Mass Murderer wins human rights case...

[CyberPunk]

...in Norway.

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has won part of his lawsuit against the state over his solitary confinement in a high-security prison, a court announced Wednesday.

The Oslo district court found the 37-year-old's treatment in prison violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibiting "inhuman or degrading treatment," and ruled that his conditions must be eased.
The court also ordered the government to pay legal costs of 331,000 kroner ($40,600) for the right-wing extremist, who killed 77 people in a shooting rampage and bombing attack in 2011.

Norway has the right to appeal the ruling. It has not announced whether it intends to do so.

The court dismissed Breivik's claim that the government had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for "private life" and correspondence.

The ruling outlined areas of concern in regard to the conditions of Breivik's confinement, which, taken as a whole, constituted a breach of his rights.
These included the duration of his isolation, and inadequate consideration of the mental impact of the regime. It also said the routine nude checks Breivik had to go through were not sufficiently justified from a security perspective.
But it did not give concrete directives on how the conditions should be changed.

My real question is, is his treatment too humane, considering the atrocities committed by this man? I am all for human rights and stuff, but should it not be based on nature of crimes committed by someone?

Now, this is the kind of cell Breivik is kept in:

This is what Breivik has access to in his confinement:

• Three cells - one for sleeping, one for studying, one for exercising - plus daily access to exercise yard
• Can play video games, watch TV and read newspapers
• Has a computer (without internet access)
• Can prepare his own food and do his own washing
• Has phone conversations with a "female friend"
• Contact with prison staff, lawyers, a priest, health professionals
• Has declined to play chess with volunteers
• Built a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition
  
  In fact, at one point he had complained about not having access to "adult" video games.

On one hand, I applaud Norway for their progressive prison system, but should there be exceptions based on the nature of crime committed? I mean, this is a man who gave a nazi salute (reportedly) on his first day in court, is a known right extremist and is already convicted of the deadliest attack in Norway since WW II. I am not one for capital punishment or such, but if this would've been any other country, I am sure the punishment would've been very different.

How do you feel about his sentence? Is Norwegian judicial system too lenient, or is it justified on the name of human rights?

 

[enviousdominous]

Everyone has theories on how to carry out capital punishment, some of which practically involve not doing it at all.

Norway is a beautiful country that only has a little over five million people, giving them a population density per square mile of 15. The US, with all it's lovely room for expansion, has a population density of 84. My theory in regard to crime levels of certain countries is that when you have lower population density and their ethnic demographic is dominated by over 90% for a specific race, they tend to have lower crime. I'm not saying that non-ethnic people up and commit crimes for no reason, I'm saying that human beings habitually fuck with each other and that they're more likely to fuck with each other if you cram two people who look different from each other into a tight space.

I don't think that lack of crime in Norway has anything to do with their laxed criminal justice system. I'm not saying that they should treat this guy in an inhumane way, I'm saying that they should seriously reconsider how they define inhumane treatment. There's a big difference between being kept in what's essentially an apartment where you multiple forms of access to human interaction, and being given the Iranian white torture treatment. At least define solitary confinement to mean having no human interaction for long periods of time and to include audible and visual forms of sensory depravation.

Maybe it's the American in me, but if I was on the jury I'd have gladly sentenced that monster to be executed by the state. He murdered children, and now he's basically a snob living it up in club med. He has no concept of the suffering he's caused and will likely never regret gunning people down because he's a racist piece of shit.

 

[CyberPunk]

Everyone has theories on how to carry out capital punishment, some of which practically involve not doing it at all.

Norway is a beautiful country that only has a little over five million people, giving them a population density per square mile of 15. The US, with all it's lovely room for expansion, has a population density of 84. My theory in regard to crime levels of certain countries is that when you have lower population density and their ethnic demographic is dominated by over 90% for a specific race, they tend to have lower crime. I'm not saying that non-ethnic people up and commit crimes for no reason, I'm saying that human beings habitually fuck with each other and that they're more likely to fuck with each other if you cram two people who look different from each other into a tight space.

I don't think that lack of crime in Norway has anything to do with their laxed criminal justice system. I'm not saying that they should treat this guy in an inhumane way, I'm saying that they should seriously reconsider how they define inhumane treatment. There's a big difference between being kept in what's essentially an apartment where you multiple forms of access to human interaction, and being given the Iranian white torture treatment. At least define solitary confinement to mean having no human interaction for long periods of time and to include audible and visual forms of sensory depravation.

Maybe it's the American in me, but if I was on the jury I'd have gladly sentenced that monster to be executed by the state. He murdered children, and now he's basically a snob living it up in club med. He has no concept of the suffering he's caused and will likely never regret gunning people down because he's a racist piece of shit.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Here is a man who murdered young people in cold blood, is a sworn enemy of 'multiculturism' in Norway, advocates opposition of Islam and feminism, has identified himself as a fascist, and has almost no redeemable qualities. All he gets for this is a 21-year picnic? Isn't that as atrocious as the man's crimes?

 

[A11oftheLights]

The bloke killed 77 people, there is no way he is ever setting foot as a free man for the rest of his life, there is no doubt he is guilty. His case will never be over turned unless some right wing extremist group manages to overthrow the government. He should be sentenced to death because all he's doing is being a tax burden.

As for the actual case, seems like bullshit except for the nude checks. That seems rather invasive. If i was him i'd be rather happy being in solitary confinement because i'd be willing to bet that he'd be in for a beating or two

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I've always held the personal belief that rehabilitation should be prioritized over punishment, but that both are ultimately necessary in order to create a balanced system of justice. With punishment, justice is provided to the victims of the crimes and helps deter any further crimes from being committed, and with rehabilitation, justice is provided to the perpetrator by encouraging their reformation into ordinary, contributing citizens and to prevent them from continuing down a life of crime. Generally, as the severity of the crime increases, so too becomes the importance of both punishment and rehabilitation.

Norway's justice system is one where there is far too much emphasis on rehabilitation and not enough on actual punishment, and as a result, was very ill-prepared for an assault on the scale of Anders Breivik's mass murder within Oslo and Utoya in 2011. Because of the very nature of what is in place within Norway, rather than Breivik being contained by the system, it appears that the system is being contained by Breivik in many ways, as he continuously makes a mockery of a system with minimal deterrence.

The facts evidentially show that many Norwegian prisons are luxurious, with access to video games, television, expensive exercise equipment and more. These are not basic provisions for humans to live, these are luxuries that a lot of people within Norway are incapable of accessing on a regular basis. The fact that criminals are given these liberties, whilst many normal and even upstanding citizens are not, is ludicrous. Whilst there are parts of Norway's humanist approach that I do like (such as encouraging prisoners on one particular island to help run a farm in order to allow them to continue to contribute to their civilization's development), this seems less like a prison system, and more like school counselling, which for crimes as horrendous as Breivik's, is disproportionate to say the least.

In terms of the actual case Breivik made, it is interesting to see that a system is able to identify the breach of basic human rights, even for someone as despicable as Breivik. The frequent and random nude body searches of Breivik were highly unnecessary, and justified on flimsy logic, so I can see why Breivik's liberties as a prisoner were being infringed upon. However, in terms of isolation from the prisoner populace, I feel this liberty has been revoked for sufficient reasoning; and this is because of Breivik's own safety. Even if security were to escort him in order to allow him to meet his fellow prisoners face to face, all it would take is one mistake, and a more severe human right would be infringed.

Ultimately, there needs to be modifications to the justice system within Norway from the top up, in order to make it less exploitable for people who commit crimes on the same magnitude as Breivik, who is an anomaly amongst the majority of Norway's criminals. But a prison shouldn't be treating a prisoner in a way they shouldn't, which is evident upon looking into the story further, no matter who the prisoner is and what they've done.

 

[CyberPunk]

The bloke killed 77 people, there is no way he is ever setting foot as a free man for the rest of his life, there is no doubt he is guilty. His case will never be over turned unless some right wing extremist group manages to overthrow the government. He should be sentenced to death because all he's doing is being a tax burden.

As for the actual case, seems like bullshit except for the nude checks. That seems rather invasive. If i was him i'd be rather happy being in solitary confinement because i'd be willing to bet that he'd be in for a beating or two

My point goes beyond the actual case. The man is getting treatment that nowhere matches his crime. As for his case of human rights violation, I call bull. If he would've been any other country, his punishment would've been much more severe. Based on what this man has done, don't you think his punishment should be more severe? Should Norway consider introducing laws for crimes of this nature?

 

[Loveless]

Putting any moralizing aside, this is fairly simple. He complained that he wasn't being treated the same as the other prisoners, that was shown to be true, he rightly won the case.
You can understandably complain about it and wish he was punished more severely but prison isn't and shouldn't be about vengeance or retribution.

 

[Isaac Kaye]

Putting any moralizing aside, this is fairly simple. He complained that he wasn't being treated the same as the other prisoners, that was shown to be true, he rightly won the case.
You can understandably complain about it and wish he was punished more severely but prison isn't and shouldn't be about vengeance or retribution.

I totally agree. You have to set aside your emotions for what he did and remember that he is still entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. His human rights are already compromised by virtue of him being detained, but this to be proportionate and not designed as a way of punishment.

I've worked (in my various jobs) to rehabilitate various patients/service users who have committed some quite heinous crimes. Paedophiles and sex offenders are among these. The public seem to believe that the more reprehensible a crime is, the less that person should receive, and the harsher the punishment should be. They struggle to separate this from basic rights and what someone should be entitled to.

Democratic principles are something we have fought hard for - when we start saying that certain people should no longer have access to these, in my opinion we're on a very slippery slope. The court decided that Breivik had a case. As difficult as that is to accept, it shows that Norway are serious about upholding their democratic values/principles.

I don't believe in capital punishment for anyone - it's not a solution to the problem and it does not send out the correct moral message. People should either be detained indefinitely or rehabilitated.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

My real question is, is his treatment too humane, considering the atrocities committed by this man? I am all for human rights and stuff, but should it not be based on nature of crimes committed by someone?

Doesnt mather what he did, he is guaranteed same rights as the other prisoners. Now, you can talk about a fact that he is living better then if he would live outside and that Norway has great prisons overall

http://9gag.com/gag/a0Y40mB/just-a-prison-in-norway

but he is also "special case". Think none of EU countrys have capital punishment due that its forbidden by convention of human right agreed by all countrys. So most he can get is "life in prison". And due to being "special case" he needs special conditions. Even my country has special jale for special prisoner. Guy killed Prime Minister, got 40 years and was transfered in less luxurious version of Breivik cell. He even wrote and published book.

You are watching it on more "american way" of looking at things. With no capital punishment(and yes, Breivik deserves one), he is just special prisoner who you need to take care with all his rights respected.

 

[LSN80]

I totally agree. You have to set aside your emotions for what he did and remember that he is still entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

Nah, he really shouldn't be. This case brings to mind one that occurred in my neck of the woods(close to Pittsburgh PA), where a death row inmate appealed his living conditions.

http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/8826864-74/smyrnes-death-county

This classy young man(Ricky Smyrnes)-along with five of his roommates-kidnapped, tortured and eventually killed a mentally handicapped young woman. They tortured this woman non-stop over a period of three days, only stopping to vote among themselves as to what to do to her next. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. But because Pennsylvania has issued a moratorium(basically a stoppage) on the death penalty, Smyrnes is looking at sitting on death row for a long day.

Death Row conditions in Pennsylvania are pretty horrific. Inmates are locked in their cells for 22 hours a day, with no contact with the rest of the population. They eat their meals in their cells and have limited visiting hours. Death row inmates are only allowed three showers a week. This would be a difficult thing for a few days, and Smyrnes has already been doing this for three years. He's suffering, according to attorney Brian Aston:

"He suffers from hallucinations, paranoia, depression and loss of appetite. All of those psychological effects are due to solitary confinement and are cruel and unusual punishment."

Rita Hathaway, the judge whom oversaw his trial, had the following to say in response:

"I guess you're asking me to make Mr. Smyrnes more comfortable on death row. I'm not hearing any argument that he's being tortured on death row, unlike the innocent victim in this case, Jennifer Daugherty.”

Personally, I'm more appalled by what Smyrnes did than what Anders Brievik did. I agree with the judge. He's receiving everything necessary for survival. Clothing, food and shelter aren't being denied him. He's receiving little more, but should he? I don't believe so. The nature of the punishment should fit the nature of the crime. When you've killed over 70 people or tortured a mentally handicapped woman to death, the punishment should be pretty severe.

They've gotten the punishment right in the Smyrnes case. Not so much for Brievik.