News Can Paid Visitors Keep Anders Breivik Content in Prison?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SW VandeCarr
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Norway's approach to prison reform, particularly in the case of mass murderer Anders Breivik, has sparked significant debate. The country is considering hiring paid employees to visit Breivik in custody, as isolation is deemed cruel and unusual punishment. Breivik, who killed 77 people, faces a maximum sentence of 21 years, but this can be extended indefinitely if he is considered a danger to society. The discussion highlights Norway's focus on rehabilitation over punishment, which has contributed to low recidivism rates. Critics argue that rehabilitation is inappropriate for Breivik, who has shown no remorse and is seen as a terrorist rather than a mentally ill individual. Many believe he should be isolated for life or even executed, reflecting a cultural divide in attitudes toward justice and punishment. The conversation also touches on the effectiveness of rehabilitation systems and the potential risks of releasing violent offenders back into society. Ultimately, the debate centers on balancing humane treatment of prisoners with the need for public safety and accountability for heinous crimes.
  • #31
rootX said:
I think it's bad idea to have exceptions in the system. Once you start making exceptions, next thing you know you will be going against the values your country is based on (e.g. case of US after 9/11).

I could be wrong, but hiring people to keep those in custody company is probably unusual even in Norway. It seems that Breivik has no family or friends that want to visit him. So I guess the state has to do something about that. Perhaps they could also find him a wife (or partner) so that he could someday have a family (supported by the state of course). In the maintime, maybe the state should hire paid sex workers to have conjugal visits with him. Surely it's cruel and unusual in Norway for a man to be denied his sexual needs.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:
You seem to be suggesting that once someone deserves jail we're pretty much stuck with keeping them there for life.
Society isn't "stuck with keeping them there for life", because a significant percentage of serious offenders are let back into the general population.
 
  • #33
Gokul43201 said:
And this same argument can not be extended to giving him occasional visitations?
Imo it can -- and visitations would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources as well. Just my current opinion.

Gokul43201 said:
Indeed, by your various posts in this thread, you are doing your bit to keep the discussion going, and are therefore, by your own argument, contributing to the likelihood that some misguided fanatic might copy his crime. How do you square your argument with your actions?
This whole thing is still fairly recent, and decisions are being made, via discussion, to determine the best way to deal with this guy in the long run. My current opinion is that he should be killed -- but the next best alternative, imo, in light of Norwegian practices, is that he should be locked up, alone, and provided with a minimal subsistence existence ... and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
ThomasT said:
Society isn't "stuck with keeping them there for life", because a significant percentage of serious offenders are let back into the general population.
I know, and you're complaining about that as if you think no one should ever be let out of jail:
But meanwhile, it remains that the most effective, and the only reliable, way of reducing/preventing crime in the general population is continued incarceration. I think that the main reason that crime and recidivism rates are so high in the US is because of the number of criminals that are released from custody. The criminal 'justice' system has evolved into a sort of revolving door business. At least in the US.
If someone gets, say, a two year sentence, of course they get released after two years. Some of those released will be repeat offenders, some won't. You seem to be saying the only way to avoid repeat offenders is never to release them.
 
  • #35
The UK prison statistics might put this in some perspective. There are two classes of prisoners who can potentially remain in prison till they die. One group are convicted of offences which carry a mandatory life sentence - though usually the judge will set a minimum term (typically > 20 years) before they can be considered for parole based on their behaviour and state of mind. The other group are subject to "indefinite sentences", typically for less serious offences and often with minimum terms between only 2 and 5 years, but they can not be released until they are assessed as "no longer a threat to the public". The rationale behind the "indefinite sentences" is where the evidence shows the offences were committed under the influence of some condition (drug abuse, mental disorder, etc) which may respond to treatment in a reasonably short timescale, or may not.

The total number of prisoners in the UK in both those categories is about 14,000 but the number of those who are actually "guaranteed" to serve whole of life sentences was just 41, in the last set of official statistics.

If you scale those numbers down to the population of Norway, even without allowing for the perceived more "tolerant" Norwegian system, you are probably close to a situation where AB is literally a unique case.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
zoobyshoe said:
I know, and you're complaining about that as if you think no one should ever be let out of jail:
I don't think I said that, and I wouldn't call it complaining, but rather just expressing my take on the situation.

I do think that people who commit what I consider to be serious crimes are sometimes released from prison when they shouldn't be. That is, I think the periods of incarceration for some crimes and some individuals are too short.

I also think that the periods of incarceration for some crimes and some individuals are too long. But these are considerations for another thread.

Regarding Breivik, I think he should be executed and then forgotten.

zoobyshoe said:
You seem to be saying the only way to avoid repeat offenders is never to release them.
I'm saying that I think that never allowing serious criminals back into the general society is the most effective, and the only reliable, way to ensure that they will never again commit crimes in the general society.
 
  • #37
During all this, what has been done (courtesy of the state) for the families of ABB's victims?
 
  • #38
Curious3141 said:
During all this, what has been done (courtesy of the state) for the families of ABB's victims?
What can be done? It isn't the state's fault. Anomalies like Breivik happen every now and then. Imo, the best course of action is to confine or dispose of such people as efficiently as possible, then move on.

I suppose, but have no way of knowing, that the families of the victims aren't too concerned with affording Breivik any particular comforts during his prospective lifetime of incarceration.
 
  • #39
ThomasT said:
What can be done? It isn't the state's fault. Anomalies like Breivik happen every now and then. Imo, the best course of action is to confine or dispose of such people as efficiently as possible, then move on.

I suppose, but have no way of knowing, that the families of the victims aren't too concerned with affording Breivik any particular comforts during his prospective lifetime of incarceration.

My point was rhetorical. So much is being done to make the killer of children comfortable, but what consideration is being afforded to the innocent family of those very children?
 
  • #40
Curious3141 said:
My point was rhetorical. So much is being done to make the killer of children comfortable, but what consideration is being afforded to the innocent family of those very children?
Insofar as proposals regarding Breivik's future comfort and happiness are being considered, then it appears that the interests of the offender are being held above the interests of the victims.
 
  • #41
Curious3141 said:
My point was rhetorical. So much is being done to make the killer of children comfortable, but what consideration is being afforded to the innocent family of those very children?

Indeed. The emphasis on rehabilitation means a kinder gentler penal system. Breivik is not denied having visitors. However, apparently because no one wants to visit him, the state feels it must hire people to keep him company. Prisoners are not denied conjugal visits but because Breivik doesn't have a significant other, why shouldn't the state provide him with a sex partner? In general filling the voids in an inmate's life must be part of the process in making them fit to live in civil society. No?

Let's take this to the limit and say that the only purpose of prison is to separate inmates from the general public until such time as they are rehabilitated. That means every amenity of a normal life should be provided short of being free to travel outside the confinement area. But the confinement area need not be a prison building. It could be a resort where life is similar to the best of civil society, including opportunities for a full social life with members of the opposite (or same) sex.

I think if Norway adopted such a system, people would flock to the country just to commit crimes and enter the "rehabilitation" system. The government could charge them and use the money to help crime victims in Norway.
 
  • #42
ThomasT said:
Insofar as proposals regarding Breivik's future comfort and happiness are being considered, then it appears that the interests of the offender are being held above the interests of the victims.

You can either call it keeping Breivik happy or closely monitoring Breivik's mind. If they are intending to keep him alive I would prefer to provide him continuous social company. Further, they might learn how he thinks and how to prevent this catastrophe in future.

SW VandeCarr said:
why shouldn't the state provide him with a sex partner?
Because this is redundant.
 
  • #43
rootX said:
You can either call it keeping Breivik happy or closely monitoring Breivik's mind. If they are intending to keep him alive I would prefer to provide him continuous social company.
Why? As far as I'm aware, nobody else gets this kind of consideration. This guy killed 69 kids in cold blood.

rootX said:
Further, they might learn how he thinks and how to prevent this catastrophe in future.
I don't know of any reason to believe that this might be possible. In other words, imo, it's a ridiculous consideration.
 
  • #44
rootX said:
Because this is redundant.

Why? If he's heterosexual how is it redundant? Even if he's gay, he doesn't seem to have visitors which why the state is trying to hire people to keep him company. Any catastrophe in the future because Breivik was released would be a crime against humanity by those who released him imo.
 
  • #45
ThomasT said:
Why? As far as I'm aware, nobody else gets this kind of consideration. This guy killed 69 kids in cold blood.

I don't know of any reason to believe that this might be possible. In other words, imo, it's a ridiculous consideration.

Don't get carried away by emotions to determine how best to deal with Breivik.
 
  • #46
SW VandeCarr said:
Why? If he's heterosexual how is it redundant? Even if he's gay, he doesn't seem to have visitors which why the state is trying to hire people to keep him company. Any catastrophe in the future because Breivik was released would be a crime against humanity by those who released him imo.

You can live without sex but you will likely go insane without social company within a month or so.
 
  • #47
rootX said:
Don't get carried away by emotions to determine how best to deal with Breivik.
Don't read anything into my statements that isn't there. Your statement that "they might learn how he thinks and how to prevent this catastrophe in future" is, imo, given current technology, ridiculous. That's all. If you know of some technology that can do this, then please cite it.
 
  • #48
rootX said:
... you will likely go insane without social company within a month or so.
This also seems to me like a ridiculous statement. Where did you get this idea from?
 
  • #49
ThomasT said:
Don't read anything into my statements that isn't there.
This is what I read:
killed 69 kids in cold blood
What you want to do now?

Your statement that "they might learn how he thinks and how to prevent this catastrophe in future" is, imo, given current technology, ridiculous. That's all. If you know of some technology that can do this, then please cite it
I meant professional psychologists keeping an eye on him (i.e. studying him) for all his life with the help of the hired friends. This has nothing to do with ground breaking technology.
 
  • #50
SW VandeCarr said:
Any catastrophe in the future because Breivik was released would be a crime against humanity by those who released him imo.
I agree. Thus, in the view that he's not ever going to be released, rehabilitation isn't a consideration. So the only reason to provide him with any comfort whatsoever is simply to appease some (imo) misguided Norwegians. Any effort to make the remainder of Breivik's life comfortable or happy for him is, imo, absurdly misguided.

It fits that nobody would want to visit Breivik. The state's logic in considering sending strangers to visit him so that he can have some company escapes me.
 
  • #51
rootX said:
This is what I read:

What you want to do now?
Huh? I made a statement of (my current opinion/perception of) fact. Whatever emotional content you read into it is on you. But let's suppose he didn't kill them in cold blood. Let's suppose that he was highly emotional while he was picking them off. Does that change anything? Does that make his actions any less a heinous crime against humanity?

rootX said:
I meant professional psychologists keeping an eye on him (i.e. studying him) for all his life with the help of the hired friends.
As I said, just a waste of time and resources, imo.

rootX said:
This has nothing to do with ground breaking technology.
I agree.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Hmm... At a cursory glance, Breivik stuck me as a kind of Kaczynski. But on reading through his wiki bio, IMHO, Breivik isn't even interesting enough to keep alive.

ps. How does Norway deal with dogs with rabies? I've known only one person in my life that abused steroids, and I considered him incurably insane*.

*I have had no credited training in behavioral neuroscience, and therefore my opinions should not be taken seriously.

wiki on rabies
Rabies (pronounced /ˈreɪbiːz/. From Latin: rabies, "madness") is a viral disease that causes acute encephalitis (inflammation of the brain)

More male than male
New research is confirming the relationship between steroids and aggression, while raising questions about the long-term psychological consequences of teen-age steroid abuse.

 
  • #53
OmCheeto said:
Hmm... At a cursory glance, Breivik stuck me as a kind of Kaczynski. But on reading through his wiki bio, IMHO, Breivik isn't even interesting enough to keep alive.

ps. How does Norway deal with dogs with rabies? I've known only one person in my life that abused steroids, and I considered him incurably insane*.

*I have had no credited training in behavioral neuroscience, and therefore my opinions should not be taken seriously.

wiki on rabies
Rabies (pronounced /ˈreɪbiːz/. From Latin: rabies, "madness") is a viral disease that causes acute encephalitis (inflammation of the brain)

More male than male
New research is confirming the relationship between steroids and aggression, while raising questions about the long-term psychological consequences of teen-age steroid abuse.
Interesting post as usual. Apparently Breivik has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I have known two people who said they were diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. I don't associate with them any more (for many years), and I hope that they're either dead or behind bars. If there's a dark side of the force, then they seemed to me to be into it.
 
  • #54
ThomasT said:
Interesting post as usual. Apparently Breivik has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I have known two people who said they were diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. I don't associate with them any more (for many years), and I hope that they're either dead or behind bars. If there's a dark side of the force, then they seemed to me to be into it.

As a general rule, I devote as little energy and brain matter as possible in regards to Breivikians. To this day, I do not know the name of the guy that murdered John Lennon. I only popped in because of the ludicrous thread title.

I do find it interesting how different societies can be so different. In Iran, they'll hang teenagers for being gay, but in Norway, they cater to mass murderers.

You Love? We murder you.

You Murder? We feed you caviar.

What a strange, mixed up world we live in. As I've said before, it's no wonder the aliens never stop to visit.
 
  • #55
OmCheeto said:
As a general rule, I devote as little energy and brain matter as possible in regards to Breivikians. To this day, I do not know the name of the guy that murdered John Lennon. I only popped in because of the ludicrous thread title.

I do find it interesting how different societies can be so different. In Iran, they'll hang teenagers for being gay, but in Norway, they cater to mass murderers.

You Love? We murder you.

You Murder? We feed you caviar.

What a strange, mixed up world we live in. As I've said before, it's no wonder the aliens never stop to visit.
Succinct and insightful comments, imho. Though I don't think we can be certain that aliens have never visited. Not that I think they have. :rolleyes:

Not to diminish the force of your well phrased, imo, comments, but I do think that the practices/behaviors of other cultures are understandable, and where they differ from ours, then it's understandable why we might disagree with them.

In other words, the world, imo, isn't really so strange or mixed up. It's just not yet, for the most part, united. Not that it ever will be.
 
  • #56
ThomasT said:
Interesting post as usual. Apparently Breivik has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.

The first psychiatric panel came up with that diagnosis. A second panel voided it and declared Breivik fit to stand trial which is ongoing at the present time. Most terrorists are not legally insane. They are fanatics, and follow their own cruel logic. In fact Al Qaeda used to carefully screen "applicants" to weed out the crazy ones. They wanted cool headed methodical operatives who would kill for the cause. Schizophrenia is a disabling disease and, without treatment, the afflicted can't even manage their own lives, let alone plan and carry out a complex operation. Breivik has adopted a cause not much different from other far right wing fanatics. He's never showed signs of hallucinations as far as I know where for example "God" or "Satan" told him to kill.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
SW VandeCarr said:
The first psychiatric panel came up with that diagnosis. A second panel voided it and declared Breivik fit to stand trial which is ongoing at the present time. Most terrorists are not legally insane. They are fanatics, and follow their own cruel logic. In fact Al Qaeda used to carefully screen "applicants" to weed out the crazy ones. They wanted cool headed methodical operatives who would kill for the cause. Schizophrenia is a disabling disease and, without treatment, the afflicted can't even manage their own lives, let alone plan and carry out a complex operation. Breivik has adopted a cause not much different from other far right wing fanatics. He's never showed signs of hallucinations as far as I know where for example "God" or "Satan" told him to kill.

I don't think the exact diagnosis is relevant. There are 7 billion human brains on this planet, and I would describe them in 7 billion different ways.

But I've only known 1 person on steroids(that I know of). It was enough.

steroids-in-baseball.jpg


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/19/norway-breivik-trial-thursday.html

Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik claimed Thursday he prepared to slaughter dozens of people in Norway with steroids, meditation and by sharpening his aim through playing computer games for more than a year.

In a chilling summary, Breivik told an Oslo court he took steroids to build physical strength and meditated to "de-emotionalize" himself before the bombing and shooting rampage that left 77 people dead.

His lack of remorse and matter-of-fact description of weapons and tactics — he even considered using a flame thrower — was deeply disturbing to families of the victims, most of whom were teenagers.

This is a mirror of the man I once knew. I was so afraid of him, I installed polycarbonate windows in my bedroom facing the street. I could either kill him, or he would kill me.

Fortunately for me, he died a month after I installed the bullet proof windows. Heart complications due to steroid abuse, was the rumour I heard. He was 26.

The polycarbonate has been put to better use since then (1998), as a cover for my fish tank.

I would elaborate on why I thought he was dangerous, but it just sounds like the script to "Fight Club" when I think about it now. So much anger. So much angst.

and nothing to focus his anger at, except...

:frown:

I'm not a big fan of violent movies. But "Fight Club" really fascinated me. I could see myself in there, somewhere...
 
  • #58
ThomasT said:
As far as I know, incarceration or execution are the only reliable means of preventing criminals from committing crimes in the general population.
Then perhaps you should do some more research on the subject, rather than reaching your conclusions based entirely on your own ignorance.
 
  • #59
NeoDevin said:
Then perhaps you should do some more research on the subject, rather than reaching your conclusions based entirely on your own ignorance.

I don't think ThomasT is ignorant. I think he may be thinking about different types of criminals than you are. There the people caught with more than an ounce of dope kind of criminals, and then there are the ones that hurt others, with no remorse. I would imagine the latter are the one's that Thom is speaking of.

Once you get to a certain age, you end up having met lots of both types. The latter deserve no compassion, and will suck the life out of you, and I, and society, if allowed.

hmm..., I think I've devoted one too many brain cells to the discussion of this worthless A.B. piece of...

unsubscribe.
 
  • #60
OmCheeto said:
I don't think ThomasT is ignorant. I think he may be thinking about different types of criminals than you are. There the people caught with more than an ounce of dope kind of criminals, and then there are the ones that hurt others, with no remorse. I would imagine the latter are the one's that Thom is speaking of.

Once you get to a certain age, you end up having met lots of both types. The latter deserve no compassion, and will suck the life out of you, and I, and society, if allowed.

hmm..., I think I've devoted one too many brain cells to the discussion of this worthless A.B. piece of...

unsubscribe.

Yeah, I agree. I keep looking at this thread the way I would look at a train wreck. I don't want to look but I can't help myself.

I have *very* strong opinions about this. I've been trying to find a way to say them without making them sound so...personal.

Being civilized is great. Yay for civilization! But there's a line beyond which being tolerant is an effete and inappropriate response, imo. At some point, we must recognize evil for what it is and be decisive. Don't waste your precious and short time on this planet worrying about the perpetrators. Just do something to ensure they never are free again, and move on with your own life.

I can't believe this hand-wringing concerning AB's lack of play mates is shared widely among Norwegians. Certainly his victims' families could not share it, and where is the concern for their feelings?