DISCUSSION: Prison Conditions in Norway

I'm quite shocked a mass murderer of 77 people would receive such luxuries. And he has the audacity to complain about it, after his actions!

I think even IF (and that's a big if IMO) he could be rehabilitated, allowing him back into society would be too much of a risk. Such cells and luxuries should be reserved for minor crimes and youths who cycle through the legal system because no ones taken the opportunity to get to the root of the problem of what's causing them to reoffend. For someone who kills 77 people? His cell should have a bed and 4 walls.

Rehabilitation can be effective. But I believe it's better to invest resources in people more likely to be rehabilitated and ones who don't pose so much of a threat to society that if he's ever released...well, everyone will be outraged to say the least. It's not like he 'accidentally' killed 77 people.

 

If he can't be rehabilitated and the punishment won't help at all why bother? The guy should be released.

 

So your suggestion is...?

Proportionate punishment (death in his case) isn't acceptable to you.

He can't be rehabilitated.

He obviously can't just be released.

 

Stick him in a cell with the barest set up possible and let him rot there with only his thoughts as company till he dies.

 

Apparently that's a breach of human rights

 

Europe doesn't have the death pentality in the UK and Ireland a murder gets about 10 years if you're good that can be halfed.

 

If we're really going to get down to the nitty gritty we could argue that putting anyone in prison, no matter what their crime, is a breach of human rights.

The critical point in this case is his danger to society. He can claim to be rehabilitated all he likes but he can never escape 77 murder charges. He poses an incredibly high risk to society. The way I see it, keeping him in a cell till he dies keeps society safe (from him at least) and lets him suffer for the rest of his life.

Releasing him is more of a breach to everyone's right to safety than it is to whatever his human right is to not be locked up. You do the crime, you do the time and pay the price. IMO, killing him let's him escape. He's going to die eventually anyway, so let him live the rest of his life suffering in the smallest cell with minimal human contact.

 

The point of prison is to offer rehabilitation, if there is no reasonable expectation of rehabilitation, and the criminal is expected to die in prison, then surely it's less humane to allow him to live a life of being held in a room?

So chocolate, according to you it's MORE humane to keep him prisoner until he dies, knowing that he will never be a free man again, whilst the victims a families (that's 77 x ATLEAST 2 (parents)) not taking into account grandparents, siblings, children etc live their lives without their loved ones, in the knowledge that this man will continue to live, in relative priviledge than it is to just kill him and have done with it?

 

I'd say as long as the death sentence is approved by society & in the name of justice i don't think it matters who kills them.

 

Wow :shock: That essentially gives anyone a licence to kill. That won't wreak mayhem in society at all.

 

It's not a license to kill for anyone lol I'm saying the court which is the representative of society approves sum1 should die, any1 who shows up to kill them says "i'll do it" can be approved for it by society, in no way am i suggesting any1 can go kill people when they choose too as long as its in the name of justice.

 

I would say in this case there is a justifiable reason to use the death penalty. There's no arguing that this man may be innocent of the crime. I can understand the attempts at rehabilitation for small crimes. Not for someone who is a murderer though, a terrorist at that.

 

My example was of anyone going around and killing anyone who had been in prison for 'justice' and to 'rid the world of evil'. To which your response was if society approves of the death sentence then anyone can kill them.

So which is it? Anyone can show up to the prison and kill them or anyone can kill whoever they want for 'justice'? Your two responses did not convey the same message hence my anyone would have a licence to kill comment 

I've never supported the death penalty. Anyone who commits a crime where the death penalty is the punishment is likely not afraid of death. You're probably giving them what they want. Let them suffer and rot in a cell for the rest of their life with only their thoughts as company.

 

Yes I have read that article, 7/10 of the don't apply to this case. You're going to have to do better than that to convince me in afraid.


Maybe a compromise would be to leave him in the middle of the middle of the Sahara with a litre of water.

 

He should be in solitary confinement for his life long prison sentence. Only human contact should be when he's given food. If he's lucky he can see the sun for one hour a day.

Personally, I believe making him suffer like that, wishing he was dead and keeping him alive is a far worse punishment than death.

 

Neither, for society to approve it, it would need an official stamp so you'd have to go to a court to be approved, so my answers do not contradict each other. Whether they are killed at a prison or sumwhere else, by a prison executioner or a random bloke who's taken the task with society's approval doesn't matter to me, his death and society's approval of it is what matters. Any1 can as long as its approved.

 

So torture, physically, mentally and emotionally is now more 'humane' than killing?