Thread: Breivik gives Nazi salute in court challenge jail isolation

Despite the humane and civilised bias in the Norwegian penal code, I think it is fairly widely acknowledged that if this man were to be released after the maximum time served, 21 years or so, he would not survive a week in Norway.

The man is a walking cadaver doomed to a living hell in isolation for the rest of his natural life. Death will be his only release and in truth it would have been a kindness to have put a bullet through his brain on conviction.

Try to imagine what it would be like to live in that cell for 40 years without any human contact. Personally, I think it was fairly evident the man was insane and should have been detained without limit in a secure mental institution free to associate with all the other homicidal lunatics for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Personally, I think it was fairly evident the man was insane and should have been detained without limit in a secure mental institution free to associate with all the other homicidal lunatics for the rest of his life.

Yeah, but Texas didn't want him and anyway they wouldn't guarantee not to give him up in a prisoner swap for the next right-wing fanatical lunatic looking for a friendly place to call home.

The guys got rights under Norwegian law, these same stupid laws kept criminals from deportation, extradition to places like the USA etc.

He got 21 years, that's it, to say they can keep him in longer is covering up the lenient laws.
After 21 years, it's up to the state to prove he is still a danger to society [yearly] shrinks and do gooders will be lined up for miles to say he has reformed, found god or taken up painting.

These type of high profile prisoners will get free legal backing for any thing they can take to court, including EU courts and tribunals.
Never ending front page and TV news and never any closer for the families, or society in general.

The death penalty in such cases, puts the incident into the history books, not current affairs.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

The guys got rights under Norwegian law, these same stupid laws kept criminals from deportation, extradition to places like the USA etc.

Bit of a non-sequitur.

Why are western folk so squeamish about the idea of revenge?

Revenge is a naturally evolved emotion.

The emotion of revenge is one of nature's social insurance policies for higher thinking animals. Someone thinking of harming another person knows that that person will remember them and will likely seek revenge if they are harmed. That makes the 1st person less likely to commit the harmful act.

In modern society we delegate the act of vengeance to the state so that payback is doled out in an even handed and fair manner. But that does not mean we don't reasonably thirst for revenge when we are wronged. The state has to mete out the act of vengeance and be seen to be doing so so that justice is served. Justice and revenge are not mutually exclusive concepts as some people on this thread seem to be suggesting. They are closely intertwined. If justice is not served and the desire for revenge not quenched then that contributes to disorder in society from victims who feel that the judicial arm of the machinery of state is not performing its function adequately.

A quiet and surgically efficient execution would be a perfectly fair outcome for someone like Breivik who, the medical profession has determined, is not insane and has committed mass murder on a horrific scale and shows no remorse and revels in the attention his acts bring him.

Allowing him to bring frivolous legal actions so his face is all over the media time and time again is an outrageous insult to add to the injury already suffered by the victim's families.

Well then Loopy, next time someone wrongs you be sure and exact a measure of revenge on them.

Let me know how it works out for you.

Originally Posted by Looper

Revenge is a naturally evolved emotion.

Revenge is not an emotion, it is a course of action which one may choose to take or not.

^^I will not be seeking revenge directly.

Delegating the powers to exact revenge to the state has some great benefits.

The primary benefit is that humans are very poorly skilled at making objective judgement about the appropriate measure of revenge when they are personally involved in the conflict as either aggressor or victim.

Most people have a very warped perspective of the degree of guilt that they versus others respectively hold in a conflict situation.

People tend to rationalise their own actions as reasonable and they tend to frame their adversary's actions as less reasonable than an objective observer would make them.

That is one reason why delegating the power of revenge to the state is a great step forward. The state is much better placed to take a disinterested view of the actions of the antagonists.

Delegating acts of revenge to the state has a second major advantage. When the state exacts revenge in lieu of the affronted party in the conflict then there is much less scope for a counter-retaliation by the allies of the convicted wrongdoer. Conversely when revenge is exacted directly by the injured party it is very likely that allies of the party against whom retaliation was brought will in turn seek counter retaliation and so on. If instead the state takes the revenge then the situation will much more likely be defused, at an end and consigned to history.

But all this delegation to the state of exacting of revenge does not mean that justice is not revenge. Justice most certainly is revenge. Justice is revenge exacted in an indirect manner by proxy.

Good gawd man, what a load of bollocks.

Take a jurisprudence course. That'll be revenge enough for having read that tripe.

I have no legal education of any kind. I only have an amateur interest in the anthropological nature of the human social condition and the above post represents my own thoughts on the relationship between primitive revenge and modern justice.

If you or anybody wants to challenge these ideas I am interested to hear a counter argument.

Originally Posted by Looper

I have no legal education of any kind.

I had assumed as much.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Despite the humane and civilised bias in the Norwegian penal code, I think it is fairly widely acknowledged that if this man were to be released after the maximum time served, 21 years or so, he would not survive a week in Norway.

The man is a walking cadaver doomed to a living hell in isolation for the rest of his natural life. Death will be his only release and in truth it would have been a kindness to have put a bullet through his brain on conviction.

Try to imagine what it would be like to live in that cell for 40 years without any human contact. Personally, I think it was fairly evident the man was insane and should have been detained without limit in a secure mental institution free to associate with all the other homicidal lunatics for the rest of his life.

Why bother with all that unnecessary public expense?

Just off 'im and be done with it.
Needn't be existing in human society of any capacity.

So is mercy.

exactly what sort of mercy do you envisage for the man who has shot and killed 77 kids?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

Revenge is a naturally evolved human emotion.

So is mercy.
We can build a civilization on that. Revenge is destruction for the sake of destruction, just like capital punishment, which solves nothing and only creates more death. In short, ending capital punishment is not to spare the guilty but to preserve civilized society--one of the responsibilities of that delegated power you want to do your killing for you.

Yes, I am proposing delegating the power of just and fair execution to the state so it can be done in a civilised, painless manner. That is progress. That is my definition of mercy.

What would happen if Breivik had been locked in a large room with the parents of the 77 murdered kids the day after the event?

He would have been torn limb from socket and suffered a brutal but probably quick death. If that had been allowed to happen what would your response to that be? I would think it was a job well done and just revenge if a little gory.

Lets get one thing straight before proceeding any further. Does Anders Breivik deserve to die for his crimes? The answer is an unequivocal yes. The question is only how should that death be brought about.

Since we are no longer barbarians I would propose that his death be administered painlessly using drugs and that history chalk it up to experience and move on.

His being allowed to parade his preposterous 'grievances' about the (reasonably comfortable) conditions of his incarceration on the front pages of news papers for the families of his victims is beyond obscene. It is a tragic picture of a judicial system that has utterly lost its way. It is an abomination to the memories of the victims. This man should be executed. That is justice. Measured revenge carried out by a disinterested machine of state is justice.

His being allowed to continue to live and study and enjoy his existence and ponder and enjoy his recollections of his hideous crimes which no doubt he does is a travesty.

Originally Posted by Looper

What would happen if Breivik had been locked in a large room with the parents of the 77 murdered kids the day after the event?

Irrellevant.

Originally Posted by Looper

He would have been torn limb from socket and suffered a brutal but probably quick death. If that had been allowed to happen what would your response to that be? I would think it was a job well done and just revenge if a little gory.

You miss the point. Getting revenge rocks off does nothing for Justice.

Originally Posted by Looper

Lets get one thing straight before proceeding any further. Does Anders Breivik deserve to die for his crimes? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Thank you, Master of the Universe,

Originally Posted by Looper

Since we are no longer barbarians I would propose that his death be administered painlessly using drugs and that history chalk it up to experience and move on.

I know that you don't see the irony in that, which is sad.

Originally Posted by MrG

Irrellevant.

The context of the discussion is the nature of the relationship between revenge and justice so it is not irrelevant. The parents would have torn him limb from socket and nobody would have blamed them because it would have been just revenge. Instead we are civilised so we delegate responsibility for revenge to the state. But the state in turn has to deliver something tangible and the state is not delivering. This is the problem.

Originally Posted by MrG

You miss the point. Getting revenge rocks off does nothing for Justice.

We are discussing the relationship between revenge and justice which I assert are very closely related and have explained why I think so; so can you expand on your assertion that there is no connection?

Originally Posted by MrG

I know that you don't see the irony in that, which is sad.

There is no irony. Barabarism would be tearing him to pieces on live television using wild horses. We are civilised so we can do it quietly using a lethal injection.

Originally Posted by Looper

We are civilised so we can do it quietly using a lethal injection.

Originally Posted by Looper

The context of the discussion is the nature of the relationship between revenge and justice so it is not irrelevant. The parents would have torn him limb from socket and nobody would have blamed them because it would have been just revenge. Instead we are civilised so we delegate responsibility for revenge to the state. But the state in turn has to deliver something tangible and the state is not delivering. This is the problem.

No, that is not the problem.
The problem is that it is not the State's responsibility to deal with it's own worst criminals better than it's own worst criminals.

Originally Posted by Looper

We are discussing the relationship between revenge and justice

We are. Since when did justice become revenge?

Originally Posted by Looper

We are civilised so we can do it quietly using a lethal injection.

Again, civilized killing. Irony alert (I knew you couldn't see it).

Originally Posted by MrG

No, that is not the problem. The problem is that it is not the State's responsibility to deal with it's own worst criminals better than it's own worst criminals.

???

Quietly putting this animal to sleep is a civilised and just outcome.

Originally Posted by MrG

We are. Since when did justice become revenge?

That is what we are discussing. Pre-state revenge had its short-comings.

1. The person seeking revenge was unlikely to be proportionate in their measures as they are biased by being a concerned party. They may also be concerned with inflicting a large enough measure to make retaliation impossible due to the level of injury. Letting the state exercise the revenge is likely to result in a more proportionate act of revenge.

2. Letting the state take revenge also means that counter-revenge measures are much less likely as the vengeance was not exacted directly by the aggrieved party from the initial conflict but instead was exacted by the state proxy.

Revenge is a healthy normal human emotion. The 2nd testament Christian rhetoric about turning the other cheek was interesting and original for its time. I suspect it was seen as an interesting alternative approach to revenge precisely because of the problems listed in points 1 and 2. I also suspect it has infected western views on justice and revenge so that we have been effectively taught that revenge is morally wrong.

But revenge is not morally wrong. It is just that extracting revenge has practical problems as outlined in points 1 and 2. Delegating vengeance to the machinery of state effectively solves these 2 problems and so revenge becomes a practically realisable and relatively low risk proposition again for the aggrieved party in a conflict.

Originally Posted by MrG

Again, civilized killing. Irony alert (I knew you couldn't see it).

I don't see anything morally wrong with quietly and painlessly extinguishing an unrepentant consciousness which would otherwise be revelling in pleasure at the memories of its morally despicable and socially outrageous acts. Knowing that the consciousness had been snuffed out would be a comfort to the victims and their families I believe, even if they feel cowed to admit such a thought in the face of repressed western views on the morality of revenge.

1. The person seeking revenge was unlikely to be proportionate in their measures as they are biased by being a concerned party. They may also be concerned with inflicting a large enough measure to make retaliation impossible due to the level of injury. Letting the state exercise the revenge is likely to result in a more proportionate act of revenge.

2. Letting the state take revenge also means that counter-revenge measures are much less likely as the vengeance was not extracted directly by the aggrieved party from the initial conflict.

This reads like your still making disproportionate allowance for mercy, which has no place in revenge justice. While I agree that revenge justice needs to be a well measured response decided by the state, not a barbaric tribal or personal one, I'd say Looper is not giving all the weight to the notions of revenge and determent they deserve:

Why should only Breivic himself be executed, would that really avenge the deaths of 77 innocents? Why without pain, did his victims and their relatives not experience any pain?
His family friends and fellow Neo-nazis should be killed in equal numbers. Innocent, you say? Well, his victims were also innocent.

Justice should also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.
As long as the terrorists know only they themselves will be punished/executed, there is little deterrent. If they know their friends and family will also be punished, that's a different matter. Parents would be more concerned about their childrens' education to keep them away from trouble, it would be a win-win situation for all if crimes were revenged in fair, equal measure.


A thief who is only imprisoned for a short time, will most likely steal again. We don't want barbaric revenge like lynching them in the street, as is done in some uncivilised places past and present. It is mercyful not to chop off the entire hand of a thief - that would be barbarism - just one finger every time they're getting caught, that way there is a permanent reminder for him and a warning for unsuspecting shopowners, for example.

Originally Posted by Looper

Quietly putting this animal to sleep is a civilised and just outcome.

We're not talking about animals, idiot. We eat animals; is it OK to eat humans.
Think.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't see anything morally wrong with quietly and painlessly extinguishing an unrepentant consciousness which would otherwise be revelling in pleasure at the memories of its morally despicable and socially outrageous acts.

I know you don't see anything wrong with it. Neither do murders. As far as unrepentant consciousness goes, what if the person repented?

Originally Posted by Looper

Revenge is a healthy normal human emotion. The 2nd testament Christian rhetoric about turning the other cheek was interesting and original for its time. I suspect it was seen as an interesting alternative approach to revenge precisely because of the problems listed in points 1 and 2. I also suspect it has infected western views on justice and revenge so that we have been effectively taught that revenge is morally wrong.

But revenge killing is morally right as long as it serves revenge lust. Your moral argument is twisted in knots now.

Originally Posted by stroller

Justice should also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.

Agreed, and there is no evidence that Capital Punishment deters.

Originally Posted by stroller

This reads like your still making disproportionate allowance for mercy, which has no place in revenge justice.

Revenge justice is not a special brand of justice. It is an under-considered aspect of holistic justice.

Originally Posted by stroller

Justice should also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.

Yes justice serves many functions including:-

1. Deterrence of the offender from re-offending by suffering through punishment (imprisonment or fine)
2. Deterrence of others from offending by exemplary punishment (imprisonment or fine)
3. Rehabilitation of the offender (education and therapy)
4. Containment and mitigation of risk by physical containment of a dangerous offender (prison)
5. Study of the offender to gain understanding of the psychology behind the offending for future mitigation (academic study)
6. Victim Revenge - Giving the victim and their family a sense of justice through seeing the suffering of the offender as retaliation for their suffering
7. Societal Revenge - Letting society see that the offender who breaks the rules that everyone has democratically agreed to live by and legally enforced is made to suffer accordingly so that his net benefit is zero or negative

Not all of these functions apply to every instance of judicial action but many of them apply to many judicial actions.

The problem as I see it is that the last 2 points are seen as somehow embarrassing and not to be discussed in civilised company. I think this embarrassment obscures an important aspect of what the machinery of justice is all about. Revenge is not morally wrong. Jesus lived in a world where state justice was not easily available in any practical way to the common folk so his radical philosophy of turning the other cheek seemed an interesting new way of dealing with an age old intractable problem, that of exacting justice in a reliable and measured way. This philosophy has infected our view of the notion of revenge so that it is seen as morally unworthy. I believe this is a warped and unfair perspective. Revenge is a good and healthy emotion to feel when we are wronged. Seeking judicial retaliation is morally sound.

Originally Posted by stroller

It is mercyful not to chop off the entire hand of a thief - that would be barbarism - just one finger every time they're getting caught, that way there is a permanent reminder for him and a warning for unsuspecting shopowners, for example.

ld also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.[/QUOTE]

I guess you are being humorous?

Originally Posted by MrG

As far as unrepentant consciousness goes, what if the person repented?

Well that would go some way to getting their neck out of the noose but Breivik has not repented and is sane.

Originally Posted by MrG

But revenge killing is morally right as long as it serves revenge lust. Your moral argument is twisted in knots now.

Yes revenge killing can be morally right in extreme cases like Breivik but it is best if it is carried out by the state.

Originally Posted by MrG

Agreed, and there is no evidence that Capital Punishment deters.

Horses' cobblers. If someone knows they will be strung up and it will be done quickly that is a stone-wall deterrent. Please don't bore us with your tedious statistical studies showing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Looper

ld also serve to deter future criminals from committing crimes.

I guess you are being humorous?[/QUOTE]

I guess you are not up on current research (some going back two or three decades).
Here's some relatively current stuff.

National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report

A report, released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide.

Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center