http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36094575

 

I have nothing to add.

No words really. What the fuck???

One simple lethal injection and everyone can just get on with their day.

Lethal injections are actually very expensive and inefficient. Bullets are a lot cheaper.

And some think our society is under attack from foreighners, while the natives themselfes don't know what their societies norms are...

 

The judge spoke about his now almost 5y of near complete isolation, even from his guards.

 

Also, this

And some think our society is under attack from foreighners, while the natives themselfes don't know what their societies norms are...

I completely agree. The biggest problem are the regressive leftists who use the premise of human rights to shield murderers and terrorists and want the silent majority to unconditionally adapt to the whims of any minority, in order not to "offend them".

Political correctness gone completely wrong, I hate these bleeding hearts who think the killers life is more important then the victims, that is so fucked up

I hate Political Correctness. 

 

That being said, I feel Jesus would be Political incorrect all the time and I love it. 

Look at that prison cell! wtf lol. How much you'd pay rent for anything like that in a big urban city?! 

 

 

 

One simple lethal injection and everyone can just get on with their day.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

Lethal injections are actually very expensive and inefficient. Bullets are a lot cheaper.

 

Not really. Just do a Morphine overdose.  

Jesus is that the Hilton that they have him staying in? What the fuck kind of luxury prison is that? LOL

the right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment represented "a fundamental value in a democratic society" and also applied to "terrorists and killers".

 

Democratic society, let him out into the yard, and have the guards turn their backs. Let's see how a small democracy choose his punishment.

I wouldn't mind going to jail with those type cells....damn.  Didn't know Hilton made jail cells

 

And some think our society is under attack from foreighners, while the natives themselfes don't know what their societies norms are...

I completely agree. The biggest problem are the regressive leftists who use the premise of human rights to shield murderers and terrorists and want the silent majority to unconditionally adapt to the whims of any minority, in order not to "offend them".

 

In what way are murderers and terrorists "shielded"? The rule of law and the walk of justice are still present. And we should care that when good/evil gets into a black/white system we run the risk of losing the finer workings of society itself.

 

Political correctness gone completely wrong, I hate these bleeding hearts who think the killers life is more important then the victims, that is so fucked up

But can we distinguish the so called "political correctness" from basic human decency. Also in no way is his life more important then the victims, it is just a good thing when a society applies morals, it is best applied universally instead of whimsically.

 

 

as for the prison cell, firstly I kinda doubt he has such accomodations, they are more for end-term inmates. Secondly Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world precisely cause they use cells like those.

"When criminals in Norway leave prison, they tend to stay out. Norway's recidivism rate of 20% is one of the lowest in the world. By contrast in the UK it's about 45%, while in the US more than 76% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years."

 

Hard to argue that their system doesn't work though with statistics like that. Something they're doing is clearly working.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35813470
 

Breivik's world

• Three cells - one for sleeping, one for studying, one for exercising - plus daily access to exercise yard
• Can play video games, watch TV and read newspapers
• Has a computer (without internet access)
• Can prepare his own food and do his own washing
• Has phone conversations with a "female friend"
• Contact with prison staff, lawyers, a priest, health professionals
• Has declined to play chess with volunteers
• Built a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition

 

In general, I agree that the Norwegian prison system works very well. Unfortunately, precisely because it's principles are applies universally and not selectively, travesties such as this happen.

 

In the natural world that surrounds us there is an exception to every rule. It is incredibly hard if not impossible to make statements and observations to which there is no exception. It's how the universe seems to work. It's a fact that we should embrace. Then, I ask, why should our legal systems be an exception? Rigid systems are bound to fail, you need certain failsafes that permit some flexibility.

Lethal injections are actually very expensive and inefficient. Bullets are a lot cheaper.

 

That they are.... and more effective.

 

Even cheaper is to use the pneumatic bolt systems they use on livestock.

Off-topic, but what about the US cases where the mix caused the prisoner to agonize for hours?

Off-topic, but what about the US cases where the mix caused the prisoner to agonize for hours?

Over complicating the whole thing. Use surgical anesthesia and stop the heart... no pain and too easy... but the bullet is better.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35813470

 

Breivik's world

• Three cells - one for sleeping, one for studying, one for exercising - plus daily access to exercise yard
• Can play video games, watch TV and read newspapers
• Has a computer (without internet access)
• Can prepare his own food and do his own washing
• Has phone conversations with a "female friend"
• Contact with prison staff, lawyers, a priest, health professionals
• Has declined to play chess with volunteers
• Built a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition

In general, I agree that the Norwegian prison system works very well. Unfortunately, precisely because it's principles are applies universally and not selectively, travesties such as this happen.

 

In the natural world that surrounds us there is an exception to every rule. It is incredibly hard if not impossible to make statements and observations to which there is no exception. It's how the universe seems to work. It's a fact that we should embrace. Then, I ask, why should our legal systems be an exception? Rigid systems are bound to fail, you need certain failsafes that permit some flexibility.

Exceptions are certainly present, for instance his 30min suicide watch, the thurough scruteny of his correspondence, the total isolation and mandatory use of restraints when moving from chamber to chamber. I do think he got a regime tailored specifically for himself, its just that some parts have been found clashing with rules surrounding human rights which Norway has vowed to uphold.

 

Off-topic, but what about the US cases where the mix caused the prisoner to agonize for hours?

yeah never really got the idea behind making it so complicated, you could basically go for an induced OD on numerous anestethics who double as muscle relaxers.

I definitely agree with the judgement here. 

 

Firstly, I don't think the size and space he lives in is relevant to the points in the case. Denial of interaction with other humans (which is known to have a severe impact on mental health over long periods), and sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation being specifically recognised as a form of torture. So definitely this meets the test of a prohibition on torture and cruel treatment. 

 

Now, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits such activity under Article 3 of the convention. There is no opt out. And just in case anyone thinks this is just those silly liberal Europeans, this is also the position of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention against torture, and in some cases, the Refugee Convention. All of these have global applicability. 

 

When it comes to rights like these I really dislike the idea of an opt out just because someone is a criminal, or because of XYZ. These are all lines drawn by the state, and primarily the state is who these rights are designed to protect you against. I also especially feel that it is important for us as a society to not stoop to the level of violating peoples rights because we think they are somehow undeserving of them. "All Humans have rights apart from those that don't" is an argument that can be applied to serious criminals, or not so serious criminals, or those that are committing crimes that society later realises shouldn't be crimes (like the treatment of homosexuals in the past), or because they are black, or Jewish, or whatever reason is convenient to separate into the "deserving of rights" and the "not deserving of rights."

 

 

The final issue here is the one of who imposed this penalty. Judges imposed a prison sentence. Public officials imposed the isolation and sleep deprivation. Judges are subject to scrutiny and appeals procedure in a way that the prison officials are not. I am not comfortable with the idea that a faceless bureaucrat gets given the power to determine that an individual is not deserving of these rights, and can be given treatment that degrades their mental health.  

The main argumant from the "pro" side always seems to be that "that's what the law says". I retain my opinion that the "law" is way too lenient and should be reexamined to better suit today's needs and reality.

 

On a side note, trying to equate discrimination against someone being "black" or "jewish" with someoine being a "serial killer" is easily the biggest hyperbole I've seen so far in 2016, congratulations!

Its a "one for all" type of law. it is one the people (by proxy) have put up for law. Either have it altered to suit your idea, move to a location that has the type of laws you like or go find a deserted island (without national resources ) if you don't find any nation with the laws you desire.

 

He already lost alot of "rights", being incarcerated being the most obvious one. Heck they will probably keep him locked away from society in general up until he loses the ability to communicate his ideology during the killings.

The main argumant from the "pro" side always seems to be that "that's what the law says". I retain my opinion that the "law" is way too lenient and should be reexamined to better suit today's needs and reality.

 

On a side note, trying to equate discrimination against someone being "black" or "jewish" with someoine being a "serial killer" is easily the biggest hyperbole I've seen so far in 2016, congratulations!

 

 Do you believe in fundamental human rights? If you answer is yes, then there is no question that this case is the right decision. 

 

If you don't believe in fundamental human rights you had better have a cast iron moral perspective that means you not only know where the line is, but can back it up with sufficient reasoning to stop others crossing it. Referring to Jews is not Hyperbole, it s a deliberate reference as to why we have these rights. This is where it all began. The European Convention on Human Rights was written in the late 40s with the express aim of preventing another holocaust by introducing the concepts of universal human rights. By strictly enforcing these rights you stop states moving down the slope from smashing windows, to burning homes, to building ghettos, to building work camps, to then building death camps. Because as soon as you step away from universal human rights you have a lot of moveable lines, that can inch further and further and further away from what we want the world to be. 

What you guys don't get is that sadly there are individuals that need to be removed from society - completely. You can spin it any way you like, but it's a fact. What happens during an outbreak of a deadly disease? You find the patients and and put them in quarantine. Half of the reason for this procedure is to give them the best possible care, the other half is to prevent them from infecting others. Would you object if an infectious Ebola patient suddenly got out of bed and insisted on leaving the hospital and took the subway home? I bet you would, for very obvious reasons. Would you object to them leaving their room and mingling with other patients in the cafeteria? My guess is yes. Terrorists like Breivik and Abdeslam are exactly like Ebola patients, except they spread toxic ideas instead of a disease. Now then tell me: why should they be allowed to do this? If you're enforcing strict rules on Ebola patients, who are not sick by choice, why are you being lenient on terrorists who CHOSE to do what they did and in fact even wish to continue spreading their ideology?

 

I know how it all began, and that is exactly why your comparison is a hyperbole. Again, the difference is that you don't CHOOSE your color of skin, or your ancestry. Nobody should be penalized for things they don't have control over. However, you CHOOSE to become a terrorist, and you CHOOSE to become a mass-murderer. And since it is YOUR choice, you have to live with the consequences. I'm pretty sure the original intention of the lawmakers was not to shelter the worst possibly imaginable offenders from their just punishments.

 

Which brings us to why Human Rights have become a sad joke. If you look at the world today, you'll see that in pretty much all the places where human rights really should be improved...it's a lost cause, pretty much the last priority. Hilariously the UN's Human Rights Council (OHCHR) includes countries like China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, and many other shining cities on a hill. I would say the only part of the world that takes them seriously is Europe. We've got the basics covered, which we should be happy about. Unfortunately, there will always be misguided ideologues who go overboard and fight tooth and nail to get the scum of humanity out of the punishments they justly deserve for their actions.

 

There are situations when eye for an eye is still the best option and an empty moral high-ground ("we will not stoop to your level") is only perceived as weakness by both the perpetrators as well as the public-at-large

 

And no, I'm not moving anywhere, at least not until the regressive left sells out what remains of the European foundations. At that point, we'll be the refugees, and can only hope the US or Australia will take us. They probably won't though, because they have half a brain.