Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Casiella on 22 Jul 2011, 10:26
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14254705
Thoughts and prayers with everyone there. I know we have several Norwegian members, and I certainly hope you and your loved ones are okay.
-
Oh my....
No one has claimed responsibility for the attack yet.
My prayers certainly go out to those families of the two confirmed lost and those that are still unconfirmed (and missing).
-
What Raze said. If I can take five minutes out of my workday to mess around on backstage, i can certainly take five and pray.
-
Putting my thoughts and wishes out there as well.
-
Wow...yeah, thats awful, my heart goes out to everyone in Norway.
-
My thoughts go out to those who have been hurt in any way by this.
-
So far, 10 confirmed in the rough sweep of the island, and 7 in the explosion - they are not done yet searching every building and doing fine sweeps of the island, or so I heard.
Now I know what 9/11 must have felt like to those not directly involved.
-
Hope that none of you is affected by this. :/
-
It's been confirmed. The fellow behind the attacks is a right-wing extremist and Christian, which I found grimly amusing.
I can also confirm, this is not going to do much beyond lightly anger most of us. We're still far more likely to be hit by a car or fall down the stairs and break our necks than see action like this happen, and those who weren't afraid last week won't be afraid next week. I've been in contact with current and former colleagues across the country, and the mood is in general just grim anger and there's an air of 'well, let's buck up and get to work...' thing going.
Politically, this won't change anything but for the better. If anything, it'll further strengthen the attitude towards peace efforts and such.
This is Norway. We are a small nation and there's not many of us... but we're hard people. Takes hell of a lot more than this to change us.
-
My response to someone else speculating on an organization having done this was, "the Norwegians have dealt with organized attacks for a long time and this is who they are now." :)
-
Hope that none of you is affected by this. :/
It's a national tradgedy, the entire kingdom is affected in some way or another. But yes, I too hope none - either Norwegian or foreign - who frequent these boards are directly affected personally or through friends or family.
It's been confirmed. The fellow behind the attacks is a right-wing extremist and Christian, which I found grimly amusing.
I can also confirm, this is not going to do much beyond lightly anger most of us. We're still far more likely to be hit by a car or fall down the stairs and break our necks than see action like this happen, and those who weren't afraid last week won't be afraid next week. I've been in contact with current and former colleagues across the country, and the mood is in general just grim anger and there's an air of 'well, let's buck up and get to work...' thing going.
Politically, this won't change anything but for the better. If anything, it'll further strengthen the attitude towards peace efforts and such.
This is Norway. We are a small nation and there's not many of us... but we're hard people. Takes hell of a lot more than this to change us.
^
This, mostly. Crap like this ofthen have the effect of cementing the national relationship everyone in the affected nation has - it affects everyone, and thus everyone stands together to weather the storm, metaphorically speaking. This would likely have been the case no-matter what nation it affected. I think much like Miz here, the changes from this, if any wider changes make themselves known in time, are highly likely to be for the better.
Perhaps we will even grasp some more spine and make a higher punishment-range for especially vile criminals. 21 years in our cuddly norwegian prisons simply is not sufficent for someone who plan for years, then murder nearly a hundred people in a deliberate act of terrorism.
I'm also rather glad it was a norwegian national and ethnic who did this; I would not want to see the racism-fueled rage if it was some mis-guided immigrant of any sort. Proves for anyone who might have believed otherwise that, any nation can and like do, have their share of unstable people like this.
-
Right-wing extremist and Christian, eh?
That is truly saddening. The loss of life is never easy and though the Norwegians are a tough spirited people, those directly affected will still be in mourning over lost family/friends. I will certainly continue to keep them in my prayers.
I can't help but feel personally attached to things like this, especially when I hear that a professing Christian is the guilty party. We do more damage to ourselves through actions like these than any opponent of Christianity could ever do. It truly saddens me.
-
Perhaps we will even grasp some more spine and make a higher punishment-range for especially vile criminals. 21 years in our cuddly norwegian prisons simply is not sufficent for someone who plan for years, then murder nearly a hundred people in a deliberate act of terrorism.
And what good will that do? We can't allow an event like this turning us blood-thirsty. There's a reason we don't have higher punishment ranges here, and it's because they don't do any good. Why would we increase it? For vengeance? For punishment? It becomes irrelevant. Anyone who can be punished or rehabilitated will be so by the 21 years, and those who can't be won't be affected if it's 21 hundred years.
This isn't about punishment... it's about safeguarding society. A knee-jerk increase in our upper limits is a defeat, nothing more. It won't safeguard our society any more than it already is. It won't deter anyone like this guy, nor will it aid those who can be rehabilitated. It won't bring anyone back to life, nor will the bereaved suffer any less.
Bloodthirst or anger is understandable... but it's not going to do us any good.
-
If it is about safeguarding society and someone may not be rehabilitated in X time, would it not be a good idea to remove them permanently from the society they seek to harm vs releasing them back into said society?
-
If they can't be released into society as safe and functional members of society at the end of their sentence, it's either extended to the 21 year maximum, or they're transferred into closed mental health facilities, because then they're clearly beyond criminals and well into the land of mental instability.
This guy? I doubt he'll ever walk as a free man again... but we still can't allow that to be a matter of punishment and vengeance. It'll be measures taken to safeguard others from him.
-
Hope that none of you is affected by this. :/
It's a national tradgedy, the entire kingdom is affected in some way or another. But yes, I too hope none - either Norwegian or foreign - who frequent these boards are directly affected personally or through friends or family.
I was just wishing this because it is more unusual to see that kind of things happening in western countries (not on that scale), though it happens from time to time and reminds me this is what is considered to be at best "worthy of note" in third world regions were it is merely the routine. I hope we will start to consider the same when it is about poor countries where it is considered to be a "normal thing".
People tend to react with good heart because it is happening near them in their own lives and they feel threatened/disgusted, but this is quite hypocritical for me, even if it is unconscious. Sorry if I am being harsh though, it does not mean I am not feeling deeply for the people dead here.
It's been confirmed. The fellow behind the attacks is a right-wing extremist and Christian, which I found grimly amusing.
I can also confirm, this is not going to do much beyond lightly anger most of us. We're still far more likely to be hit by a car or fall down the stairs and break our necks than see action like this happen, and those who weren't afraid last week won't be afraid next week. I've been in contact with current and former colleagues across the country, and the mood is in general just grim anger and there's an air of 'well, let's buck up and get to work...' thing going.
Politically, this won't change anything but for the better. If anything, it'll further strengthen the attitude towards peace efforts and such.
This is Norway. We are a small nation and there's not many of us... but we're hard people. Takes hell of a lot more than this to change us.
^
This, mostly. Crap like this ofthen have the effect of cementing the national relationship everyone in the affected nation has - it affects everyone, and thus everyone stands together to weather the storm, metaphorically speaking. This would likely have been the case no-matter what nation it affected. I think much like Miz here, the changes from this, if any wider changes make themselves known in time, are highly likely to be for the better.
Perhaps we will even grasp some more spine and make a higher punishment-range for especially vile criminals. 21 years in our cuddly norwegian prisons simply is not sufficent for someone who plan for years, then murder nearly a hundred people in a deliberate act of terrorism.
It is a double blade sword. It will cement national feeling and sympathety to each other, provoke a feeling of disgust and awake people sensibilities, but it can also get dangerous and lead to the opposite extremism (think to 9/11 and what followed). Which is why you are right to mention that "fortunately" it was not a stranger who did that.
As for punishement strenghts, they do not work better nor are more justified when they are longer imo.
Right-wing extremist and Christian, eh?
Quite frequent to see religious people getting into right wing extremist parties from my own experience, always for traditionnalist/conservatist reasons, while on the other hand, selfless acts and sympathy come often from spirituality, in contrast of politics and dogmas.
-
As for punishement strenghts, they do not work better nor are more justified when they are longer imo.
Punishment is an interesting thing. It generally has little to do with actually punishing the actions of the perpetrator and more to do with deterring future possible perpetrators.
Looking at a lesser offense, how is theft/destruction of property punished (in general)? Is the thief/destruction of property somehow made to repay what was stolen? Is there something that should be added to this repayment as additional discouragement? If we are unable to adequately address how to deal with lesser crimes dealing with property, how can we hope to reasonably deal with crimes involving another living person?
I do not think, we as a modern human civilization, have adequately looked at how we deal with crimes and come up with reasonable justice systems. They are all inherited from history and various changes have been made based on modern sensibilities, but we have failed to actually evaluate our systems as and decide upon a method to actually administer justice versus administering punishment as a means of deterrent.
-
This will be the 3rd incarnation of this post, the previous ones deleted due to getting far to long-winded or as a whole becoming to hard to keep track of. Pridefully enough I don't think anyone of them were offensive or disruptive of these forum rules, this version will be no different.
Firstly, to Lyn Farel.
I understand what your saying, regarding 3rd world locations and atrocities like this happening frequently. The loss of human life – and non-fatal but still feel-able suffering - is, IMHO, always tragic. But because it is, I also know how the human mind works around that. If we all felt the LASTING emotional effect of every tragedy, at least the ones we hear of and see, the effect would be considerably more severe. Paradoxically, perhaps if we did hurting one-another might not come as easily. But I degrees.
Events that take place 'far away' or to 'others' easily get filtered out of our zone of caring, with time. It is sad, and shameful, but there are understandable, logical reasons for that, and we are all victims of it. I was sad for America and Americans after 9/11. I was sad for Spain and the Spanish after that terrorist train-crashing. I was sad for Russia and Russians after that school got kidnapped and stormed after days of suffering. I was sad for Thailand and the Thai people after the tsunami. I was sad for Japan and the Japanese people after the earthquake, tsunami and reactor melt-down recently. Whenever a report arrives about a hunger catastrophe and/or constant war and suffering in Africa, it dampens my spirits and I'm struck by the reality of it all happening.
But it wasn't until this terrorist bombing/shooting hitting 'my' nation and 'my' fellow Norwegians that I truly felt... hit, by all of it. And even this feeling is waning as I type this. None of my family and friends or their family etc. were involved, afaik. In a year, I will still remember this, but that feeling will have joined ranks with all the others; they matter only when I'm actually thinking about it.
Mizhara.
I agree with your assessments and arguments in general.
Our judicial system should never be about revenge or retribution for crimes. I don't think it is, I don't want it to be. But the purpose of our judicial system is thus; they provide consequences for failure to adhere to laws, laws instated primarily for everyone's collective benefits.
No, you don't get to drive like a maniac no matter how fun it is, this is harmful to those around you and yourself. If you speed, there are fines, possibly confiscation of your license.
No, you don't get to enjoy the freedom to kill whoever you want for whatever reason. The reasons are obvious to all but the most morally and mentally challenged.
Thus I believe that the system works; but besides the 'justice' of letting the victim(s) of your actions know you are punished for your crime, besides full-filling that request for 'revenge' jail or prison also serves to isolate dangerous people from the rest. People who murder, for instance, go to join not just to 'punish' them, but to remove them as dangers to society, and perhaps, when they get out, they won't be so careless with the lives of others again.
In Norway most senior citizens die at an age of 80-100 or so. 21 years is capital punishment. A dangerous person is locked away, at most a quarter of a life-time. That's not good enough, IMHO. Purely for the effort of safeguarding the rest, there should be the option of keeping extremely dangerous people away for the rest of their time.
I have held this opinion for years and likely will for the rest of my life. I don't think that you and I will agree on the need for life-time jail sentences in our country so, I will leave this as is. I don't want to argue this, especially not here. But I don't want my opinion to be miss-understood, either. Being this hypocritical is annoying, so I'll finish with 2 paragraphs.
While I do feel the call for 'justice' or 'revenge' for this, there is little that can be done to have 'eye for an eye' actions anyhow. How do you re-pay 92 dead and thousands robbed of important people in their lives - life-changing events - with one man's death or life-long imprisonment?
You don't. You can't, because it is impossible. But does that mean we should let him walk out of a prison in 2032-2033 to do whatever he wish again? No. Neither should we let out the one's who have killed 'only' one person deliberately. I do believe that in the ultimate interest of safeguarding our society from dangers like this mass-murderer, a far more permanent solution is needed. And this is my opinion whom I don't think you will share. I can respect that, Mizhara.
Now, I'll go write about something far more enjoyable...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14265207
BBC seems to be covering it well...I can't really find the word to use to describe "good coverage" in light of the events that actually took place :(
-
The question is generally not to let the guy walk out of jail after a certain amount of time, Bloodbird. Jail is a way, like you say, to keep dangerous people out of the society. It is to my opinion an outdated system that sometimes tends to be now like a temporary measure where the criminals can start to work to "repay", or at last, to work in a good way, if there is such a system in place (which is still quite rare, most prisons are crumbling under criminals that we just put there like garbage that we don't know how to get rid of it :/). Now that death sentence starts to get abolished in a lot of countries (because it has been proofed barbaric and unefficient, at the contrary, but this is still subject to debate even nowadays), the idea is to rehabilitate the prisonner to the life in society. It is ofc not always easy but some facilities exist to that end. Then, naturally, a psycho a mentally sick criminal will obviously go in a psychiatric centre. If he is released without any control in the society after having purged his sentence, which happens a lot because they are just dropped in prisons like garbage as i said above, then its pure folly, yes.
-
One man job
-
One of the surviving young women from the island shooting said something I'd just like to share.
"If one man can hate so much, how much can't we all love, together?"
(Translated so may be slightly inaccurate, but the message is whole and intact.)
And now it's a national one minute of silence, so if you'll excuse me...
-
Apparently a comment I made here was interpreted as being possibly insulting or flamebaiting to others, I apologize for giving that impression, it was not at all my intention.
Taking any ideal or belief to extremes tends to have negative results is essentially what I was trying to say.
I agree with the above statement as well. The hatred of one man should pale in comparison to the love of many.
-
Shocking... :cry:
And religion at centre of the trouble as usual. :evil:
-
I think you're missing the broader point, that violent nutcases will be violent regardless of the medium they claim to stand behind.
-
I think you're missing the broader point, that violent nutcases will be violent regardless of the medium they claim to stand behind.
QFT
-
Shocking... :cry:
And religion at centre of the trouble as usual. :evil:
He is not a religius fanatic.
-
He is not a religius fanatic.
"Told the court that he committed the attacks in order to “save Norway and Western Europe” and accused the nation's leading Labour Party of bringing in a “mass import of Muslims.”
No, nothing to do with religion.... :bash:
Having grown up in a country with deep lying religious divide I have to disagree that religion doesn't cause problems. The Bible and Koran are full of aggressive tone and language. Christianity and Islam has a long history of war and killing innocent people.
-
More precise would be that modern/moderate religion requests acceptance and tolerance, a state in which fundamentalist groups can prosper. I wouldn't dwell on the crusades and such, since there are obviously a lots of wars without religious reasoning. What strikes me most about religion is how logical the arguments to do both atrocities and boons are when you stay into the respective belief-system.
But, well, let's get back to the topic.
I hope the norwegians won't change their liberalism and way of life due to this person. The outcry for more severe punishments and so on is understandable, but won't help to prevent such deeds. And it would just be one of the things he wanted: Change the current system.
In germany we face the instant reflex: "We totally need more [Big Brother] now, because something like this is possible here, too!" The tasteless and expected outcry from the usual suspects.
Quoted from the speaker of homeland affairs from the governing party: "The truth is that this deed was born on the internet. [...] We are agreed that we must continue to surveil the internet [...]."
-
He is not a religius fanatic.
"Told the court that he committed the attacks in order to “save Norway and Western Europe” and accused the nation's leading Labour Party of bringing in a “mass import of Muslims.”
No, nothing to do with religion.... :bash:
Having grown up in a country with deep lying religious divide I have to disagree that religion doesn't cause problems. The Bible and Koran are full of aggressive tone and language. Christianity and Islam has a long history of war and killing innocent people.
I guess that shows more about your society than ours (I am a Scandinavian too). By far the most people here who carry negative sentiments against Muslims have little to no affiliation with any kind of religion themselves.
I am noting how this tragedy is being morphed by different countries to fit their issues, though, while close, are not exactly the same. Like here in Denmark, nobody puts any merit to the guy making a note about being Christian; it is ends up being all about politics. Right versus left, like the political spectrum is one dimensional as that.
It all detracts from the primary reasons why killings happened; the guy is a clinical classified psychopath. At least, after reading his "manifest", that is what I put my money on being the conclusion. Why he ended up like that have possible roots in upbringing, difficulties in close social interactions and maybe a physical defect. Something much closer to shaping your identity than hearing a few words here and there from people not close to you. Of course, his selection of targets might possibly be slightly inspired by a talk somebody gave, but the twisting of periphery motivators into being primary is utterly disgusting and makes me fear nobody will learn anything from this.
Though, I have faith in the Norwegians; they are a good people and will overcome.
-
Today is painful. Wounds are opening again. This time we don't have any immediate crisis or immediate work that has to be done. All we have are the vulnerable spots in our armor and the memories of last year. Nothing to protect us from the anger, sorrow and pain. It's kind of good, though. It's another release. A lancing of a boil that's been festering since 22nd of July. A chance to repeat that unbelievably strong reaction from an entire country. A reaction of peace and love, to an unbelievable action of hate and murder.
A bit before eight in the morning, a white armored truck goes from Ila prison. It drives to Oslo courthouse protected by the police. Everyone going to or from work along this road the next few weeks might meet this armored white truck. The murderer on his way to court.
For the next ten weeks this'll be the norm. While the trial is going on, he will be in more contact with society than he's been since the 22nd of July last year. And for that matter, more than he'll be after it's done. The real tragedy is that he killed for this window. In his head this is a way to market a manifesto and ideology that he with absolutely no insight calls "value conservative".
We're going to have to listen to this shit until Sankt Hans. (A Norwegian summer holiday.)
Four shrinks came early. They're sentral, right in front of the judges' table. They're here to assess the real uncertain part of the case: Whether or not he's to be considered liable for his actions. The man is sick. He's yet to show even a hint or capacity for empathy with victims and their loved ones. These failings and personality disorders don't necessarily mean he's not capable of distinguishing right from wrong, though. He's liable.
He enters. As soon as the handcuffs are off, he performs his right-wing extremist salute. Right hand hits the chest before he stretches it out with a closed fist. He's gotten declarations of support in jail.
Those are the confused and aggressive sympathizers he wants to communicate with.
He doesn't recognize the court. In his world it doesn't have a legitimate right to convict him. He's not unemployed either. He's a 'writer'. His voice is flat, unaffected. Contrasts quite a bit to the contents of the charges the prosecutor is reading.
It's a story about a planned and systematic mass murder. Every one of the short descriptions of a death and cause thereof can't in any way hold the pain, grief and loss his actions have forced on the victims and those left behind. He listens to the words without visible reactions. Just a twitch of the lips once in a while. He doesn't recognize the right of the court, but he certainly feels he had the right to afflict all of these people life-long pain and sorrow.
There's no reason to believe this trial will make him understand what he's actually done. During the several hour long list of murders you realize exactly that: what may be the most painful part of this trial is his incapacity to understand. He doesn't seem to be able to understand what he does to others. His world ends at the tip of his nose.
The only real meaning to this trial is how it confirms yet again that we are a just society. Our society's values will not budge under this man's brutality. We will give him correct and right treatment by a humane justice ideology. Not in the hopes that he'll ever understand anything, but because those are the values the dead and their loved ones stood and stands for.
It's pointless to think he can understand this, but that is what gives this trial meaning.
That... and the fact that his name will be forgotten. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9fbClGAn-w&feature=related)
-
So today starts a 10-week long process that frankly, the man in question don't deserve nor respect. But your 100% right on this; It's not just for him. It's for us. I'll be interested to see how the coming days play out.
Thank you also for your long. It led me to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcaYN2BJWSM&feature=related), a documentary that I had missed the first time it rolled out. I don't watch TV, so I didn't catch it.
English text is available in it.
-
Saw an article on this this morning, really can't put into words the feeling. Today is the 5-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, which is my hometown. We didn't have the opportunity to give any sort of justice there, the shooter killed himself.
... really don't have anything to say, or perhaps just lack the words to say it.
Ugh.
-
As an inhabitant of an often unreasonably cynical country, just like to pass my comments that it's encouraging your populace can come together in solidarity and unity over such an incident. I can't really say the same for the United "ooo bloody weather/immigrants/tories" Kingdom. At least that's one thing positive that came over what happened, I suppose...
-
Seventy-seven lives, actually.
Did you consider in any way how offensive your post would be, Vikarion? Or how redundant it is?
Most of us have already considered what you say here. Some pointers are highly exaggerated, but most are annoying realities.
No, he will not be released after some 15-16 years for good behavior, or whatever. He will remain in jail for the maximum penalty, I've no doubt at all about that. 2.1 decades. Not his whole life, but it's a start.
Will he ever walk the streets again? No. The rule of law we hold dear here don't much care to let him walk free to be beaten to death by an angry mob. Our self-righteous egos would never handle something that barbaric and cruel, so he won't get the chance to die at the hands of the hate-filled mob. Not because we care for his life, not for his benefit - for our benefit.
You point out how soft our prisons are as if we are not all fully aware. Few if any will like it, (outside of the jailed themselves, of course) but that's how it is. Deal with it. We have to.
Breivik won't get to see much of his own prison on that wonderful flat-screen of his. We don't have a tendency to make shows about our prisons. Ergo, anything he sees on it will be a reminder of what he has forever lost. Anywhere he goes will not be anywhere outside his polished, gold-trimmed bars. He will be trapped in a fluffy cage, forever knowing his comforts will keep him in health to live a long, boring, uneventful and irrelevant life.
When he die in his bed it won't be in his house.
I for one don't like this. I'd love for our jails to be less... accommodating. But they are as they are, and nothing I do changes that. I'll make do with what I can. But when I think of it, this is suitable punishment. No amount of discomfort will return our dead, heal our wounds or repair the broken lives. We can't torture our fallen back to life, nor can we kill to return the joys of life. But we can flip him a finger and march on as we have, offering him a level of civilized conduct not seen many other places - like any other criminal. Kindly tell me why we should bend our own rules or break our own principles for this man? Why is he a special case?
His victims will not be forgotten anytime soon. That you can be very sure of. Nor will the events. The man himself however will fade away, quietly, his name as well as his body. 50-70 years from now the victims of the worst atrocity since WWII will endure - their actions, ideals and examples living on in the hearts and minds of the people and in the annals of the largest political party in the nation. The man behind it will hardly be spoken of with any detail at all. We don't glorify or martyr our worst offenders.
The poisonous spider and harmful bacteria has one thing in common - they are both mindless natural events. They can't help be poisonous or harmful, but they still are, so we deal with them. If we could ask the spider to go away and it was inclined to obey, we might try that. Less stains to wash away. Breivik was not a harmful bacteria. He was a man with a plan who knew exactly what he did, what it would do, and he did it anyway. He will be treated no better, and no worse, than any other dangerous human criminal. Dangerous human criminals go to jail. Dangerous poison spiders are crushed.
This IS Justice. Our justice. Odds are the near 5-million people in this nation has over 5 million ideas for a more elaborate or fitting punishment but it won't do. The man is not special, or in any way an exception. He is merely a mass-murderer, and those go to jail. We will all deal with it however we want, however we can. Because while you believe in and perhaps want a darwinian world, we want something better and more civilized. That includes cuddling our prisoners to death.
*EDIT* [Clarification] This was a reply to a post that's now banned. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3185.0)
I do wonder for a bit (and await) the removal of this reply as well, I think. Should likely have reported the post not responded, but I felt like addressing the concerns stated, even if delivery could have been so much better...
-
I was going to respond to Vikarion, but I'm frankly too disgusted. It's like hearing the killer and the rest of his right-wing extremist buddies.
Do you have even the slightest idea how badly you are spitting on the values and views of the very people who died at his hands?
EDIT: The post this post refers to is no longer around.
-
I think he knows. That's the most offensive part, honestly.
The rest are essentially frustrations with the system and as such are in many ways understandable. However, he tone and manner of addressing the issues, could be far better.
-
Imprisonment is a punishment on a mans freedom of movement. With associated limitations to other freedoms as is needed to enforce the punishment.
Nordic countries have one of the best rates of rehabilitation of criminals. Lowest numbers of repeat offenders. This is because of the 'cuddling' and due to an understanding that torturing people for x years and then releasing them to society when their sentence is done hurts society a lot more.
Value of societys laws and convictions is not measured in how it treats those it likes. It is measured in how we treat those we hate.
Norway and norwegians are showing us that they measure up as a civilized society very well. I can only hope that us in Finland will never be measured in this manner and that if we are we will be able to measure up as well.
-
The only real meaning to this trial is how it confirms yet again that we are a just society. Our society's values will not budge under this man's brutality. We will give him correct and right treatment by a humane justice ideology. Not in the hopes that he'll ever understand anything, but because those are the values the dead and their loved ones stood and stands for.
This is, in my opinion, the key part. The tricky thing about ideals is sticking with them even when it hurts. The 'soft' norwegian prisons are there for a reason, and overthrowing that concept in the face of one inconceivably misguided deed would be a shame, since that approach does not seem to be wrong - with norway having a very low rate of crime, especially violent crime.
Besides, even if he gets the 21 year sentence ( and not a spot in a mental ward ) and walks free afterwards - you can bet that his life won't be easier.
-
What may or may not work in 'MURICA will work everywhere else, I'm sure.
You do realize that the United States of America has more than 50 justice systems each with their own nuances to them and that in cases like this the guilty may receive anywhere from a life sentance, to several, to the death penalty
-
What may or may not work in 'MURICA will work everywhere else, I'm sure.
You do realize that the United States of America has more than 50 justice systems each with their own nuances to them and that in cases like this the guilty may receive anywhere from a life sentance, to several, to the death penalty
That was in response to Vikarion's post, which is no longer present.
-
I didn't remove your post because it's a good point whether it was in response to moderated content or not. So is orange's response to you, for that matter.
Individual cultures and societies determine what is "justice" for them. What is just to one group is not necessarily so to another, and it's important to remember and respect that.
I don't personally think that coddling criminals is the best way to rehabilitate them (prison should be a punishment, it shouldn't be a more comfortable life than what a free citizen has, etc. - not going to get into it in detail), but if it works for Norway, good for them. At least their system works. I can't really say the same for our own.
-
"Coddling criminals" is putting it a bit extreme, in my opinion. Breivik's deed is extreme beyond the measure a justice system usually deals with, but even then I highly suspect he won't get into the most comfiest prison the country has available, which will still be treating him like a human being and not an animal, but these are the idealistic differences and, as I've said above, these are tough to deal with in these circumstances.
On the other hand, I highly doubt Breivik will find much companionship with his fellow inmates, even more so in a society that doesn't treat criminals like the most devious outcasts.
-
It's worthwhile to note that not only will he be serving the 21 years maximum sentence, but Norway also has a legal principle that I forget the exact name of, that essentially means when those 21 years are up, he will go up for review. If he is found to still present a danger, or still be unremorseful of his crime, he will go to jail for another 5 years. After those 5 years are up, another review. Another 5 years.
Unless he actually does reform, he will likely never get out of jail, and they will have done it without making him a martyr for other extremist elements in the country. They will just have effectively shut him up, made him irrelevant, and kept him away from the people who could do him harm.
Seems like a good deal to me.
-
It's called forvaring, or "containment." See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway). Notably, it'd mean his case would begin coming up for review after only ten years. I'd say it's unlikely he'll no longer be considered a danger to society in any length of time, barring miraculous recovery or new treatments for whatever mis-wiring he's got, though.
-
By the time he's let out he'll be a frail and feeble old man who's unable to hold his own piss till he can reach a toilet. He'll be a threat to noone and isolated by how society has long moved on and left him behind.
-
This guy...he's like putting up a fist in a defiant salute...he actually resembles an Internet armchair politician, who becomes so disconnected from society reality that he thinks "Oh, look what I'm doing, I'm making a proper political statement through all of this. People will actually begin to doubt Norwegian/Western society and see the TRUTH!!!!1"
No. No you're not.
You're just coming across as insane.
-
I don't think he's coming off as insane. I think it'd be far, far more comforting if he came off as insane.
He comes off as someone far worse than a madman; a man of faith and conviction and cemented beliefs. We're lucky this guy blew his cork early and only wasted 70 people; if he was patient, and stuck to rousing oratory, I'm sure his clean-cut looks would've got him into politics or authority of some sort. Instead, he merely became a hero to the copycats who will follow in his footsteps.
He's not insane. He is just completely irredeemably evil. The hallmark of true evil is always the belief that you are doing good.
-
I don't think he's coming off as insane. I think it'd be far, far more comforting if he came off as insane.
He comes off as someone far worse than a madman; a man of faith and conviction and cemented beliefs. We're lucky this guy blew his cork early and only wasted 70 people; if he was patient, and stuck to rousing oratory, I'm sure his clean-cut looks would've got him into politics or authority of some sort. Instead, he merely became a hero to the copycats who will follow in his footsteps.
He's not insane. He is just completely irredeemably evil. The hallmark of true evil is always the belief that you are doing good.
This. People with ideals but no principles are the most dangerous kind of people out there.
-
Well, he did try to go into politics/authority. He failed, badly. Still images give him a wholly different appearance than when he's actually shown trying to talk or whatever. He's far too clumsy as a public speaker and he has absolutely no charisma. He's not very good at anything, really. Or so it seems.
As for looks, replacing a jawline with a beard like that... that's not clean-cut. That's just so very sad.
On the insanity question, he does come off as quite... off. His narcissistic personality disorder becomes more and more clear every time he speaks (and better yet, gets interrupted or asked something that doesn't quite fit in with his insane version of the world) and there's quite a few other symptoms of mental disorders showing. None of them takes away his responsibility for his actions, yet.
-
I don't think he's coming off as insane. I think it'd be far, far more comforting if he came off as insane.
He comes off as someone far worse than a madman; a man of faith and conviction and cemented beliefs. We're lucky this guy blew his cork early and only wasted 70 people; if he was patient, and stuck to rousing oratory, I'm sure his clean-cut looks would've got him into politics or authority of some sort. Instead, he merely became a hero to the copycats who will follow in his footsteps.
He's not insane. He is just completely irredeemably evil. The hallmark of true evil is always the belief that you are doing good.
That sounds awfully close to the definition of "psychopathic".
"Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[25]) was not used as the official term but referred to a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal."
You could argue that the term is merely a clinical term for "completely irredeemably evil" that doctors use to try and categorize someone who exhibits that sort of behavior. But at the end of the day in every mental health catalogue on the planet you'll find psycopathy and sociopathy and both are closely related and could potentially be applied in this case. I'm not a doctor, and I don't profess to be any sort of expert on this stuff, and from what little I've read even the doctors that have interacted with him can't agree, so this is really just pissing in the wind. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that anyone is capable of what he did without being mentally ill in some fashion.
-
But I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that anyone is capable of what he did without being mentally ill in some fashion.
Agreed. The question for the court to decide will be whether his particular case of fucked-in-the-head-ness is sufficient to absolve him of responsibility for his actions.
Although I wonder how we would view the 9/11 hijackers, had they appeared in court. They were at least as certain that what they were doing was right - but the possibility that a terrorist may be insane isn't one that's often considered. ...
... shit, now I'm actually curious. What is it about this guy (the fact that he acted alone, wrote a monster manifesto, isn't particularly charismatic) that we look at him as a possible psycho, while we look at someone like Bin Laden (lead a large organization, highly educated and charismatic) and never think that he might be mentally ill.
-
Religion.
-
The funny thing about this case is that everyone agrees he did it. He's not claiming that he's not guilty. He's claiming that he had a calm and rational reason for doing it.
The prosecution, in this case, is trying to say 'First, no you didn't, and second, you are suffering from narcissitic personality disorder and are sick. We want to help you.'
He is desperately trying to make sure he is declared sane so that his crimes can mean something, while the prosecution is saying he is sick, and needs help.
Quite a reversal from how this normally goes.
-
A harsher punishment theoretically makes it easier to portray himself as a martyr for whatever cause he thinks he's serving - so he probably is operating on the assumption that if he can be declared sane, that the sentencing will be more likely to serve that end.
Not exactly a bad plan, if that's the intent. I just don't think it's likely to work. We'll find out I guess. :S
-
A harsher punishment theoretically makes it easier to portray himself as a martyr for whatever cause he thinks he's serving - so he probably is operating on the assumption that if he can be declared sane, that the sentencing will be more likely to serve that end.
Not exactly a bad plan, if that's the intent. I just don't think it's likely to work. We'll find out I guess. :S
Actually, beind declared sane and judged as such is the lighter conviction, with a date for possible release (albeit a far one) and admission to the fact his logic for the deed was rational.
If judged insane and directed to mental asylum. It
1. Makes him just another nutjob with a nutty agenda.
2. He will not be released untill treating psychiatrist is willing to say he is no longer a threat to society.
-
That seems kinda counter-intuitive... not sure I see the logic there, but I'm probably colored by our legal system. :s
How does that work?
-
That seems kinda counter-intuitive... not sure I see the logic there, but I'm probably colored by our legal system. :s
How does that work?
You can't be a political martyr jailed for his beliefs if you aren't jailed and instead put down as a rambling lunatic who people should understand is very unwell and unable to think clearly.
People will follow a revolutionist, not a crazy guy who bounces off the padded walls in a strait jacket.
-
... Right, which is what I said. I was asking why being judged sane would result in a lighter punishment.
-
It wouldn't. He's misunderstanding the way it works. If he's sane, he'll be convicted and sentenced to "forvaring" which is basically just being locked up until he's judged fit for release. It's basically ten years first, then a new checkup and extending it five years at a time until he's either "better" or dead. If he's not considered liable for his actions, it'll be the exact same result except it'll be called something different.
Normally, it'd actually have a practical difference, but this is kind of a special case. Which of the two he's sentenced to is mostly a matter of definitions and legitimization of his actions. The fact is, this trial barely even involves him, to be honest. It's about us as a society and how we deal with monsters rather than about the monster itself.
-
Ah. Makes more sense now. Thanks.
Pleas of insanity over here (successful ones anyway) often lead to somewhat lighter sentencing, which is why I was so confused. /o\
-
That is the general idea over here too. If you're insane (we don't use the term insane, our word "utilregnelig" roughly translates to "not liable for your actions") you'll usually face less 'punishment' and more 'treatment for your illness' but you'll still be removed from society until you're no longer a threat to it. In this case, it'll probably end the same way no matter what (his actions aren't in doubt, nor is his guilt), it's just a matter of what the case documents will say when all is said and done.
The one thing we know they'll say is that he's treated exactly as he has a right to.
-
If he is convicted as sane, the punishment is that of limited freedom.
If he is deemed not liable for his actions, well there goes a lot more rights than just freedom of movement. How it stands in Norway I am not sure but I seriously doubt he will be allowed to run his finances for one?
-
If he's found not liable for reasons of insanity, I'd be very surprised if he wasn't institutionalized and quite unable to own anything that's not small and made out of soft cloth for a good, long while.
-
If he is convicted as insane - likely the case as I see it - he won't be allowed to do jack-shit that most citizens do - freedom of movement, personal finances, living in his own home and so on and so forth. He will be under treatment until deemed safe for return to society. That part is likely never to happen. Odds are he will either he in forvaring or under treatment until his natural life ends. By all accounts the latter would be worse for him, for reasons already detailed.
As I see it it's impossible to martyr him in any way based on these two options. Either he's deemed a dangerous criminal and locked up - theoretically forever - or he's deemed to be mentally unable to walk the streets again. Either of these cases pushes him into irrelevance as a jailed criminal or a mental case under strict, civilized care.
It's more than I think he deserves, but I can't have my cake AND eat it too.
-
I haven't misunderstood it at all. A verdict of insanity is more of a defeat to Brevik than a guilty plea.
A guilty plea makes him a political prisoner of far right extremist policies, a man being locked up from the world for what he believes in, and an icon for other people of his way of thinking to hold in reverence. Not that I agree with them in any fucking way possible, but he'd be locked up by the system for his beliefs.
Having him declared insane reduces everything he believes in to just being delusional ramblings of an unhealthy mind that needs help. No one will use that as a symbol to rally behind and the extremist right lose a potential icon, and everything Brevik wants to pass across as a message is ignored as insane delusions. That's a greater defeat for him.
Also as someone who's visited family on mental wards in hospitals (purely because it the best place to recover from the mental health effects of a stroke) spending life in an institute like that will destroy the man in a way prison never can. A verdict of insanity is by far the more harsh and devastating result for Brevik, and he knows it.
That's why he's trying to prove his sanity.
-
Well, they ended up declaring him sane. He's got the maximum sentence, of course, but Im already seeing the awful comments starting to crop up on the comment sections of national newspapers here in Canada. You know, the standard "Ha ha, Liberals just sent him to a
resort prison, and we need to start kicking mooselims out of the country" sort of shit.
-
mooselims
You wacky canadian. :cube:
Stupid comments in the comment section? You don't say? It's just the internet being consistent.
Personally I accept the sentence. It's a pickle, though. You declare him insane, he'll stay under lock and key probably much longer. You declare him sane, you fulfill him his wish but also acknowledge that people are indeed capable of such atrocities, and it wasn't 'an unfortunate accident'.
At the end of the day we should deliver judgement based on facts and the law, and not based on what we want to achieve, no?
-
Oh, there are good arguments to be made on both sides. Everyone involved knew Brevik was never going to be free again. Even with this prison sentence he will serve his 21 years and then continually get Forvaringed.
He wanted to be sent to prison because he felt that it would validate his reasonings. "No, he wasn't insane. His methods were uncouth but there is a muslim problem and it is caused by liberals!"
Not that most people are going to see it that way, of course. This ruling could mean that they have acknowledged "He wasn't insane, and we need to counter this with proper education. Kill the ignorance, and you kill the reason for the crime to have happened."
The danger is that, in the meantime, there ARE people who agree with him, even if they are not (were not?) the sorts to go shoot up a camp full of liberals.
-
And I don't think that these people are more likely to get radical now, that it was decided that Breivik commited a murder while being legally sane. If they agree with this ideology they won't sit down and believe that it is true what the 'ideological enemy' decides in court.
Cue the conspiracy shuffle.
In a similar light, I'd hate it if the remants of the NSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground) would get away with insanity. It doesn't change much for the culprit(s), but it does make it clear that these deeds were bred on extremist right wing territory that is really there, and not out of thin air.
-
I'm personally relieved that he was declared to be liable for his actions, even though that's clearly what he wanted. I'd much rather see him become a martyr figure to a tiny minority of idiots who're going to be socially and politically ostracized for voicing those opinions anyway, than to see any political ideology, no matter how extreme, be treated as a mental disorder in our courts. Because THAT is a slippery slope, and Norway already has a bit of shady history in that regard.
Don't misunderstand me, I feel privileged to be a Norwegian, and I'm proud of a lot of things about my country - but I'm honestly uncomfortable with the fact that we have a court system that has the right to take away people's ownership of their own actions in the first place. Sane or insane, if you don't own your actions, what do you own? Not being held responsible for what I do would feel the same to me as not being acknowledged as a person, but just as a thing. If I were ever tried in court for something, and ended up being declared not liable for my own actions, that would feel like stepping into something imagined by Kafka.
-
I'm still irked that he gets a pleasant place to live. I'm not much of a fan of capital punishment, but mostly because I think it lets some people off too easily. I would really like to see this particular bit of scum rot in a soundproofed isolation cell for the rest of his life.
-
The difference between the punitive system in Nordic countries and most of the world is that no matter what the case is the person being punished should be rehabilitated and returned back into the society as a productive member.
In the case of Breivik I doubt that it is possible, but I guess here the exception makes the rule.
If you do not even try with the 'worst' then what is the point anyway.
I think that is the measure of a civilized society and I take my hat off for Norway in that respect.
-
I think that is the measure of a civilized society and I take my hat off for Norway in that respect.
Same. Even if we have lifetime punishments here they are always released after 25-35 years.
-
I like the decision. Well done for Norway.
-
I think that is the measure of a civilized society and I take my hat off for Norway in that respect.
Same. Even if we have lifetime punishments here they are always released after 25-35 years.
Last time I said something about this, it was moddable and got modded. So I'll simply say that I disagree with kindness to those who do evil being either a civilizing attribute or a desirable one. I think a fundamental pillar of human justice is the ideal of doing evil to evil.
-
So he'll get out in a few decades, big whoop. It's not like he's gonna launch a second murder spree the moment he gets out.
There are 77 families in Norway with a very vested interest in shooting Breivik dead the moment he's outside his prison walls. If anything, those walls are the only thing keeping him safe.
77 families worth of possibly creative people who have plenty of time to plan something.
I'd start a dead pool bet early.
-
The 21 years will expire, and then be reviewed, and then he'll go in again probably.
Knowing Breivik, he would have absolutely loved it if the Norwegian government broke their own established law just to punish him a little harder. The fact they didn't bend over for his crime is a sign of a commendable justice system.
-
So he'll get out in a few decades, big whoop. It's not like he's gonna launch a second murder spree the moment he gets out.
A few to a bunch. His current sentence means he'll be in prison until he's "no longer deemed a danger to society." Their penal system is famously lenient, but I'd be vaguely surprised if this one got out before he's an old, old man, or advances in neuroscience let us treat whatever major malfunction made him capable of shooting sixty-odd teenagers in cold blood.
There are 77 families in Norway with a very vested interest in shooting Breivik dead the moment he's outside his prison walls. If anything, those walls are the only thing keeping him safe.
77 families worth of possibly creative people who have plenty of time to plan something.
I'd start a dead pool bet early.
Doubly early. Norwegian prisions aren't exactly Shank Central, but..