Crimes against humanity possible charge against Breivik

[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.