altercation with the guards, the commander of Quantico classified her as a suicide risk. Manning said the guards had begun issuing conflicting commands, such as "turn left, don't turn left," and upbraiding her for responding to commands with "yes" instead of "aye." Shortly afterwards, she was placed on suicide watch, had her clothing and eyeglasses removed, and was required to remain in her cell 24 hours a day. The suicide watch was lifted on January 21 after a complaint from her lawyer, and the brig commander who ordered it was replaced. On March 2 she was told that her request for removal of POI status—which entailed among other things sleeping wearing only boxer shorts—had been denied. Her lawyer said Manning joked to the guards that, if she wanted to harm herself, she could do so with her underwear or her flip-flops. The comment resulted in Manning being ordered to strip naked in her cell that night and sleep without clothing. On the following morning only, Manning stood naked for inspection.
Until I read the OP article, I had always considered the US to be a fairly civilized place. Reading about the Norwegian jail and how they generally treat their prisoners, I got the distinct feeling that we, the US, are looking up from the bottom of the curve at the civilized people of the world.
I remember a photo of Richard Reid being transported to Guantanamo, who was naked and strapped immobile to a gurney, and toted around in complete view of the public while being transported (hence the photo, which I couldn't find in a quick search).
Reid was SO DANGEROUS that he couldn't be allowed clothing, shackles weren't sufficient, and had to be sent to an offshore prison.
What has become of our great nation?
Sadistic abuse. Torture. Indefinite detention, long after it has lost relevance. Giving drugs to prisoners against their will.
We force feed them to prevent them gaining release by starving to death, just to continue the abuse.
I don't expect this level of retribution from GOD, let alone fellow citizens.
I just got a rude awakening and realized: we're the bad guys.
What has become of us?
No, it proves that Norway is correct.
By treating him the same as any other prisoner, his intended end result of his actions is nullified. He will not have changed society, he will not have made any kind of political impact, he will be worthless (in his own eyes), the same as everyone else.
It's the ultimate punishment for a narcissist like him.
Eat the rich.
I'm a Christian, and I agree entirely. Inhumane treatment is indefensible, no matter how we feel about the prisoner. Yes, that includes my government's treatment of various prisoners all over the world. And the vast majority of Christians I know would agree.
Now, if you don't think the treatment actually *is* inhumane, your argument is there, in definition. I actually don't, but I'm neither Norwegian nor European, and have limited influence on that...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And that's the catch. Once you allow the death penalty for a specific crime/situation that will be used as justification for applying it in "similar" instances.
Which will, in turn, be used to apply it in slightly less "similar" instances.
And so forth.
We cannot TRUST the government NOT to abuse its authority. So we have to LIMIT that authority.
> There's also the issue of accidentally killing the wrong person....
This combined with the way lawyers work (in the USA) is, by far, the biggest reason I am against the death penalty. There are far too many tales of exhoneration for me to even begin to consider it without serious reform.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Last week I visited the monument of Che Guevara in Santa Clara, Cuba. And while I was making photos, I suddenly wondered: if this guy can get a monument, will Breivik get one in the future? After all, they both killed for ideological reasons. And while Breivik is currently in jail, the way the political winds are blowing in Europe, it is not impossible that he will be considered an early revolutionary a decade from now - with all the respect that comes with such a title.
What is the point of this harsh punishment?
To get revenge, deter others, and to prevent him from doing it again.
You can't stop them being dangerous people in future.
Sure you can. Just bury them in the ground, and bury their heads somewhere else.
If that were true the countries with the harshest punishments would have the lowest crime.
Vast majority? No.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150...
A majority of Christians still support the death penalty, although the number is falling. I applaud your convictions, though.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Revenge is an awful reason, it only reduces us to the same level as the perpetrator.
Which is why I approach the matter as one would approach a dog that mauls people without cause. The dog is put-down if it attacks people, because we're concerned with what that dog will do to people based on its previous behavior. We generally don't put-down dogs that have a single incident unless that single incident is pretty debilitating to the victim, but we do put down dogs that either cause greivous harm, death, or have a pattern of attacks. We cannot tolerate the behavior ever happening again, so we euphemistically, "put the dog to sleep." We don't shoot the dog, we don't paralyze the dog before putting in the killing-drug, we don't gas the dog with something that will cause the dog to experience liquid filling the lungs before death, we don't shock the dog. We either gas the dog with something that displaces oxygen so it dies quickly and relatively painlessly, or we inject a drug cocktail that puts the dog under as it stops essential heart and lung involuntary responses so that the dog dies.
Mr. Breivik's actions, that he was proud of carrying out, are worthy of being, "put to sleep." We don't do this out of retribution, we do this because this individual is too great a threat to be allowed to live.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But you just asserted that it's a deterrent. Are you now suggesting crime and punishment are not correlated?