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