News Crimes against humanity possible charge against Breivik

[arildno]

"Crimes against humanity" possible charge against Breivik

An obscure paragraph in Norwegian law, originally intended to handle the war crime "crimes against humanity" may possibly be the charge Breivik will face in the ordinary proceedings.
If found guilty, the maximum penalty is, uniquely, 30 years, rather than the normal 21 years.
In addition, he may be sentenced to "preventive confinement", if I've understood Norwegian criminal law correctly. Probably not, but I'm sure that our jurists are already working frenetically in formulating a legal justification WITHIN our current framework of law to ensure that Breivik gets what in the US is the established principle "jailed for life, without possibility of release".

It will be a tortuous type of reasoning, I'm sure, so I wish we had the more straightforward American justification schemes present in our law.

But, we don't have that..

 

[rootX]

You are bashing Norwegian law based on a single case.

 

[arildno]

You are bashing Norwegian law based on a single case.

That's true.

I have for quite some time been highly critical of the norwegian justice system, which seems to regard the goal&justification of penalty to be the rehabilitation of the criminal, rather than a retributive model.

 

[Evo]

You are bashing Norwegian law based on a single case.

Arildno has mentioned that they have had to do work arounds for other cases where the person is a threat to society. The current case is the most pertinent due to the extremism, and it's happening now, and it is making them rethink their laws.

BTW, did you know that Arildno is Norwegian? He certainly has a right, perhaps even a responsibility to be involved with his own country's laws.

Don't be so quick to impose your personal feelings on others (since you've accused others of doing this). Just saying.

 

[rootX]

Arildno has mentioned that they have had to do work arounds for other cases where the person is a threat to society. The current case is the most pertinent due to the extremism, and it's happening now, and it is making them rethink their laws.

BTW, did you know that Arildno is Norwegian? He certainly has a right, perhaps even a responsibility to be involved with his own country's laws.

Yes but at present, he seem to be emotionally involved with this case and second he himself admits lack of the "deep understanding" of the Norwegian law.

No you don't change laws on hype and high emotions. It's the worst thing happened in the US after 9/11 IMO.

 

[arildno]

How am I saying I base this NOW, for the first time in my life, on "a single case", rootx?
I have thought of these issues for years, the war crime paragraph has just recently, without much publicity, been introduced in our legal framework.

But, just because I am not a criminal jurist who has every paragraph present in my head, I certainly DO know of several short-comings of Norwegian law.

And, I have discussed them at various places over the years, but not, I admit, at Physics Forums.

 

[Evo]

Yes but at present, he seem to be emotionally involved with this case and second he himself admits lack of the "deep understanding" of the Norwegian law.

No you don't change laws on hype and high emotions. It's the worst thing happened in the US after 9/11 IMO.

Point taken.

But in this case, they do need to move quickly, and historically Norway has been afraid to upset anyone. They need to realize that there are bad people that do bad things and the law needs to be provide safety to the public, and worry less if the prisoner might not be happy about being inconvenienced.

 

[arildno]

Point taken.

But in this case, they do need to move quickly, and historically Norway has been afraid to upset anyone. They need to realize that there are bad people that do bad things and the law needs to be provide safety to the public, and worry less if the prisoner might not be happy about being inconvenienced.

Indeed.

This case will be, I hope, seminal in re-introducing the rational weight of those considerations.

rootx does not know, for example, that you can go about being a high-profiled criminologist in this country advocating that rape cases "ought to" be handled primarily through "reconciliation meetings" between the rapist and the raped.

THAT is how deranged the academic consensus has become on these issues in Norway.

 

[rootX]

I would very glad if you could link the criminologist work and second have more diverse discussion than just focusing on Breivik when talking about the shortcomings in the law.

 

[Evo]

I would very glad if you could link the criminologist work and second have more diverse discussion than just focusing on Breivik when talking about the shortcomings in the law.

The thread is about the Breivik case. If Arildno wishes to change the topic, that's up to him, but unless he does, please stay on the thread topic.

 

[arildno]

I would very glad if you could link the criminologist work and second have more diverse discussion than just focusing on Breivik when talking about the shortcomings in the law.

Not interested.
You may start to read the deranged, hand-wringing blather by criminologists like Niels Christie and Thomas Mathiesen who have been in the international forefront to make the focus of punishment "rehabilitative" and that, essentially, prison is "evil" (and hence, for some reason, unjustified to impose).

 

[Astronuc]

I would very glad if you could link the criminologist work and second have more diverse discussion than just focusing on Breivik when talking about the shortcomings in the law.

Any shortcoming or deficiency was not apparent in the body of law until Breivik committed such an extraordinary crime. Not only was it a premedidated act of homicide, but it was on such a large scale (a mass homicide/murder) with the apparent intent to 'eliminate' a certain group of individuals. The OP identifies a law on the books that could conceivably apply to the unique Breivik case, which appears to be unprecedented, at least in modern times. How does one apply the law in an unprecented and seemingly inconceivable crime?

Rehabilitation would only work if there were remorse for one's actions. Breivik not only lacks remorse, but he rationalizes his actions, which would indicate that he is an ongoing threat to society.

 

[arildno]

Okay:
I forgot to mention that I here was referring to a Norwegian Newspaper, Today's Business Life, who had made an interview with a legal expert who speculated that this paragraph might be applied here.Sorry for the confusion here.

 

[arildno]

Here's the article.
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/politikkSamfunn/article2189237.ece

"Politiadvokat" (i.e, the one formulating the actual charge against a suspect in a juridically correct way, among other functions), Christian Hatlo, says that this charge is "definitely an option", and that the current basis for charge is something that may change, in course of the investigations.

"Politiadvokat" is I guess, somewhat similar to "public prosecutor"

 

[arildno]

This article, by The Daily Caller, is an interview with precisely Niels Christie and Thomas Mathiesen where they are "proud" of our lenient judiciary systems.
These two guys are, in MY view, the chief perverters of judicial thinking of Norway for the last 50 years (they are, obviously, not criminals, but kooks who have been given, through legitimate processes way too much power to spread their ideas).
Their views have been dogmatically indoctrinated into the population, where any dissent is demonized as "cruel and inhumane":
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/n...-lenient-judicial-system-in-wake-of-massacre/

 

[drankin]

So what would happen if an Norwegian cop just walked up and put a bullet through this guys head? Other than losing his job I doubt he would do much jail time the way things seem to work over there.

 

[arildno]

drankin:
If anything "good" can come out of these horrible events, it would be that the romanticizing, hand-wringing and illogical sentimentalism now prevailing at the highest levels of our judiciary system will be utterly discredited.

If you read the Daily Caller, there is a third Professor of Law who says our prevailing notions of Evil and cruelty have been "deeply challenged".

And that, in my view, is a good sign in the midst of our tragedy.

 

[Evo]

drankin:
If anything "good" can come out of these horrible events, it would be that the romanticizing, hand-wringing and illogical sentimentalism now prevailing at the highest levels of our judiciary system will be utterly discredited.

If you read the Daily Caller, there is a third Professor of Law who says our prevailing notions of Evil and cruelty have been "deeply challenged".

And that, in my view, is a good sign in the midst of our tragedy.

Sad that it often takes something like this to take the blinders off of people's eyes and force change.

 

[drankin]

drankin:
If anything "good" can come out of these horrible events, it would be that the romanticizing, hand-wringing and illogical sentimentalism now prevailing at the highest levels of our judiciary system will be utterly discredited.

If you read the Daily Caller, there is a third Professor of Law who says our prevailing notions of Evil and cruelty have been "deeply challenged".

And that, in my view, is a good sign in the midst of our tragedy.

I really hope you are right. This guy has no concept of the value of human life. Having the depravity of mind to shoot at children for more than an hour. Why would we as a society tolerate letting a person like this breath among us? It makes no sense to me at all.

 

[ThomasT]

Rehabilitation would only work if there were remorse for one's actions.

Yes, and the problem for any legal system is that there's no way to ascertain if an offender is genuinely remorseful. There's also no way to ascertain if an offender has been 'rehabilitated'.

In the Breivik case it's clear that the offender can't reasonably be allowed back into the general society.

 

[arildno]

Any shortcoming or deficiency was not apparent in the body of law until Breivik committed such an extraordinary crime. Not only was it a premedidated act of homicide, but it was on such a large scale (a mass homicide/murder) with the apparent intent to 'eliminate' a certain group of individuals. The OP identifies a law on the books that could conceivably apply to the unique Breivik case, which appears to be unprecedented, at least in modern times. How does one apply the law in an unprecented and seemingly inconceivable crime?

Rehabilitation would only work if there were remorse for one's actions. Breivik not only lacks remorse, but he rationalizes his actions, which would indicate that he is an ongoing threat to society.

indeed.
I do NOT say that considerations of rehabilitation should be banned in judiciary processes.
But, it is a dangerous fallacy to make "the hope of rehabilitation" the sole justification for, for example punishments in general, but in particular prison sentences.
And Professor Mathiesen has for years talked about the "cruelty" of the prison and fails in the respect P. Mathiesen dogmatically asserts is The justification of the prison, namely its rehabilitative effect.

But, it is the vert PREMISE Professor Mathiesen and his ilk that is flawed here, and whenever they are challenged at it (that rehabilitation is NOT the fundamental justification of punishment in the first place), they wring their hands and say: "How can you be so CROOEL and Inhumane??"
And that, unfortunately, has been the level of public discourse on these issues in Norway for decades.

 

[arildno]

Yes, and the problem for any legal system is that there's no way to ascertain if an offender is genuinely remorseful. There's also no way to ascertain if an offender has been 'rehabilitated'.

In the Breivik case it's clear that the offender can't reasonably be allowed back into the general society.

This is one of the most important THEORETICAL points in the fundamental criticism of the Notwegian system:
Wholly subjective psychological phenomena that cannot be ascertained the presence of are somehow to be given greater weight in handing out punishments than distributing them out according to a (well-ARGUED for) scale of proportionality to the type of ascertained rights violation committed.

It is, as I see it, subvertive of the possibility to improve the objectivity of the judiciary system.

 

[zomgwtf]

While I understand you're Norwegian I don't think you exactly understand the justice system in Norway.

Yes, it is based more on rehabilitation than retribution BUT they still keep people deemed to be threats to society locked away. Breivik will not be getting gold stars for good behaviour in prison and he more than likely will never be allowed out. He poses a very real and serious threat to society in Norway and has demonstrated this in his manifesto (if you've read it) and in his interviews with the police after the fact.

Just because a system is based on rehabilitating criminals does not mean that they will fail to protect society. You say you wish that Norway had a more American approach to all this. Oh really? I suppose you would like to have a 70+% recidivism rate instead of sitting on one of the lowest in the world? There's a jail in Norway... an island jail, which treats inmates extremely well and it actually DOES have the lowest recidivism rate in the entire world at %16.

There's nothing wrong with Norways justice system it works perfectly fine and it will continue to work perfectly fine. I do not see this case posing any threat to the laws or system set up there.

 

[arildno]

Blather.
Japan has, on all accounts, INCLUDING death penalty a much stricter penal system than the US.

It has a crime rate comparable to..Norway.

Furthermore, you have already bought into the silly premise that rehabilitation should be some sort of PRIMARY justification for a penal system.

But it shouldn't be, and thus, the whole issue of recidivism rates is really..irrelevant.
(not that it matters much, but China&Japan have extremely low recidivism rates as well)

 

[zomgwtf]

Blather.
Japan has, on all accounts, INCLUDING death penalty a much stricter penal system than the US.

It has a crime rate comparable to..Norway.

Furthermore, you have already bought into the silly premise that rehabilitation should be some sort of PRIMARY justification for a penal system.

But it shouldn't be, and thus, the whole issue of recidivism rates is really..irrelevant.
(not that it matters much, but China&Japan have extremely low recidivism rates as well)

Oh it shouldn't? So when someone who fell on hard times and started dealing cocaine goes to prison they should be raped beaten and released out into society and we should all be shocked when they commit crimes again?

Japans recidivism rate is around 40% I believe... that's pretty high compared to 20% from Norway and 16% from that prison I spoke of which specifically aims to rehabilitate criminals.

It's quite sickening that people think that people should be punished SO harshly (as if being removed from society and losing many many years of their life isn't punishment enough already). There are special cases where rehabilitation won't work or isn't in the best interest of the system (such as this case IMO) but these are so rare that who cares about them? Why make a system of punishing everyone so extremely that they'll just get out with no new skills and be forced back into a life of crime based on a few extremely rare cases?

The best part is those rare cases those people won't even be reintroduced into society more than likely.

 

[arildno]

Well, if you don't like the prison system, how about expanding proportionality scales with, for example, a specified number of lashes from the whip?

You see, blather psychology about "rehabilitation" introduces subjective criteria for meting out punishments UNSUITABLE in an objective system of law, so your fantasy is morally&intellectually corrupt to begin with..

 

[arildno]

BTW, you are STILL trying to sell your major point that "rehabilitation" is the very soul of the criminal system.
Noone but people like yourself are actually surprised that offenders will turn out re-offenders.

In Norway, in order to make the offenders unrecidivist, they ARE PUT ON SOCIAL WELFARE SINCE NO ONE WILL HIRE THEM ANYWAY DUE TO THEIR PERSONALITY DEFECTS.

That's the reason why you get those recidivism rates in Norway, we pay the criminals off to "be nice".

 

[Evo]

Oh it shouldn't? So when someone who fell on hard times and started dealing cocaine goes to prison they should be raped beaten and released out into society and we should all be shocked when they commit crimes again?

Japans recidivism rate is around 40% I believe... that's pretty high compared to 20% from Norway and 16% from that prison I spoke of which specifically aims to rehabilitate criminals.

It's quite sickening that people think that people should be punished SO harshly (as if being removed from society and losing many many years of their life isn't punishment enough already). There are special cases where rehabilitation won't work or isn't in the best interest of the system (such as this case IMO) but these are so rare that who cares about them? Why make a system of punishing everyone so extremely that they'll just get out with no new skills and be forced back into a life of crime based on a few extremely rare cases?

The best part is those rare cases those people won't even be reintroduced into society more than likely.

Oh come on Zom, you don't know anything about the Norwegian penal system. You know as much as anyone, including me, that can use google.

 

[arildno]

"Why make a system of punishing everyone so extremely that they'll just get out with no new skills and be forced back into a life of crime based on a few extremely rare cases?"
------------------
You could make prostitution legal, for example.
They don't need much "skills" to earn their keep through that activity.

I'm through with speaking with morons today.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well if you want to post statistics supporting your claim that the offenders are paid by the govn't to 'be nice' then perhaps you'd get somewhere.

Right now all your going on about is how bad guys deserve to be punished! Great...

I don't even get your comment about prostitution nor do I think that ad hom was necessary.

Also @ Evo, I don't know about that because I get all my information from people who live in Norway along with personal research. I guess through google research you can come up with the same information but I don't see how that matters? Regardless of how one comes across the information if it's valid it's valid. No one I've talked to from Norway supports this notion of harsher retribution vs. actually attempting to help the people. That includes people who have actually lost or had injured close friends in this attack.

 

[ThomasT]

This is one of the most important THEORETICAL points in the fundamental criticism of the Notwegian system:
Wholly subjective psychological phenomena that cannot be ascertained the presence of are somehow to be given greater weight in handing out punishments than distributing them out according to a (well-ARGUED for) scale of proportionality to the type of ascertained rights violation committed.

It is, as I see it, subvertive of the possibility to improve the objectivity of the judiciary system.

Yes, I have to agree with your points. And thematic wrt improving the objectivity of the system might be tightening sentencing parameters. The judge's role in sentencing should be minimized.

Prison is a place to warehouse offenders away from the general society. Arguments for rehabilitation are prima facie nonsensical.

The most efficient way to deal with case's like Breivik's is to execute the offender.

 

[ThomasT]

I do NOT say that considerations of rehabilitation should be banned in judiciary processes.

I do. There's no rehabilitation technology. That is, there's no technology for changing attitudes. Nobody knows how to rehabilitate anybody, because there's no way to know if anybody's been rehabilitated.

Prison is also not a punishment in the sense that a 'punishment' would minimize the likelihood that the offense would be repeated. Again, there's just no way of ascertaining that wrt any given individual.

Prison is solely for keeping offenders out of society.

One reason the 'system' doesn't work too well (at least in the US) is that many prisoners are released early due to overcrowding.

But, it is a dangerous fallacy to make "the hope of rehabilitation" the sole justification for, for example punishments in general, but in particular prison sentences.

I agree. It isn't that some prisoners' attitudes aren't changed for the better while in prison. It's that authorities have no control over if and when that might happen. But of course the authorities are probably not going to stop pretending that they do. And that's a big part of the problem. We humans have a lot of difficulty being honest with ourselves.

And Professor Mathiesen has for years talked about the "cruelty" of the prison and fails in the respect P. Mathiesen dogmatically asserts is The justification of the prison, namely its rehabilitative effect.

But, it is the vert PREMISE Professor Mathiesen and his ilk that is flawed here, and whenever they are challenged at it (that rehabilitation is NOT the fundamental justification of punishment in the first place), they wring their hands and say: "How can you be so CROOEL and Inhumane??"
And that, unfortunately, has been the level of public discourse on these issues in Norway for decades.

Yes, that's too bad. Mathiesen sounds like one of those people who means well (obviously, we'd all like for it to be possible to rehabilitate offenders in a deliberate and organized way), but who hasn't got a clue.

Today's prisons, at least in the US and I assume in Norway, aren't even close to being cruel. At worst they're inconvenient and a bit uncomfortable.

 

[arildno]

Well if you want to post statistics supporting your claim that the offenders are paid by the govn't to 'be nice' then perhaps you'd get somewhere.

Everyone in Norway is allowed handsome social welfare (of various types and sub-types) in so-called "times of need".
That includes workophobics and criminals as well.
For them, "times of need" is, typically, for the rest of their lives..
And, many are happy with that.

"

 

[arildno]

"I don't even get your comment about prostitution nor do I think that ad hom was necessary. "

It shows that your premise that people who have been in prison "have no skills" by which they can earn their keep is simply wrong.

They can still spread their legs&mouths to earn a living.

People (neither you, me or them) have no "entitlement" to be happy, but "the right to seek happiness".
People like you have never understood that crucial difference, and think the state somehow have the responsibility to "save" and "make happy" their citizens.

It is a morally despicable, totalitarian mentality based on your desire that others should perceive you as a "moral hero" and Jesus figure.
I.e, in order to gain complete power over other people's lives, where you (in their best interests, of course!) can regulate the minutest details of their inner psyches.

 

[zomgwtf]

arildno, how about you sit back and read what you wrote and tell me how it applies to what I said. I laughed my *** off at the Jesus figure comment, real cute.

I also love the premise that's popped up again about how bad people are in prison and must be treated as such. Maybe if we start treating criminals like people instead of like farm animals we'd see change once they got out.

Back to your Japan example, over 50% of all crime in Japan is committed by re-offenders and they have a similar crime rate to Norway right? Well imagine if they took a more "Norway" like approach to their justice system and BAM suddenly their crime rates are lower than Norway assuming their recidivism rate drops. (It's an assumption that rehabilitation justice system is linked with recidivism but I think it's worthwhile to experiment with like Norway is doing vs. retributive justice)

PS. Great statistics.

 

[arildno]

Why do we have any responsibility for whether a criminal "changes" or not?

Again, it is your idiotic, wholly irrational dogma that we somehow must "save" them (because they don't know what they do, poor things!) that is your driving motivation about what punishment/detention is meant to be.

It's not.

It is about empowerment of the common citizenry that withdraw their prima facie invitation for "dialogue" to someone who has violated the very basis of the social contract.
Thus, rather than "dialogue" and the "hope of rehabilitation, punishment is the coolly planned infliction of pain upon a human being who, through his own actions has squandered his rights not to be inflicted pain.

This is, basically, the judicial view most Enlightenment philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, Hegel and somewhat later, John Stuart Mill stood for.

Your sentimental blatherdash has no intellectual worth whatsoever.

Whether the criminal "gets" the painful message or not is of marginal importance, since that is HIS responsibility as a free individual to figure out.

Rather, we should cultivate ourself to feel an appropriate degree of satisfaction in meting out pain to those deserving of it.

 

[zomgwtf]

Stand on the shoulders of giants all you like and apply whatever nonsensical comments you like to my beliefs that you've completely made up.

You're intellect prowess has me in absolute awe. Oh great one.

 

[zomgwtf]

By the way, enough of the religious comments directed at me and what I'm saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_Campaign

Grow the **** up. If it were any other poster you would have been reported long ago and in nearly every post you've made since then.

/derail.

 

[arildno]

Now, perhaps you could show what blatherdashers you base your opinions on?
Or, even better, make a rational argument on your own for why "rehabilitation of the criminal" ought to be a primary concern at all?

 

[Hells]

I really hope you are right. This guy has no concept of the value of human life. Having the depravity of mind to shoot at children for more than an hour. Why would we as a society tolerate letting a person like this breath among us? It makes no sense to me at all.

People's notion of when you are children is inconsistent. If you can have sex with people that are between 15-18 years, that perfectly acceptable and in no way pedophilia. But when you incarcerate or murder someone between 15-18 then they are children all sudden.

 

[WhoWee]

An obscure paragraph in Norwegian law, originally intended to handle the war crime "crimes against humanity" may possibly be the charge Breivik will face in the ordinary proceedings.
If found guilty, the maximum penalty is, uniquely, 30 years, rather than the normal 21 years.
In addition, he may be sentenced to "preventive confinement", if I've understood Norwegian criminal law correctly. Probably not, but I'm sure that our jurists are already working frenetically in formulating a legal justification WITHIN our current framework of law to ensure that Breivik gets what in the US is the established principle "jailed for life, without possibility of release".

It will be a tortuous type of reasoning, I'm sure, so I wish we had the more straightforward American justification schemes present in our law.

But, we don't have that..

I'm not familiar with the laws of Norway (at all). Is a sentence of 30 years the maximum amount of years someone might be punished - regardless of the scope of the crime? Do prosecutors have the flexibility of charging him for multiple (different) crimes?

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently Breiviks lawyer indicates that Breivik is insane, but doesn't want to plea insanity, since he feels justified in what he did. The failure to understand that one's heinous crime is wrong, is well, generally the criterion for being insane, or otherwise profoundly delusional.

I also heard the term "delusional fantasist".

 

[rootX]

Apparently Breiviks lawyer indicates that Breivik is insane, but doesn't want to plea insanity, since he feels justified in what he did. The failure to understand that one's heinous crime is wrong, is well, generally the criterion for being insane, or otherwise profoundly delusional.

I also heard the term "delusional fantasist".

I was also reading about that today:

However he added it was too early to say if Mr Breivik would plead insanity.
...
A medical evaluation would be carried out to establish his psychiatric condition, Mr Lippestad added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14294251

 

[Evo]

I was also reading about that today:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14294251

Arildno said that if found insane, he can be incarcerated for life. I still think it's too easy to escape from a mental hospital. Perhaps incarcerate him in a maximum security prison in the psychiatric section. I was watching a show on criminally insane people in prison that are on psychiatric meds and under the care of a psychiatrist. There are a lot of them.

But perhaps Norway doesn't have those options.

 

[256bits]

Now, perhaps you could show what blatherdashers you base your opinions on?
Or, even better, make a rational argument on your own for why "rehabilitation of the criminal" ought to be a primary concern at all?

I am setting myself up to be flamed!

Cost in dollars and sense is one reason.

death penatly costs
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Career criminal cost to society analysyis
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0099.htm

incarceration California 2007-2008 Budget
http://www.urbanstrategies.org/programs/csj/documents/CostsofIncarcerationFlyer_08.06.07_BH.pdf

 

[arildno]

The legal conundrums we are in are fully, and completely, the fault of bleeding-heart ideologues like Niels Christie&Mathiesen.

The problem is, as I have now understood it:

1. "Indefinite confinement" is an exclusionary alternative to prison sentence. You can't get both.

2. "Prison sentence" is a retaliative action, and CANNOT be extended beyond the maximum of 30 years, if he is found guilty for "crimes against humanity".
Furthermore, he has an irrevokable right to be re-examined for parole once 2/3 of his jail time has been served.3. "Indefinite confinement" is NOT a "retaliative" action of proportionate punishment, but a continuing evaluation of the PRESENT risk of letting him loose. Such an evaluation can NOT, in any way be influenced by the heinousness of the original crime, but only of his present level of danger to society. (serial rapists are often given "indefinite confinement")
The first evaluation must take place after 10 years confinement, extendable in 5-year bulks until he "must" be released, if judged no longer a threat.

If anything good comes out of this, it is the exposure of the deep immorality of our socio-political elites in denying the existence of evil, and dogmatically asserting that "rehabilitation" of the criminal is the sole justification for punishment in the first place.