Anders Brevik and the Death Penalty

Let me start off by saying that I am for capital punishment in a very limited sense. That sense is fulfilled in Anders Breviks murderous rampage in Norway a few years back.

Granted, a discussion of the morality of the execution of a murderer is underlined by ones personal philosophy. If one is all about the "here and now", then the ridiculously lenient 21 year prison sentence with a chance for release at age 53 seems reasonable. Never mind the 77 human beings murdered, 77 lives cut short, 77 lives no longer lived. They are past. Whats important at this point - to the ultra rationalist - is not simply justice, but forgiveness as well.

Throughout Anders trial, he essentially sneered at Norway's judicial process. He knew, that he could both execute 77 children at a liberal summer camp, and still live his life comfortably in prison for the next 21 years. In Anders prison cell, he has workout equipment, a TV and a laptop (albeit, without internet access ).

To contrast what he did - murdered 77 human beings - with his life for the next 21 years, lived comfortably and easily in a Norwegian 3 room jail cell, certainly I think can lead to the conclusion that this was a gross miscarriage of justice.

As said in the preamble, ones response to murder is based on ones conception of the human being. Today in liberal Europe, man and animal have been almost made parallel in importance. Coeval with this occurrence is a preponderance on the relativity of our morals. Norway's judicial system is based on a rather sanguine doctrine that all crimes are the consequence of either a) environment b) genes, leaving no room for individual self choice. Thus, the only rational conclusion starting from this premise is leniency. How is poor Anders supposed to react to what he sees as the transformation for the worse of his beloved Norway? poor Anders is the focus of liberal Europe's attention. What he did he was compelled to do. In Norway and other Scandinavian countries, free will has become a myth.

However, I think most thinking people know that what's typically called free will actually exists, somewhere between genes and environment. There does exist an interval - unaccounted for by science (unfortunately for rationalists who want answers to everything) where we can take control of ourselves an act against either our instincts or environmental pressures.

Has Norway gone too far? Has their intellectual penchant for moral relativism devolved into a perverse worship of "non-violent" measures"? Can human lives still be said to be of paramount importance if reforming the murder is of greater interest than requital for his unfathomable crimes?

For instance, this strikes me of sanctimony:

Bjorn Magnus Ihler, who survived the Utoya shootings, said that Norway’s treatment of Mr. Breivik was a sign of a fundamentally civilized nation.

“If he is deemed not to be dangerous any more after 21 years, then he should be released,” Mr. Ihler said. “That’s how it should work. That’s staying true to our principles, and the best evidence that he hasn’t changed our society.”

Link

This is also redolent of the Adolph Eichmann case. Adolph Eichmann was one of the chief architects of the Nazi Holocaust, making him responsible for the deaths of over 6 million Jews. 6 million. Regardless of Lenins statement that 1 death is a tragedy while 1 million is a statistic, I personally subscribe to the belief that each person is a world, that each person is precious. In Israel and throughout Europe during the Eichmann trial, Marxist intellectuals thought a proper punishment would be to force Eichmann to work on a Kibbutz. I have trouble seeing the logic of this. Or rather, I shudder at the simplicity of the logic. Eichmann would have much preferred to work on a kibbutz, after all, the Nazi parties essential criticism of Jews was their being over-civilized, and naive concerning human nature. Eichmann, like Brevik, probably laughed at such suggestions. He kills or contributes to the murder of 6 million individual people, and what he gets as a punishment is a moral "you're bad, you've been tried", and than throw him in a kibbutz so he too can work towards establishing the Jewish state?

Nobody likes punishment, yet, punishment is at times necessary. When training my dog, some degree of discipline is needed, some degree of stringency is required to curtail her natural instinct. If I show too much love, it undermines the entire efficacy of my training. The question of course is, if such a punishment dissuades people from committing further crimes, why adopt a more stringent penalty like capital punishment? That's a good question. As said at the beginning of this thread, I think capital punishment should be applied with caution. Not all cased of murder deserve capital punishment. Certain facts need to be taken into regard before anything can be definitively established. However, when a serial killer, or a mass murderer like Anders Brevik has been tried and found guilty for his numerable murders, I think a healthy society is one which responds with a sense of outrage at what was done. I can't help but thinking of the 77 souls (yes, souls) who were torn from this world prematurely by a psychopath who had nothing but disdain, and indeed, probably anticipated such a milquetoast response to his calamitous actions. I think at certain point, to absolve the killer the way Norway has done diminishes the gravity of the crime of murder.

Absence of the OP is the beginning of confusion.

Do I have to say a magic word to make the post appear?

EDIT:
Ah I see a full post has appeared now........ so was it my end that was not revealing the full post or did I manage to find the right magic word to make it reveal itself?....... going to go read it all now

1. I abhor the death penalty. Murdering a murderer only serves to lower those who perform the act to the murderers level. Keeping them locked up in a cage for the rest of their lives is more than enough punishment for any crime - oh and the fact that he is allowed access to a few amenities is basic human rights as defined by the United Nations.

2. Just because Norway has a maximum penalty of 21 years doesn't mean he will be released. They have the option of then extending the sentence indefinitely - which in Breiviks' case I believe will be an almost certainty. Fear not, he will NEVER be released.

As a parent I don't think I would be happy with such a lenient sentence, had it been my child who was one of the victims. I think I would want his guts for garters and for him to suffer dearly for what he did. Does that make me a more primitive person devoid of compassion and empathy? I don't know, however I do have plenty of compassion an empathy for the ones I love and for unfortunate people who have been rejected by society or bullied just because of how they look or sound.
Should society have and pay for a fairly luxurious life style of a 3 roomed cell with laptop, gym, tv, heat, shelter, a bed and 3 meals a day for a person who disregards life and destroys so many families, as the ones left behind will be forever wounded and hurting, when there are people on the street living rough with no where to go, perhaps having run from an abusive household or who just can't pay their rent and who have done nothing wrong and are not bad people? Where is the compassion and empathy for these people?

Norway doesn’t really have life imprisonment. They have 30 year maximums for ‘crimes against humanity’. They have a 21 year sentence with what they call “preventative detention”. Basically, parole conditions are harder and stricter then a normal sentence. And his sentence can be continued five years at a time if he’s still considered to be a danger if released. This can, in affect, result in an actual life imprisonment. Chances are that he won’t be let out ever again. If the people in Norway are remotely clever they’ll continue to extend his sentence five years at a time.

reply to post by CthulhuMythos


Whats a better option: Place Breivik in a cell where all he has to do is stare at a wall for 24/7 for 21 years - sending him completely psychotic and requiring that the prison then provide extensive medical care for the rest of his life - OR - avoid this by providing some basic amenities as is required under the United Nations?

To me that is a no-brainer - and it avoids lowering the rest of us to his level by performing the same act he performed on that island.

EDIT: Oh and anyone who thinks he is living the life of "luxury" should go and spend a week in his situation and realise that it is far from that.

reply to post by Kryties


I dunno, sounds pretty luxurious for a mass murderer to me...

reply to post by Kryties


If he had killed my child, I would want him dead, simple as that. I would be wondering, why should someone who killed my child have the right to live?
I don't know many parents who would forgive and forget the person who killed their child.

reply to post by dontreally


I do not agree with the death penalty. You do not have to become a monster to fight a monster. There prison system may look like a holiday camp. But I think they are doing something right compared to the UK. The rates of reoffence are low. Maybe when you treat people like people they act like people. I think many prison services around the world could learn something ehre

reply to post by purplemer

Maybe when you treat people like people they act like people

Norway has an absurdly small population, first of all. Second of all, it's never been plagued with violence.

Thirdly, I don't think putting to death a serial killer who killed 77 people and who derides the very system which now attempts to punish him is wrong. In fact, if I were Anders, which is to say, If I truly felt contempt for Norways leftist swing, I would do all it took in the next 21 years to earn my release.

The fact that the option remains open, that this man who killed 77 people is still granted the respect of society to be readmitted later on if he "acclimatizes" himself to the new ways of things, is dumbfounding. Truly, I can't help but wonder what the hell is wrong with you and others to be so sure in your moral sanctity that this was the right verdict.

I get you have a feeling. But how could you be so certain about it? How can you not have conflicting feelings telling you this is wrong?

[SNIP]

Seems to me that when medieval europe practiced the ritual of lopping off heads and sticking them on stakes that they had very few mass murderers other than the random King here and there.

Something to think about.

Let me start off by saying that I am for capital punishment in a very limited sense. That sense is fulfilled in Anders Breviks murderous rampage in Norway a few years back.

Anders was shooting innocents he deserves death himself theres no point debating it cause its eye for eye justice. Still i am not clear on what he was doing the killing for, what drove him over edge. Can anybody explain it in a few sentences. I think he went insane from something and whoses to say whatever made him go crazy hasnt created other ticking crazies. And please no one say it was due to Haarp.

when i think of this killer i also see the batman killer, its like they are clones.

reply to post by dontreally


Explanation: He was found by the same court of law that convicted him, to be COMPLETELY sane!

And he operated on logic and reason!

Hence he should not even be a criminal at all!

Personal Disclosure: When you criminalize those who act logically and reasonably [and he had good sane logical reasons for going to war] then we are all damned to not act in anybodies best interests.

Now either the courts were wrong on the issue of his sanity ... which brings immediately into question the verdic in regards to his alledged crimes or they were correct on the issue of his sanity and are him punishing unfairly.

They can't have it both ways.

The outcome of his trial screams hypocrisy to me!

Logic traps everybody and facts limit us ok!

He weighed up the facts ... and came up with a logical and reasonable response to try and break the hypocritical status quo.

The universe at large agreed with him and by default EXISTENCE endorsed those 77 deaths otherwise it would never have happened.

In one way or another Norway as a whole failed Brevik and all his Victims and the standards of Justice and Mercy as well!

reply to post by dontreally


This is not a personal diatribe for or against the death penalty, simply my reaction to the OP itself...

Justice and vengeance are not the same thing at all. Emotional satisfaction is not a requisite of justice. In truth if they figured out the most heinous and evil torture imaginable and then inflicted it upon Brevik, over and over again, it wouldn't undo anything that he did. In fact it would only serve to bring the rest of us down to his level.

IMO we've lost sight of the ball regarding these unbelievable acts of mass violence. We let our emotions get the best of us and we end up with irrational responses to them. I am not even sure if there is a rational response, to be honest. Some evil just leaves one blank.

In the end, all I can do, for my own part, is find myself waging an internal war... part of me praying that karma does have some basis in fact ( as exacted by a God or not - dealers choice )... and another part of me realizing that the hate I feel for him is no more civilized than the hate he apparently felt for the rest of us.

~Heff

He should've been sent to a Mexican prison.

3 room jail cell?


Or maybe sent to Russia's Black Dolphin Prison

Fantasy I know.

I personally feel when you go on a murderous rampage killing any and all.. You forfeit your rights of being called a human. Live by the sword die by the sword.

I think he should be recruited by the military , since he is pretty devious and tactical to have killed so many targets. He even seek out targets that hide themselves and he use deception to lure targets to him.

Instead of giving him punishment for life in jail, he should be forced to join US Marines. There he can hone his shooting skills and maybe even got deployed in real combat zone..

if i remember , isnt there a soldier who admit killed 250+ people and when he returned to USA he got a hero's welcome ??? i forgot his name but i think he was a soldier who killed so many people that some other guy in a shooting-rage killed him.

I think he should be recruited by the military , since he is pretty devious and tactical to have killed so many targets. He even seek out targets that hide themselves and he use deception to lure targets to him.

Instead of giving him punishment for life in jail, he should be forced to join US Marines. There he can hone his shooting skills and maybe even got deployed in real combat zone..

if i remember , isnt there a soldier who admit killed 250+ people and when he returned to USA he got a hero's welcome ??? i forgot his name but i think he was a soldier who killed so many people that some other guy in a shooting-rage killed him.