Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anders Behring Breivik, Norway Murderer, Wins Human Rights Case

Posted by msmash on from the hmm dept.

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."

73 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. Rule of law by OffTheLip · · Score: 2

    Norway style. It's that simple really.

    1. Re:Rule of law by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Rule of law by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      dude most of the people around you can commit the same crime he did. they are just not motivated to or are afraid of getting caught.

      People in general are horrible evil animals. keep that in mind.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Rule of law by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      See, while he's homo sapiens, there's a point when the monstrosity of the crime committed, coupled with the complete lack of doubt that he was the perpetrator, is why I do not support ridding the world of the death penalty. I don't want that penalty to be one of retribution though, I want such a penalty to be akin to putting animals to sleep.

      I don't necessarily support the death penalty for one-time murderers, especially those who personally knew the victim, as there are cases when the homicide committed was essentially the final step in a series of escalating events by both people. Such a murderer is probably not going to kill anyone again as the circumstances that led to the murder were extraordinary.

      I am much more in favor of the death penalty as an option when the murderer kills people that are unknown to them, or are little more than casual acquaintances. That shows a person that's willing to kill for no reason, rather than at least having a reason like in my previous example. Someone willing to kill for no reason once may well be willing to kill for no reason again.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Rule of law by Wootery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: Rule of law by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Rule of law by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      For a start, execution is more expensive than long-term imprisonment. (If you doubt this, do some reading.)

      This is caused by the long drawn out appeals process. Maybe in cases like this some levels of appeal can be skipped so as to get to the highest authority faster.

    7. Re:Rule of law by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 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.

    8. Re:Rule of law by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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)

    9. Re:Rule of law by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe in cases like this some levels of appeal can be skipped so as to get to the highest authority faster.

      A few shots in the chest by the arresting officer would do the trick.

    10. Re:Rule of law by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Rule of law by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are Norwegians (including their convicts) such pacifists that it couldn't be argued that he needs "protective custody?" Jeffrey Dahmer killed less than 77 people, and he survived, what? Two years with the general prison population?

      Western European prisons, and Scandinavian prisons in particular, are very different from the US hellholes. They don't dehumanise inmates to nearly the same degree, and as a result, most prisoners don't behave like crazy monkeys fighting a turf war. The rate of incarceration in Norway nearly ten times lower than in the US, and the level of recidivism is only 20%, as opposed to nearly 80% in the US.

      --

      Stephan

    12. Re:Rule of law by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.)

      I am not calling for this for a cost savings. I am calling for an executing for someone like this because the real danger the individual poses outweighs everything else.

      Executing nutters like this doesn't act as an effective deterrent, as crazies can't be deterred.

      Again, I am not calling for executing this person because of a deterrence effect. I am calling for this person's execution because of the real proven danger this person presents.

      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.

      Exactly, it is not a danger in a case like this. As far as I am concerned, it would be acceptable for the issue of execution to be forwarded up to higher courts in a given nation. The court under which the convict was originally tried is probably not as-able to determine the sentence. Have an intermediate court review the conviction without a specified sentence to determine if the convict's special circumstances warrant execution or not. Choose to recommend, and auto-appeal this to the high court for final decision. Then let a combination of the prosecution and law enforcement make requests to determine when the execution will occur, based on any other pending cases, and then schedule it. If either court finds against execution, the original court proceeds to conventional sentencing.

      Spree killers and serial killers would basically be the only parties for whom this would apply. The killer either needs to kill more than one person in short order, or needs to kill more than one person over time.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    13. Re:Rule of law by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      Maybe in cases like this some levels of appeal can be skipped so as to get to the highest authority faster.

      A few shots in the chest by the arresting officer would do the trick.

      That's always worked in Chicago.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    14. Re:Rule of law by Fragnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that were true the countries with the harshest punishments would have the lowest crime.

    15. Re:Rule of law by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Ah, but modern society has an ideal breeding ground for anti-social traits - in positions of power. It's been that way since agriculture was invented, in fact.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Rule of law by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      A few shots in the chest by the arresting officer would do the trick.

      That would be "executing officer" as not arrest would have been attempted.

      We need a system somewhere between street justice and endless appeals.

    17. Re:Rule of law by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      How can execution EVER be more expensive than imprisonment? The legal process, maybe; the execution, very simple. For what the state is spending on incarcerating and guarding and caring for this mass murderer, it could probably house an entire family in an apartment. Certainly there is some deserving veteran's-survivor family or charity case more worthy of support than this guy.

      The "accidentally killing the wrong person" argument is legitimate, and is dealt with by including fuzzy-logic scoring for degrees of certainty in the decision of incarceration vs. execution. In this case, involving killing many people over multiple instances (not all killed in one single action), with complete certainty that this is the correct guilty party, the decision seems straightforward.

    18. Re: Rule of law by geek · · Score: 2

      That's a poll of Americans, not Christians. As a Christian myself, I waver on this topic but by and large, i don't know many Christians who are for the death penalty who haven't been affected by some violent crime.

      If they did the poll asking if they were Christian, you would see a large number of people say yes, but if you then filtered it by how many actually attended services on any type of regular basis or who'd even read the bible, the number would drop significantly.

    19. Re:Rule of law by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

      I disagree. I believe that killing a person can be humane. Like turning off a light.

      Keeping a person confined and without liberties is punishment. Wanting to end your life in but not being able to is fitting punishment.

      I would prefer prison for all criminal homicide. But to be honest it can be is quite costly on a society. So I endorse the use of capital punishment even if there may be innocent people that are convicted. But in the later case I would like to see officials held responsible for wrongful convictions. Further they should be required to spend differing amounts of time in the same prisons and conditions they would subject anyone else to. Their identities know and unknown to the other prisoners such that they receive no special protection.

      Of the conditions described I believe some homeless people would willingly subject themselves to those conditions to get off the street.

      P.S. The strip searches are probably necessary to protect the guards but I think more so to keep the prisoner from committing suicide in a moment of rash judgement.

    20. Re:Rule of law by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


      You're obviously confused. Idealists often are in the face of reality. It doesn't quite fit into neat little boxes.

      He is born a human. He is biologically human. Ethically, socially behaviourally he has no humanity. That's the whole fucking point of being a human.

      Much like myself he could, in some wild theory plot the murderer of children for months but very much unlike myself he actually went ahead and did it.

      No, to entertain the thought he is human is very dangerous. He deserves no better or worse than the treatment of a convict
      dependent on his crimes

      We have minimum security for such things as theft and more serious conditions for murderers.

      What conditions do you propose are fitting for a person that has murdered so many under the motives he had?

      It's always easy to be dispassionately idealistic. After all there's a perfectly logical and reasoned case behind it right? Breivik too has a dispassionately idealistic and supposedly reasonable explanation for his actions. He's just a person, like you, right?

      I hope you never have to endure the loss that so many parents have endured. Tell them about the reasoned and logical argument. About how we are better than him by treating him especially nice. I'm have a feeling like-minded people like him are less deterred now than they were before his actions.

      He is unworthy of this wonderful treatment reserved for much nicer people that have only murdered one or two others for perhaps much more justifiable causes. The punishment should at least relate to the crime if it cannot fit it.

      To conclude; I categorically reject your claim he is a human. We are not "de-humanizing" him he has dehumanized himself.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    21. Re:Rule of law by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      "Again, I am not calling for executing this person because of a deterrence effect. I am calling for this person's execution because of the real proven danger this person presents"

      What is the "real proven danger" of someone in solitary confinement or in prison, and what evre that level of "real proven danger" there is no data to support your idea that he is more of of threat than other prison inmates.

    22. Re:Rule of law by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I'm not a big fan of Che Guevara myself, but let's just say that Che had a bigger following than Breivik is ever likely to. He was speaking to and fighting for a cause that had widespread sympathy in Latin America, even if I think it was a bad ideology. I don't see there being the same support going for Breivik's idea in Norway.

      I also don't think Che ever went on a one man killing spree in a camp.

      Che was an adept organizer, not simply a "visionary soldier" (read: ideological murderer). He's famous less for killing people than he is for his organizing of people to do that killing.

      That said, it is hard to say how things will go. If something radicalizes Europeans to that level and in that same way, yes he could be seen as more sympathetic. It's still hard to see anything short of a new fascism lionizing him.

    23. Re: Rule of law by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    24. Re: Rule of law by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You're right. The Barna Poll I was looking at showed a 42% support for the death penalty among Christians and only 32% of Christian millennials.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Rule of law by vivian · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would like to reserve the death penalty to those who cut the spaghetti in half : that pisses me off and you can't uncut the spaghetti.

      It appears that even Pastafarians have their extremists...

    26. Re:Rule of law by Fragnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you just asserted that it's a deterrent. Are you now suggesting crime and punishment are not correlated?

    27. Re:Rule of law by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      You have to love people who deconstruct their own arguments/answer their own questions before you get the chance to do so. :D Saves a lot of time.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re: Rule of law by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not in Europe, and European Christians wouldn't consider anyone reading the bible literally a true Christian, more a Muslim Christian if anything, because what separates Christians from Muslims is that they read their holy book literally.

      Islamic theology isn't "what in book=true. what not in book=shaitan". Theres a long long history of islamic theology based on interpretting the quoran as a symbolic and poetic document full of allegories and metaphors.

      Just because some nutty goddamn jihadis seem to have skipped that part of theology class, doesnt mean super-fundamentalism is a feature of all islam.

      Hell, look at the sufis. Its *all* symbolism for those mystical cats.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    29. Re: Rule of law by dave420 · · Score: 2

      So you are fine with dehumanising people if it suits you, and ultimately allows you to kill people you deem worthy of killing, regardless of how dangerous they are. I'd give you a list of the actors who have used such "logic" to further their aims, but it won't be pleasant reading. It includes one name you might have heard recently: Anders Breivik.

      The guy's in prison! He's only a threat to people who have chosen to accept the threat, and who are suitably trained to prevent it from happening. This is what civilisation looks like.

  2. Why to everyone's dismay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate how the article talks about how he has access to an xbox or whatever. Solitary confinement is very cruel and unusual. Removing all human interaction is one of the worst things you can do to a human, no matter their crimes. It should only be used when that inmate is in danger from the rest of the prison population.

      Solitary confinement needs to be banned in the US, along with capital punishment. We're the only high income country that has capital punishment, and one of the few that has solitary confinement.

    2. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate how the article talks about how he has access to an xbox or whatever. Solitary confinement is very cruel and unusual. Removing all human interaction is one of the worst things you can do to a human, no matter their crimes. It should only be used when that inmate is in danger from the rest of the prison population.

      Solitary confinement needs to be banned in the US, along with capital punishment. We're the only high income country that has capital punishment, and one of the few that has solitary confinement.

      Quoted for truth... I agree, the guy is a crappy example of a human being... but he IS a human being, and if you are going to torture him by putting him into a 7 foot by 10 foot concrete box, then you're really no better than he is.

    3. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find the best way to discover how true someone is to their ethics is to look for edge cases. One of the best edge cases is how they would treat someone they despise. Someone easy to treat poorly. In fact, someone you might enjoy treating poorly.

      Apparently France fails this test and Norway passes it.

    4. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sigh.

      Treating prisoners humanely, even someone as horrible as Breivik, isn't about them, it's about us.

      We don't offer inmates creature comforts, proper nutrition, health care, and all those other goodies like lack of capital punishment not because of some myopic moral failing but because we've figured out that sometimes, the abyss looks back.

      I'll use a first aid analogy: The very first thing you learn in a first aid course is not to go blindly charging in, ready to provide your life-saving skills. You're told to carefully consider the environment you're about to enter, mainly in order to avoid the fate of your victim, so that instead of heroically saving a life, you've gone and doubled the problem making yourself a casualty as well.

      Sure, it would be easy to strap a mass murderer like Breivik into a chair, pump him with some nasty chemicals and be done with him. Or throw him a hole and ignore him unless something horrific happens to him, so we can then point and laugh.

      But we don't, because one of the central conceits of a modern and humane justice system is the understanding that multiple wrongs don't magically turn into something right, ever. All those wrongs do is stain the innocent some more. They don't heal, they don't provide closure, they just extend the scope and reach of the original crime.

      So we try and treat criminals as well we do, because it's vitally important for us not to give into the kind of urges, no matter how small, no matter how petty, that produce people and outcomes like Andre Breivik.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty much.

      The French have the right idea in this case. There's no reason to pamper this monster and give him a lifestyle potentially better than law abiding citizens.

      Recidivism in France is at 59%. In Norway it's 20%.

      Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    6. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by Wootery · · Score: 5, Funny

      Long-term benefit to society is good and all, but, but, catharsis!

    7. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      I especially liked this part:

      "Sample selection and definitions of recidivism varied widely, and few countries were comparable.
      Conclusions: Recidivism data are currently not valid for international comparisons."

       ...but dont let that stop tyou from citing it as long as it supports your view, right?

    8. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      ...and "[H]ow recidivism is defined has consequences for the results in any recidivism study, and since recidivism is often politically highly relevant, such definitions can easily affect policies. For example, we have provided both high and low recidivism rates for Norway – all being relevant and accurate – and while the lowest figures might be taken to overrate Norwegian criminal policies, the highest figures might be taken to debunk those policies. Thus, the consequences of the definitions for the results need to be made explicit."

      - from "Pick a number: Mapping recidivism measures and their consequences" where the author notes that 20% and 54% (about the same as France) are both given figures for recidivism in Norway and both are cited depending on political objective. And this paper was the source cited in the paper you cited.

      https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/166596

    9. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      That attitude is why we still have war and violence in the world.

      No. The criminal's attitude that individuals who never harmed him (or anyone else) are fair targets is why we have war and violence. The reaction that, by killing wantonly, the criminal has demonstrated a reason to be removed from society - permanently - is like the reaction to discovering bedbugs.

    10. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by Wootery · · Score: 2

      That is like saying person A is worse than person B, because person A only killed 10 people while person B killed 100.

      Well, yeah. You really think there's something wrong with that reasoning?

      It could be 1, doesn't matter.

      So... the second murder has no moral consequence then? Are you sure about that?

      I consider rape to be the same thing, and I'm not even a woman, but I understand that to women, it can be just as bad as murder.

      It's serious enough that I'd consider it legitimate to use lethal force to prevent it. I still don't consider it the moral equivalent of murder, though. It seems obvious to me that murder is even worse than rape.

      Also, bear in mind that male-male rape is a real occurrence. Rape isn't just a women's issue.

      The irony is all the people calling for the execution of this guy. As if killing him is somehow "good", but his killing of others is "bad".

      I happen to agree with you in opposing capital punishment, but the point you're making doesn't make sense.

      We imprison kidnappers. Are you going to argue that's the moral equivalent of kidnapping? Of course not, because context is vital when evaluating morality.

      You're either civilized or you're not, there isn't much middle ground there.

      No. Get real.

    11. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that sentiment means that you are more like Brevik than the average person is.

    12. Re:Why to everyone's dismay? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Right. Because executing people worked out so well for the USA, didn't it.

      There's no pattern of fewer homicides in countries and states with the death penalty. If anything it's the other way.

  3. Hooray for Norway! by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long-term solitary confinement is cruel and inhuman, and should be illegal. Period.

    1. Re:Hooray for Norway! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      That's true if we consider the need to have the desire for vengeance satiated a basic human right.

    2. Re:Hooray for Norway! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      He will never be released, the sentence will be extended again and again until he dies in confinement.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    3. Re:Hooray for Norway! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      No. Capital punishment is murder, and if we murder him, we sink to his level. We must never do that.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:Hooray for Norway! by butchersong · · Score: 2

      I would expect that the solitary confinement was for his protection. If one of those had been my child, my only priority would be to get put in general population with that guy.

  4. Huh by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obviously, in the USA (and most other countries), they would treat this man far worse. Most places he would have been executed.

    With that said, while I'm not in favor of harsh punitive treatment in prisons IF it doesn't help prevent crime, nothing in the article sounds unreasonable. He is a dangerous killer - he killed 77 people. It's not unreasonable for his jailers to try to prevent it from becoming 78. He's so dangerous that making him wear cuffs when moving him between cells and preventing him from coming into proximity with other prisoners seem like reasonable precautions.

    Isolation is torture - you might argue he deserves it - but maybe they could let him communicate with other prisoners without physical contact being possible? The lives of the other prisoners and the guards do need to be protected.

    And they seem to have given him a treadmill, a video game system, a TV - a lot of stuff to ameliorate the isolation. They'd never do this in the USA - he'd be probably in a tiny cell waiting in silence for his execution.

    1. Re:Huh by SumDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Huh by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      The US is the only high income/developed country that still executes people.

      Japan, Singapore and Taiwan all have capital punishment and all would have issue being excluded from being considered a high income/developed country.

  5. Re:Go ahead and commit suicide Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, go ahead and commit suicide Europe.

    Why do you think such compassionate treatment is harming Europe? Norway has only 1/10th as many people locked up, per capita, as the US. Norway has one of the lowest recivisim rates once people leave prison as well. Crime rates are lower, including the murder rate and other violent crimes.

    It's almost as if a default policy of treating prisoners like human beings leads to lower crime rates and less money lost on crime and punishment.

  6. Re:Go ahead and commit suicide Europe by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Wait, wait by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Breivik is detained in a three-cell complex where he can play video games, watch TV and exercise"

    Unless that exercise is mandatory... remind me please, what service do I have to do to the Norwegian state again to get free board and lodge with TV and video games?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Wait, wait by Striek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Wait, wait by irrational_design · · Score: 2

      So, in other words the ideal living situation for the stereotypical techie! To be honest that almost does sound like the ideal living situation to me. I'd gladly give up ever seeing the outdoors again or ever communicating with another human again if I had unlimited access to any media I want and meals are provided for me.

  8. Re:Go ahead and commit suicide Europe by SumDog · · Score: 2

    Why do you hate him? It's pretty obvious from that quote that his brain is in a very different place. He doesn't see the world the way that socially adjusted people do. He did something horrible, and probably doesn't even begin to comprehend it in any meaningful way.

    He has to be kept away from society, but that doesn't mean he has to be tortured. Europe is right here. Solitary confinement is a human rights violation. It needs to be abolished in the US.

    Whatever he did, no one, NO ONE, deserves to be deprived of all interactions indefinitely from other human beings. You can give them an xbox or whatever, but it doesn't make up for person to person contact.

  9. Re:Go ahead and commit suicide Europe by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Informative

    The headline is highly misleading, he only won part of the case.

    He won on the argument that article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was broken, the part about inhumane treatment, referring to repeatedly invasive searches and complete isolation.

    He didn't win the rest of the case, the part about the food and other general conditions, the whiny crybaby part.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  10. This isn't a victory for Behring-Breivik. by CleverNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. What has become of us? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What has become of us? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Difference is

      The difference is the USA likes to justify away it's actions.

  12. Re:Where would the "dismay" come from? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    If society chooses to jail people insted then you are limited by various human rights laws.

    And rightly so. As monstrous as his actions were, he is still a human.

    If Norway were to enact special Breivik laws, he would have achieved part of his goals of changing society with his actions. By treating him with the same basic respect as any other human being, he will have achieved exactly nothing, the ultimate punishment for a narcissist like him.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  13. Re:Thus proving his point by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:The net result of our social democrat society. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    No. By doing that, you're just playing into his hand, he would have achieved part of what he set out to do, namely changing the Norwegian society.

    By treating him the same as any other prisoner, you completely nullify his goals, the ultimate punishment for a narcissist like him.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  15. Farmers and herders by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People in general are horrible evil animals.

    False. The Breviks of this world are an exception to the rule. Humans evolved to cooperate. Those who didn't pull their weight were generally less fruitful in the reproductive stakes and those anti-social traits remain rare.

    Actually, that's not *entirely* true either.

    Humans evolved into two categories, roughly "farmers" and "herders".

    Farmers don't have to worry about someone stealing the fruits of their labor. No one's going to steal their crops unless they take the time and effort to harvest them, so the farmer doesn't have to worry too much about other people.

    So farmers tend to be more easy-going, more forgiving, more intelligent (geometry, long-term planning, surveying), and more cooperative. It doesn't hurt you if your neighbour succeeds, so it's OK to help out when he needs it.

    Herders worry about their flock being stolen. Anyone can steal their life's work overnight, or kill them and take the herd in an afternoon. They're always on the lookout for the other herder who wants to get a leg up by easy means. Your neighbour competes with you for grazing space, so helping him diminishes your chances.

    So herders tend to be confrontational, quick to anger, and violent. They present a "don't mess with me" attitude to show the other herders that they can't be taken advantage of. They have have a highly evolved sense of honour, ritualized revenge, blood feuds, and massacre entire families.

    (Studies on Americans show that the "quick to anger" trait can be predicted by ancestor type, and remains even 300 years after your ancestors came to America.)

    And so we have interesting situations like the blue hills of Tennessee which were settled mostly by herders. Rocky, grassy area good for herds but not especially good for farming.

    ...and blood feuds (think Hatfields and McCoys) resulting in thousands of deaths over the course of a couple of decades.

    You can paint certain people as "monsters", but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as that.

    Some people evolved to be confrontational - that's all.

    1. Re:Farmers and herders by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At first I thought this was a clever Islamophobe troll, given the general quality of the comments lately, that was going to conclude by claiming that Christians and Jews are the farmers and Muslims are the herders. [...] Then I looked up and saw your nick, so I kept reading.

      I cannot for the life of me find the book that presents this theory. It might have been this one. I think this might link to the original paper somewhere.

      The study had students fill out a form and then walk down a long corridor to submit the form to the researcher. Along the way they had to slide past another student moving a locker.

      After sliding past, the student moving the locker mumbled "asshole" under their breath. When the student got to the end to deliver the form, their stress hormones were measured.

      (The student moving the locker was in on the research, and the student delivering the paper wasn't aware of any of this.)

      The study found that people whose ancestors were farmers tended to let the insult go, while people whose ancestors were herders were more apt to take offence.

      The book was quite engaging, especially the sections about the hill people of Tennessee. We only hear about the Hatfields and McCoys, but there was apparently a *lot* of killing going on in those small communities. Something like 14% of *everyone* died by violence in that small area during that time.

      [Will's Mom:] “Die like a man, like your brother did!” She belonged to a world so well acquainted with fatal gunshots that she had certain expectations about how they ought to be endured. Will shut his mouth, and he died.”

      It puts an interesting perspective on human behaviour.

  16. Re:The net result of our social democrat society. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    THE GUY KILLED OVER 70 PEOPLE - HIS RIGHTS WENT FLYING AWAY WITH THAT.

    Well, no. Either they're rights, or they aren't. Make up your mind.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:Thus proving his point by Kjella · · Score: 2

    This just proves Breivik's point that Norway is too left-wing. I'd love to live in a utopian society where we can be just nice to everybody, where everybody's needs are covered and punishment is unnecessary. But in the real world, there will always be nihilists like this guy who ruin it for the rest.

    In an average year, Norway (population ~5 million) has an average of about ~30 murders, mostly knife stabbing and mostly acquaintances, (ex-)partners or family and an average of about ~1.1 victim/incident. Even though a few murders happen with guns, mass murders are pretty much non-existent. He single-handedly tripled the murder rate in Norway that year from 35 other victims to 112 total.

    As far as Norway is concerned, Breivik was a black swan event, in a place absolutely nobody saw as a target. That someone was going for maximum body count instead of some form of extortion and negotiation came as surprising as the crashing planes on 9/11. He's so far off the charts left or right makes no difference, the US had the Unabomber - is the US socialist? They're in that 0,000001% that are just homicidal and wacko.

    As for this case, we're not putting him in isolation because we're trying to punish him extra. We don't really know what do with him because we know there are many inmates that'd like to kill him. And he's so "above and beyond" anyone else we got in our prisons - even convicted murderers in general aren't likely to reoffend for the reasons outlined above, while Breivik still hopes to lead some kind of revolution. He's unique and not in a good way.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  18. Re:Go ahead and commit suicide Europe by Anonymuous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Yeah, go ahead and commit suicide Europe.

    The funny thing is that you're repeating one of his slogans.

    For those who ignore it, Breivik was not a mass killer for kicks, but a terrorist with well-defined beliefs about impending "suicide of Europe" through "cultural marxism", "political correctness" and "islamization". And in his eyes, his victims were not innocent children, but something like the next crop of brainwashed SJWs.

  19. "Inhumane" treatment by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 2

    Did anybody look up what his cell looks like? He's being held in a suite of 3 cells, each 8 square meters. That's 25' x 25' for my "non-metric" friends. He has exercise equipment, a bedroom, and a "study room" with a computer. He has a TV and can request books and videos to watch. He is in "solitary", but this does not mean he is deprived of human contact. It means he does not interact with other prisoners. He is, however, visited far more often than the average prisoner by prison staff and clergy. He is by no means alone, he has no more or less choice over whom he interacts with than the average prisoner, and it can be argued that he is safer and has nicer company from the prison staff and clergy than he would from fellow prisoners. His life is not and never will be in danger. This is highly generous for somebody who murdered 77 other human beings.

  20. Re:Thus proving his point by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    So, who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

    Even though he took 77 innocent lives, that does not in any way justify the taking of even a single additional human life.

    And no, my argument is not "then the terrorists win", it's "then violence and hatred wins". We must not give in to bloodlust and hatred.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  21. Re:The net result of our social democrat society. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    Look at the recidivism rate in Norway compared to the rate in the US or even France. Much, much lower.

    Please show me where capital punishment has ever deterred another would-be criminal. If that was the case, you would have barely any crime at all in the US, right?

    --
    Eat the rich.
  22. Re:Thus proving his point by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    So you're perfectly OK with thousands and thousands of innocent men and women being murdered, just so you can fulfill your revenge fantasies?

    --
    Eat the rich.