clay_ghost
Member
Gemüsepizza;100902062 said:
Dude
Mass murderer Breivik threatened hunger strike over Rayman Revolution
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
Dude
witchedwiz
Member
You can educate a thief...
You can educate a tax fraud..
You can try to educate some violent mofos..
You could hope to make someone that killed One PERSON the gravity of his actions..
But we're talking about Scum that killed 77 people, jesus.. The guy's just mental.. What's to redeem there?
77 people won't get a future, be it good or a shit hole future, because of his actions and he's bothered by his gaming taste..
Ravensmash
Member
That's fair enough, but I'm not sure applying the term "work" to this instance is the correct term.
He's not going to be rehabilitated, and he should never be released.
This isn't some petty thief who has a chance of turning his life around, this is a mass murderer and terrorist.
That weekly allowance is massive, and the reality is that he lives better than many people - at the state's expense - that's why him complaining can be seen as so deplorable by many.
GhostTrick
Banned
There's nothing to do for that guy. Except keeping him inside a cell for the rest of his life. That's why it's so stupid IMO that this guy has access to such luxury.
But my point about death sentence was more like it was too easy. That means someone could, during his entire life, commit crimes, and get away with a sentence that'll be 3 second long... and he won't even be conscious to regret his acts.
Throwaway123456789
Member
Some of the blood thirsty responses in here sickens me. We have one of the best functioning prison systems in the world, with one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, at 20 percent. We have guiding principles that are the same for every man and woman in this country when it comes to how they are treated.
We can't go and break that system and every principle we believe in because of one man and his atrocious actions. He's not like anyone else, an extreme case, and we have him off the streets and he will never ever return.
I think the usual revenge hungry non-Norwegian needs to come over here and see how we're coping with having the worst murderer in recent time locked up in our back yard. I don't know about a single person that (at least after the initial shock and anger faded a little) doesn't have complete faith in our government and prison system handling Breivik the best way they see fit.
And while it seems cushy and nice in the prisons compared to the ones in, say, America - the fact is that you're still locked up 24/7 with no chance of doing anything other than wait for your death. So what if he gets to play fucking Rayman.
We can't go and break that system and every principle we believe in because of one man and his atrocious actions. He's not like anyone else, an extreme case, and we have him off the streets and he will never ever return.
I think the usual revenge hungry non-Norwegian needs to come over here and see how we're coping with having the worst murderer in recent time locked up in our back yard. I don't know about a single person that (at least after the initial shock and anger faded a little) doesn't have complete faith in our government and prison system handling Breivik the best way they see fit.
And while it seems cushy and nice in the prisons compared to the ones in, say, America - the fact is that you're still locked up 24/7 with no chance of doing anything other than wait for your death. So what if he gets to play fucking Rayman.
Okay, so there are a number of talking points and key words that are being recycled here. First, Amirox, while I commend you on your struggles and triumphs, I think that your story has skewed a lot of the discussion with its personal and emotional narrative; a bit like how my initial outburst didn't do much to set the field for reasonable, detached evaluation of this particular instance of extraordinary crime. There has been a lot of talk about 'emotional responses' to how this prisoner should be treated against humane care and the proven benefits of rehabilitation. I would remind you that the choice to execute versus the choice to save a criminal are both emotional responses, only one that you and others have decided to endorse one side of, on account of personal beliefs and experiences.
In truth, I can quite clearly see both sides of the argument, they are diametrically opposed to one another (killing vs life and a chance at redemption), but are essentially driven by the same passion of emotion. Neither is truly a response that with reason and reason alone addresses this unique circumstance. I don't believe that ethics are immutable, our laws and rights are constantly up for scrutiny and revisions as the scope of our moral, scientific and logical understanding expands. So let's tread into the 'grey' zone, away from the black and white arguments. I can agree that - and this is key - overall, a human environment fosters a greater success rate of lessening repeated crime and violence and of reintroduction and into society. There is however a cost to this, this care and mercy is not free. It comes with a higher taxation and ramificcations, politically and otherwise, which we can sidestep for a moment to focus on the issue at hand. The issue at hand is this instance of particular crime and the criminal responsible for it. Can we agree that the premeditated, ruthless and remorseless killing of 77 people is not a normal act of crime? I would assume the answer is yes. Right there is where the arguments of extremes, driven by emotional responses, fall apart. This is not a normal crime, so why should he receive a standardized punishment of either penalty or rehabilitation?
I have yet to see one person tackle this enormous question in this thread. That is the question I am most interested in. Not conventional discussions on how we treat this exceptional criminal. He cannot be reformed, he does not have the biology or psychology to be remade into a 'useful member of society'. It is a waste of time to even consider it. Let's move on to more productive lines of thought. What then do we do with this horrific and fascinating predator? If we are to study him in safety, should it be done in the relative comforts of a prison or in an environment closer to a lab, highly controlled and regulated? That, at least would seem more productive to me than this standard separation from society and they Pyrrhic belief that he can, one day, be made human again. He's not human, he's something else, a sociopathic subspecies. Once more, conventional rules do not apply here, because he is not a baseline murderer. He is something else, and while this does not call for a reform of the prison system itself, it surely begs for special circumstances.
An interesting topic this has been, all in all, but I'd like to see the arguments move past the simplicity of kill vs. save.
In truth, I can quite clearly see both sides of the argument, they are diametrically opposed to one another (killing vs life and a chance at redemption), but are essentially driven by the same passion of emotion. Neither is truly a response that with reason and reason alone addresses this unique circumstance. I don't believe that ethics are immutable, our laws and rights are constantly up for scrutiny and revisions as the scope of our moral, scientific and logical understanding expands. So let's tread into the 'grey' zone, away from the black and white arguments. I can agree that - and this is key - overall, a human environment fosters a greater success rate of lessening repeated crime and violence and of reintroduction and into society. There is however a cost to this, this care and mercy is not free. It comes with a higher taxation and ramificcations, politically and otherwise, which we can sidestep for a moment to focus on the issue at hand. The issue at hand is this instance of particular crime and the criminal responsible for it. Can we agree that the premeditated, ruthless and remorseless killing of 77 people is not a normal act of crime? I would assume the answer is yes. Right there is where the arguments of extremes, driven by emotional responses, fall apart. This is not a normal crime, so why should he receive a standardized punishment of either penalty or rehabilitation?
I have yet to see one person tackle this enormous question in this thread. That is the question I am most interested in. Not conventional discussions on how we treat this exceptional criminal. He cannot be reformed, he does not have the biology or psychology to be remade into a 'useful member of society'. It is a waste of time to even consider it. Let's move on to more productive lines of thought. What then do we do with this horrific and fascinating predator? If we are to study him in safety, should it be done in the relative comforts of a prison or in an environment closer to a lab, highly controlled and regulated? That, at least would seem more productive to me than this standard separation from society and they Pyrrhic belief that he can, one day, be made human again. He's not human, he's something else, a sociopathic subspecies. Once more, conventional rules do not apply here, because he is not a baseline murderer. He is something else, and while this does not call for a reform of the prison system itself, it surely begs for special circumstances.
An interesting topic this has been, all in all, but I'd like to see the arguments move past the simplicity of kill vs. save.
He can't be rehabilitated. He won't be, discussing him in that context is just bluster. Let's move the discussion along.
Throwaway123456789
Member
Where do I say that? Jeez.
I'm saying that we can't break our current system and principles because of this monster. He's never going to be rehabilitated, but he still has basic rights that we need to follow.
Well you half-imply it with your "keeping him off the streets" line, but that's not really fixing the issue is it? How should he be treated now that he has been removed from the human populace? Where should he be treated? And why should he be treated like any other criminal of violent crime when he is clearly an exception?
Throwaway123456789
Member
The reason why we don't kill him is easy: Because we don't want to be a civilization where it's acceptable to murder. It's not the people we want to be. It's beneath us. It's a principle that should never be broken, ever. For no one.
However, your "we should put him in a lab and find out more about him" is as far as I know exactly what we're doing. He's under constant surveillance in a special "lab/hospital like" part of Ila prison in Oslo.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Sad world where people can justify bombing innocents for a questionable and unmeasurable greater good but treating someone better than they deserve for a proven and quantifiable greater good is somehow unacceptable.
uncleniccius
Member
True, but why allow someone who is refusing to eat unless he gets violent video games and has murdered 70 people to get his games? What entitles him to that? If he refuses to eat due to being treated as someone who has killed many, then let him not eat. If he were a thief it might be different, but why treat him well when he has ruined the lives of so many?
test_account
XP-39C²
That is his old cell as far as i know. He now have like 2 or 3 cells that he can move in between. At least it was like that a year ago or so.Gemüsepizza;100902062 said:
I never said kill him, you might want to reread my posts. Standard mental hospital setups are hardly enough in this case either, he is a sociopath and a monster, we get one like him every decade if even that. Minds like his know how to work a system, case in point this whole farce over video-game privileges. He should be in a prison for the criminally deranged, at least, where privileges and rights - not human rights - are decided by people much more educated on these matters than you or I.
I can almost guarantee there would be no video games or internet surfing for him there, and that's not depriving him of any human rights. (He would have books or some other form of active media that could be studied.)
I thought of my PS2 backlog (now cataloged digitally for PCSX2) and laughed more than is appropriate given the tone thusfar. On that note, and with a smile, no more of this dark thread.
RumblingRosco
Member
Give him an original GameBoy Advance and put him in a room with lots of sunlight.
But make sure you don't give him Boktai.
But make sure you don't give him Boktai.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
I agree with this. don't feed his ego by making this public.
No they dont. It should be super hard to have the state murder someone.
It's been explained several times in this thread. 21 years is the maximum sentencing in Norway, and it can be indefinitely extended.
You are wrong about that. Actually he is proud of them.
I concur [EDIT: as in he's bringing all this on himself, if he doesn't want to eat let him starve. Though I'm opposed to death penalty itself]. I wouldn't even say first world problems, it's worse than that.
Maybe I'm overtired this morning and misunderstanding some of the details but....21 years for killing 77 people?
Like, what the fuck. AND he gets to play fucking video games in isolation?
There are people out there in the world suffering/dying of natural (and unnatural) causes and this mass murderer gets to be in isolation, fed, and playing videogames.
Fuck. There's justice for you, folks.
Like, what the fuck. AND he gets to play fucking video games in isolation?
There are people out there in the world suffering/dying of natural (and unnatural) causes and this mass murderer gets to be in isolation, fed, and playing videogames.
Fuck. There's justice for you, folks.
Fess
Member
And many were kids. Killed one by one. This man deserves to suffer, and Rayman Revolution isn't enough.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
This belongs in off topic.
ghostface pizzakid
Member
Yeah I've been trying to figure this one out. Get only 2 decades in prison and is allowed to play games in prison? Seriously, what?
Dont go looking up how many disposed despots and tyrants get treated in prison in many places.
cascardian
Member
... On a more positive note, I'm loving the Virtual Boy jokes in here. He should be forced to play Water World on it. That's right, Breivik, you don't get Wario.
This has been answered so many times I'm starting to feel a mod should add it to the OP. He is never getting out of prison. They will just renew his sentence every time until he is dead.
Oh I know, man. It's just endlessly aggravating. It's admittedly a very complicated, multi-faceted issue, but with examples like these I don't find it that complicated.
Breiviks goal was also to make people fear about politics, to leave the Labour party and AUF in fear.
Funny thing is, I JOINED AUF because of Breivik. He got me interested in politics, I read about the different parties, found out that I liked the Labour partys politics better than the other parties, so I joined AUF.
I won, Breivik. You failed your goal.
I meant he has no emotions about regret.
Yes.
Funny thing is, I JOINED AUF because of Breivik. He got me interested in politics, I read about the different parties, found out that I liked the Labour partys politics better than the other parties, so I joined AUF.
I won, Breivik. You failed your goal.
I meant he has no emotions about regret.
Yes.
Yes.
Ah, I see. Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience.
It is essential to understand how I personally arrived at the reasoned conclusion that a rehabilitative prison set up is the only logical approach. Once I had those experiences and then researched precisely what have been said about the prison system in studies across the world, the image of what worked and what does not become crystal clear. And then it became about detaching myself emotionally from how horrible these criminals potentially are from what is best for society.
Additionally, I'd take issue with your characterization that "the choice to execute versus the choice to save a criminal are both emotional responses." This is not true at all. Again, these conclusions are based on simple cold rational truth. Sentencing someone to death costs significantly more than comparable life without parole cases, because the constitution requires a drawn out and complex judicial process for capital cases. Even if it were not the case, again, it makes sense in simple statistics: there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime. In fact, murder rates in non-death penalty countries are consistently lower than those with death penalties. Further, murder rates in states that don't allow the death penalty are also similarly lower than those that have the death penalty. There are literally dozens of studies that have been done on this subject, all which reach very similar conclusions. The only exceptions have been studies run by groups specifically supportive of the death penalty, and virtually all of those studies have been proven to have been fabricated or poorly run. In contrast, very few of the studies that have reached the conclusion I've shown have showcased any corruption in the process.
Again, what is emotional about it? I feel that on top of these simple facts, it makes logical and ethical sense to believe that killing a person who kills another simply makes us no better than they are. That may be slightly emotional, but I don't even need that to reach the conclusion I did. It's simple logic based on the evidence. There is no room for our belief systems to corrupt that. It just so happens my moral/ethical standards coincide with the evidence as we know it.
Once again, this is not about emotions. The facts simply support the assertion that one way is superior to the other. Prisons built with a rehabilitative stance in mind, with no exceptions for specific prisoners we happen to not like more than the others, are the ones with results that are net positive for society.
And remember: this is JUST education. That's only one part of the rehabilitative process; society needs reintegration job programs, the ability to regain the right to vote. Prisons need counselors, better conditions and less crowded living areas, more activities to keep the mind going and sane.
Lower Crime Rates and Prison Recidivism said:
No matter how you analyze it, the answer is the same.
No matter how horrible the criminal, no matter how heinous the crime... harsher penalties do not work as a deterrent, and poorer conditions only serve to harm the prisoners and the community at large. And as these worst offenders serve their bitter sentences, they often end up influencing people who enter prisoners as minor offenders. These people are often trained to become actual hardened criminals, since visiting the so-called "school of hard knocks."
Once again, this has nothing to do with emotion. We can analyze the precise causes and effects. We can see that if we keep a criminal who killed 1000 people locked away for 30 years, they are far more likely to commit violent acts against fellow inmates and prison guards. They are far more likely to attempt escape. Far more likely to try to commit suicide. Far more likely to cost tax payers exponentially more money has they HAVE to be treated for their increasing mental instability, just so that it is even remotely safe for prison staff to work. In the event lesser criminals are reintegrated into society, the community then has to fear that the conditions in prison have corrupted this person to the point they cannot be good, honest members of the community. Society in America actively works against reintegration, giving people a stigma that follows them wherever they go looking for even the simplest of jobs. If you cannot work, you must survive. What do you think will happen? More crimes.
Another recommendation, if you can watch Carl Panzram: The Spirit of Hatred and Vengeance and understand precisely just what danger you put others into when you spent decades torturing an already troubled mind. This is harsher than treatment even is today, since this happened in the early 1900s. So imagine if that wasn't a deterrent for serious crimes, and only made the situation worse, do you think harsh punishment is the key? Do you think we should make exceptions because one criminal disgusts us to a particularly severe degree? Why is it not easy to just follow the evidence where it leads us?
It matters not if an individual kills one person or a million; the crimes are only that of scale. They both are incredible danger to society, and yet rehabilitation in both cases still results in the net positive for society. The alternative is almost always far more dangerous for everyone involved. The vast majority of democratic justice systems are specifically set up in such a way so that emotion can be detached to things such as sentencing. It doesn't always work out that way unfortunately (especially when jury are involved), but that's the principle. A jury is not supposed to say "well gosh this crime is SO BAD who cares what the constitution says about cruel and unusual punishment!", a jury is supposed to say "he committed crime X, Y and Z, so here's what the punishment should be based on that." After that, it is up to society to build a prison system to house criminals that provides the largest possible net benefit to the community at large. No matter what you do, the conclusion is always the same. This comparison of US and Nordic prison systems again reaches the same conclusion:
There is no question, and no emotional aspect required. Just evidence that supports a view that is at this point unquestionably true. One does not single out a specific criminal and say "THIS ONE IS SO BAD THE RULES OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD SOMEHOW BE DIFFERENT FOR HIM!" That's emotion. One applies the same standards to everyone, and sees the net benefit for society evolve into what we commonly see in these other countries.
Why is it that these other countries can live with these systems, have massively lower crime rates across the board, successful reintegration of society, no death penalty and lower life sentence terms, and yet we must stick to the idea that somehow there is a criminal out there so bad that we need to submit him to cruel and unusual treatment that degrades the human mind?
About the only thing worthy of debate in this whole topic is whether a videogame is really required for that sort of humane treatment. I'd say it's perfectly fine to believe it does not. But we absolutely should be providing for criminals no matter how horrific the amenities required to keep them mentally sane and healthy, and provide any potential slice of opportunity for rehabilitation, no matter how remote their chances for release.
This is as bizarre and illogical as any statement you've made yet, true emotional kneejerking. There's no such thing as a "human sociopathic subspecies." It's just humans. It's people. They have no magical properties, no special propensity for evil other than what some potential chemical imbalance or mental disability leads them toward. Most people are one bad head bang away from being mentally crippled enough to commit crimes you'd never even imagine. And most others are one bad day away from making a bad judgment call that could make them end up in prison. Nobody, no matter how much of an Eagle Scout they are, is above making those mistakes. And society at large has to deal with the consequences of a system set up intentionally with no hope for genuine rehabilitation. The result is negative for all involved.
Again, I understand deeply why it is difficult to move past this stance that we need to somehow treat the worst of the worst offenders differently, that revenge is satisfactory somehow, that these people deserve nothing (and certainly not our forgiveness!). I get it. But the statistics do not support these other points of view. And as I said, I must follow the evidence.
Jesus Christ, hats off to some of the people in this thread. My head would have exploded by now.
Earlier on someone questioned the possible benefits for incarcerating Ted Bundy and the like. I might be misremembering this, but didn't Ed Kemper give up information ("tricks of the trade," without trying to be flippant, psychological motivations, etc.) in his later years that have proved to be really important for criminologists, psychologists, and the police in understanding subsequent crimes?
Oh, and obligatory "omgz how he got 21 yrs for his crime wtf" post.
Earlier on someone questioned the possible benefits for incarcerating Ted Bundy and the like. I might be misremembering this, but didn't Ed Kemper give up information ("tricks of the trade," without trying to be flippant, psychological motivations, etc.) in his later years that have proved to be really important for criminologists, psychologists, and the police in understanding subsequent crimes?
Oh, and obligatory "omgz how he got 21 yrs for his crime wtf" post.
Edmund Kemper has been studied so extensively he's practically a lab rat. He has an IQ of 136, yet wanted to kill his mother since he was 8 years old. Eventually he killed her, decapitated her and used her head for oral sex. The interviews with him are amongst the most chilling on record for criminals of his sort.
Even this criminal though deserves to be in a system that focuses primarily on rehabilitation. And what we learn from these HUMANS can be invaluable for profiling and capturing future criminals of that nature, as well as potentially identifying burgeoning sociopaths.
Trying to dehumanize every person that horrifies us due to their crimes servers nobody. The victims remain the victims, and society only suffers. sounds like you agree with my point though
themagicalkitsune
Member
Don't talk shit about Rayman Revolution.
frankly the prison has good taste!
Similar threads
- Locked