Why is everyone stating it as though we have to choose between the two ie: rehabilitation & punishment? ...as far as I'm concerned punishment is the 1st step in rehabilitation when it comes to crime. You HAVE to accept accountability/responsibility for your actions and you HAVE to understand why what you did is wrong/unacceptable before you can be reformed/rehabilitated... If someone doesn't accept and/or understand what they did wrong how do you rehabilitate that person? ...it's impossible
I think that we should be careful about using Breivik's case to judge the whole Norwegian model. He is a definite outlier in the case. Keep in mind that when one looks at how effective correctional systems are the statistic of choice tends to be recidivism. SO.... Recent recidivism data: Ireland 62% USA 52% Scotland 50% United Kingdom (England & Wales) 46% Japan 43% Australia 39% Norway 20% Now, consider another interesting statistics, incarceration rates (numbers are prisoners per 100,000 population) USA 698 Australia 151 United Kingdom (England & Wales) 146 France 100 Italy 86 Ireland 82 Norway 71 Japan 49
UPDATE 20.04.2016 Just a little update on the case. Anders Behring Breivik did win the lawsuit against Norway. "The court (...) has concluded that the prison conditions constitute inhuman treatment," the Oslo district court says. They mean that it is a violation of article 3 in the European Convention on Human Rights, which goes like this: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Here is a link to an article.
No way....he should try the US prison system. He'll happily go back to norway's "inhuman" system. Beggars can't be choosers. If he didn't want to be in prison he shouldn't have committed all those murders.
People like this man dont even deserve anything more than a 4x4 cage so he can go shove it up his arse hed have multiple life sentences and be treated alot worse here in the us so theres no reason for him to complain..
The imprisonment can keep being extended with five years everytime a commission considers him still to be a danger to society.
Brevik knows how to work the system and in this case the law really is an ass. His problem isn't really that he believes he's being tortured. Every year since he has been in prison he's had one complaint or another. This is about keeping his name on the tip of everyone's tongue. The sooner the media stop reporting on this man and show him and his "manifesto" the contempt it deserves the better. It isn't fair on the victims family's to hear the law works in this mans favour.
Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. We'll probably just see more of him in the coming years. But should the media stop reporting about this? No, I don't think so. One of the media's most important role is letting people know what's going on in the society. It's a part of a democracy, and it wouldn't be very democratic to make any difference in this case, even though it's really hard for the victims.
Yeah like I said earlier Norway must be one jacked up country.... Screw em' if they want to pay for the upkeep this anima, let em' ...idiots
Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. We'll probably just see more of him in the coming years. But should the media stop reporting about this? No, I don't think so. One of the media's most important role is letting people know what's going on in the society. It's a part of a democracy, and it wouldn't be very democratic to make any difference in this case, even though it's really hard for the victims. [/quote] I disagree with you here. The media should stop reporting on this man. I think the majority of us would agree that our lives haven't been enriched knowing that a mass murder that killed 77 people can use the law to make his life easier in prison. What makes his rights so special that it needs to be reported compared to countless cases of miscarriages of justice. We are constantly giving this low life the notoriety and infamy he craves. Since the judgement has come there's been many stories about him including him being allowed visits from a "mystery girlfriend". How is that beneficial to know? This isn't about journalistic integrity or being democratic it's just to sell papers or garner hits on an article. It doesn't inform society it incites.
In an article from the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten yesterday, one of the survivors from Utøya (where 69 persons were shot to death), Bjørn Ihler came up with very great points and arguments that I think is relevant for this discussion. He said the following (translated from Norwegian): "It is about whether we are still able to perceive Breivik as a man worthy of the same rights all we have and whether we manage to look past his actions, keep a cool head and stand by the principles our society is built on. He [Mr. Breivik] is increasingly being described as the monster rather than the man. There have been demonstrations against showing his image, cover has been reversed and many have refused to say his name. This helps to create mystery and fear and with it, power. It makes Breivik to more than what he is, a man. It is increasingly suggested that we should treat him in inhuman ways, that we have the right to torture him, and in the most extreme cases, kill him. It was precisely what Breivik did to us, we who were on Utøya. Breivik deprived us our humanity, he sat us in another cubicle than himself, and based on this he took life. I refuse to follow in his footsteps. I refuse to let the man that the summer of 2011 took the lives of my friends and tried to kill me set the premise for how I, and my small country should treat our fellow human beings, Breivik included. The most important weapon we have in the fight against extremism is to illustrate that it is wrong to believe that some people are inferior or less human than others. We prove this through the way we treat our society's weakest and those who live in the justice system's grace. We prove it by following our democratic principles; equality before the law. We prove it by being open and inclusive and by not blindly defining people to be our enemies but rather look at all as human beings worthy of the same rights as everyone else. We prove it by not distance ourselves, but rather be inclusive, and by showing compassion with those who feel ostracized. We prove it also by setting standards and expectations. The court once again has run its course, and once again come to what is apparently an informed decision in the face of terror, suggesting that the judiciary is able to keep a cool head, and that it is able to stick to democratic principles of law even under extreme circumstances. Now you need correctional follow up, leading the way, and hopefully set an example for the rest of the world of how we treat our fellow man, and fighting terrorism." The excerpt was gathered from here. What do you think? Discuss!