Thread: Breivik gives Nazi salute in court challenge jail isolation

Originally Posted by hazz

the prisoner has not been sentenced to 21 years, it has been sentenced to "preventive detention", that is an initial 21 year sentence which can be repeated extended in unto 5 year chunks until the it is dead... if the it is seen to still pose a danger to the community.

Did not know about that. Thanks.

Originally Posted by hazz

This omission allows the discourse to be framed in a way to support the death penalty.

Not surprising considering the source.

He's a dab hand at hosing down little kids with gun fire, but you'd fancy your chances in a cell with Breivik. Bluffing Kunt who strikes me as being a complete Fanny under all that Knight of the Templar Bullshit.

Originally Posted by MrG

I agree that revenge is personal, as in a personal emotion. Societal revenge, to be justice, should work in the constraints of reasonable norms.

I am still not clear on whether you agree or not that the modern justice system serves (among its many other functions) as a state-controlled instrument for revenge between an aggrieved party and an aggressor?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by MrG

I agree that revenge is personal, as in a personal emotion. Societal revenge, to be justice, should work in the constraints of reasonable norms.

I am still not clear on whether you agree or not that the modern justice system serves (among its many other functions) as a state-controlled instrument for revenge between an aggrieved party and an aggressor?

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by MrG

I agree that revenge is personal, as in a personal emotion. Societal revenge, to be justice, should work in the constraints of reasonable norms.

I am still not clear on whether you agree or not that the modern justice system serves (among its many other functions) as a state-controlled instrument for revenge between an aggrieved party and an aggressor?

No, I don't.

Well do you think the desire for revenge when you have been wronged is a flaw or weakness in human character or do you think it is something that is natural and healthy?

I am curious about the Christian idea of turning the other cheek. I do not see that this is a particularly useful strategy and I think the idea has served to imbue the notion of revenge with a kind of moral unworthiness in western culture.

Originally Posted by Dapper

Where's your fucking tool?

Hazz, still waiting on the MAL370 computer simulation, now you are an expert on Norwegian law.
Norway has laws that say, this prat could be on weekend leave after 1/3 of his sentence.
Would you like to post of any other murderer that has done more then the 21 years in Norway.

Open to the other PC correct posters to tell me different, but they can't, laws the law and this shit head will walk, after his time is done.,

Well I think there are 2 separate issues here.

Revenge: what is its nature; what is the morality of revenge; does modern judicial process involve the state acting as a proxy agent for revenge

Death Penalty: the age old time worn arguments around pros and cons of the death penalty

I am not so much interested in the death penalty arguments as they have been done to to death ( ) already.

I am more interested in the basic idea of revenge (not specifically w.r.t. death penalty but in general) and whether it is a healthy and natural urge which should be supported by legal process or whether it is a morally outdated urge which should be risen above as Jesus urges us.

I think revenge is mostly a healthy and normal emotional urge.

I think seeking revenge directly was a natural urge for several reasons

1. when we are wronged we get angry and anger drives us to avenge the wrong
2. if we don't react then we may be seen as weak and other self-interested parties may be emboldened to wrong us
3. harming those who harm others yields a sense of justice which feels good in a basic emotional sense

Revenge presents problems though

1. it is very difficult to get the measure of revenge correct when we are an emotionally involved party as we are naturally biased in our own favour and see others as more wrong than they are and ourselves as less wrong than we are
2. we risk getting into a tit for tat exchange which will cost us more in the long run
3. as mitigation for the tit for tat eventuality we may want to to take extreme action to render the opponent incapacitated so the tit for tat actually escalates

I think part of what is happening when a sentence (e.g. for murder is handed down) is that the state is offering a measure of vengeance for the family of the victim

The states punishment is better than raw direct revenge because it is impartial and the state is rarely a target for retaliation so escalation and tit for tat are very unlikely.

Basically I think criminal punishment incorporates revenge against an aggressor and there is nothing wrong with explicitly acknowledging this. I think many folk are squeamish about this idea since revenge gets a bad press in the west due to the 2nd testament Christian teachings on the subject. But these teachings are morally flawed.

Originally Posted by stroller

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.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with revenge. It a natural reaction that helps a person overcome his incensement.

Originally Posted by Looper

The states punishment is better than raw direct revenge because it is impartial and the state is rarely a target for retaliation so escalation and tit for tat are very unlikely.

So human society has developed a method of taking personal action out of the act of revenge and buffering it with the State. I don't know what you are driving at.
Is revenge a natural emotion? Yes. But what we're reall talking about is the act of revenge?
Do I think it is right to incorporate this emotion into how we deal with criminals?
I think that is inevitable when laws are codified. Within limits.

Where does the quest for personal satisfaction end, and how much should that wish be be observed by the society...? It is reasonable to expect the victims loved ones to receive some sort of satisfaction that justice was done or some sense of closure, but does not mean mean an "eye for an eye" equivalency is necessary. I do not think the State should tie people down and kill them for no purpose other than those you offer.

Originally Posted by Looper

But these teachings are morally flawed.

Of course you do. You think killing is a healthy, normal emotional urge.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think revenge is mostly a healthy and normal emotional urge.
I think seeking revenge directly was a natural urge for several reasons
1. when we are wronged we get angry and anger drives us to avenge the wrong
2. if we don't react then we may be seen as weak and other self-interested parties may be emboldened to wrong us
3. harming those who harm others yields a sense of justice which feels good in a basic emotional sense

Sounds like a Libertarian rant, to me.
By the way, Jesus has nothing to do with it. You're using him as a crutch.

That is in fact the point. Brevik seems to have been born with (at least) Aspergers, which screws him from the start. Having very serious family problems on top of that guarantees a twisted mind.

The difference between him and you is that you are apparently reasonably well-balanced mentally, whereas he was not, right from the start.

I am not saying that Brevik's poor childhood is an excuse. It is a reason, and a way to understand his behaviour..

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

You can tell me all about his poor childhood till the sheep come home mate...
it's no excuse... listen, my childhood wasn't all roses, my dear psycho mama tried to drown me in a bath full of boiling water.. I was locked in the boot of her car for 3 days for wetting the bed, other things I can't mention in a public forum..

OK, but nobody has mentioned a poor, abusive childhood.

Correction.
Looper did mention it, I think. It wasn't my issue.

I mentioned it 2 pages ago :

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It's always interesting what you find after digging around a bit :


He spent the first year of his life in London until his parents divorced when he was a year old. His father, who later married a diplomat, fought for his custody but failed. When Breivik was four, living in Fritzners gate, Oslo, two reports were filed expressing concern about his mental health, concluding that Anders ought to be removed from parental care.[31]

One psychologist in one of the reports made a note of the boy's peculiar smile, suggesting it was not anchored in his emotions but was rather a deliberate response to his environment.[32]

In another report by psychologists from Norway's centre for child and youth psychiatry (SSBU) concerns were raised about how his mother treated him: "She 'sexualised' the young Breivik, hit him, and frequently told him that she wished that he were dead." In the report Wenche Behring is described as "a woman with an extremely difficult upbringing, borderline personality structure and an all-encompassing if only partially visible depression" who "projects her primitive aggressive and sexual fantasies onto him [Breivik]".

The psychologist who wrote the report was later forbidden from giving evidence in court by Behring, who herself was excused from testifying on health grounds.[33]


On 8 June 2012, Professor of Psychiatry Ulrik Fredrik Malt testified in court as an expert witness, stating that he found it unlikely that Breivik was schizophrenic. According to Malt, Breivik primarily suffered from Asperger syndrome, Tourette syndrome, narcissistic personality disorder and possibly paranoid psychosis.[105] Malt cited a number of factors in support of his diagnoses, including deviant behaviour as a child, extreme specialization in Breivik's study of weapons and bomb technology, strange facial expression, a remarkable way of talking, and an obsession with numbers.[106]

Eirik Johannesen disagreed, concluding that Breivik was lying and was not delusional or psychotic.[107] Johannesen had observed and spoken to Breivik for more than 20 hours.[1

Anders Behring Breivik, Norway murderer, wins human rights case

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has won part of a human rights case against the Norwegian state.



The court upheld his claim that some of his treatment amounted to "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
After the judgement, Breivik's lawyer, Oystein Storrvik, called for his solitary confinement to be repealed.

Breivik, a right-wing extremist, killed 69 people at a summer camp for young centre-left political activists on the island of Utoeya in July 2011.
Earlier that day, he set off a car bomb in the capital, Oslo, killing eight people.

Kept alone

In her ruling, judge Helen Andenaes Sekulic said the right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment represented "a fundamental value in a democratic society" and also applied to "terrorists and killers".

Breivik had challenged the government over his solitary confinement, which saw him kept alone in his cell for 22 to 23 hours a day, denied contact with other inmates and only communicating with prison staff through a thick glass barrier.

How bad is solitary confinement?
How cushy are Norway's prisons?

His prison regime deviated so markedly from that enforced upon any other prisoner in Norway, regardless of the severity of their crimes, that it had to be considered an extra punishment, the judge said.

However, article three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) required that prisoners be detained in conditions that did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, given the practical requirements of the particular case, she said.

The prison authorities had also not done enough to counteract the damage he had suffered from being in isolation, she said.

Image copyright Reuters Image caption A typical cell in Skien prison looks like this Judge Sekulic also noted that Breivik had been woken up every half hour at night over a long period of time and on some occasions subjected to strip searches with female officers present, which he found particularly difficult.

"Taken together with the other stringent restrictions which he was subject, this was regarded as degrading treatment in the Convention sense," said the judge, Norwegian national broadcaster NRK reported.

'Facilitate a community'

State lawyer Marius Emberland said the government was surprised by the verdict but had not decided whether to appeal.

If neither side appeals within four weeks, the prison is obliged to make Breivik's regime more lenient in line with the judge's remarks, NRK reported.
The prison must work to bring in other prisoners and "facilitate a community", the judge said.

However, the judge ruled that strict controls on Breivik's correspondence were justified and his right to a private and family life under article eight of the ECHR had not been violated.

The court also ordered the Norwegian state to pay Breivik's legal costs of 330,000 kroner ($40,000; £28,000).

Eskil Pedersen, a survivor of the shootings on Utoeya island, said he was "surprised, and then angry and upset" by the ruling.

"It was like being punched in the gut that the perpetrator won such a public victory," he told NRK.

Another survivor, Bjorn Ihler, tweeted that the judgement in Breivik's favour showed Norway had a "working court system, respecting human rights even under extreme conditions".

Lisbeth Kristine Roeyneland, who runs a support group for the victims' families, told NRK she was surprised and "a little disappointed", but also relieved that the ruling prevented him making contact with other extremists.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Breivik gave the Nazi salute when he appeared in court

Anders Behring Breivik, Norway murderer, wins human rights case - BBC News

I think this will mean that he can be integrated with other prisoners? I'll give him 6 months longer to live.

Sadly Breivik was not even the most insane person in the courtroom; that honor goes to the Judge and anyone else that subscribes to the nonsense of EU liberalism.

Hopefully he'll get out of solitary confinement and end up like the USA's mass murder-cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer who was beaten to death by another prisoner.

"On the morning of November 28, 1994, Dahmer left his cell to conduct his assigned work detail. Accompanying him were two fellow inmates: Jesse Anderson and Christopher Scarver. The trio was left unsupervised in the showers of the prison gym for approximately 20 minutes. At approximately 8:10 a.m.[209] Dahmer was discovered on the floor of the bathrooms of the gym suffering from extreme head and facial[210] wounds; he had been severely bludgeoned about the head and face with a 20-inch (51 cm) metal bar."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

I am surprised the grub has not tripped and hit his head against a brick wall before now.

Originally Posted by BobR

that honor goes to the Judge

May be there's method in her madness?

As soon as he bleated about his human rights they should have gone into his cell and chopped one of his fingers off.

i went to Kristiansand in Norway a couple of years ago. Sat around on the pavement are the most unsavoury looking immigrants you could possibly imagine.

In sharp relief to the Nordic master race lookalikees.

Breivik, thanks to his murderous actions, has kind of made a national conversation about their migrant issues a taboo subject.

Norwegian Mass Murderer Says Isolation Made Him More Radical

SKIEN, NORWAY —
Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a 2011 bomb-and-shooting rampage, told a court Thursday that his isolation in prison has hurt him, causing him to become even more radicalized.

The 37-year-old right-wing extremist, who has been held in solitary confinement since being sentenced in 2012 to 21 years in prison, talked calmly in court before a three-judge panel and complained that he had been forced to strip naked in front of prison officials as frequently as five times a day.

Dressed in a black suit and tie, the stone-faced Breivik spoke coherently without emotion, saying he agreed with government attorneys who had warned that the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi had become more radicalized in prison.

“I have been damaged by the isolation ... (and) radicalization has been a consequence of it,” he said. “I have not been a little hurt, I have been very damaged.”

Breivik was speaking on the third day in a court case reviewing a government appeal against a ruling that his isolation in prison violates human rights.

Last year, Breivik sued the government, arguing that his solitary confinement, frequent strip searches and often being handcuffed in the early part of incarceration violated his human rights.

In a surprise decision, the Oslo District Court in April sided with his claim, finding that his isolation was inhuman and degrading and breached the European Convention on Human Rights, and ordered the government to pay his legal costs.

But it dismissed Breivik's claim that his right to respect for private and family life was violated by restrictions on contacts with other right-wing extremists, a decision that Breivik in turn is appealing.

The government maintains that Breivik is dangerous and must remain isolated from inmates in the high-security prison in Skien, where the appeals case is also being heard.

Speaking before Breivik addressed the court, his lawyer Oystein Storrvik said the control over his communications with the outside world amounts to a “blatant breach of human rights,” arguing that frequent censorship of his letters and long review periods means Breivik cannot keep regular communication with people outside of the penal system.

Six days have been reserved for the hearings by the Borgarting Court of Appeals in the makeshift courtroom in the gym of the prison in Skien, 135 kilometers (85 miles) southwest of the capital, Oslo.

A ruling is expected in February.

Norwegian Mass Murderer Says Isolation Made Him More Radical

^ Fuck that LT... how they allow him to disrespect his victims with his fascist Nazi salutes boggles the mind..

I don't say this often, but I would gladly pull the trigger on that scum. (sorry Jesus)..