Anders Breivik wins his trial against Norway for 'inhumane' detention

Scroll to see replies

So hang on, this dude gets money for having "nude checks" and "inadequate consideration of mental impact" but some innocent guy getting tortured for nothing at Guantanamo Bay cannot even get released?

Wtf?

Tbf the EU has been to sympathise with terrorists...

When will Abu bakr al Baghdadi go to Brussels and get his piece of the pie?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sounds like you lot want people like Beverik to be tortured Guantanamo Bay style.

Also Norway isn't in the EU. It's just one of those cuckhold scnadi countries where everyone is much happier than the rest of the word.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 41

Josb

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

In that case, Breivik has just played with the system. His detention is not inhumane (how many prisoners in the world have a personal PS2 in their cell?), he just used the trial to indulge a little narcissistic pleasure. The reasonable thing to do would have been to say gtfo (or "here is Final Fantasy X, shut up now.").

Reply 42

chemting

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Sounds like you lot want people like Beverik to be tortured Guantanamo Bay style.

I don't want him to get tortured...

If he was getting tortured in a Norwegian prison, I would support his rights in a heartbeat...

However, I fail to see how "having nude checks" is "inhumane" or a "violation of human rights"

So I agree with this on principle, but not quite in practice.

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Also Norway isn't in the EU. It's just one of those cuckhold scnadi countries where everyone is much happier than the rest of the word.

European Court of Human Rights, which Norway has to follow

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 43

hektik

Original post by Farm_Ecology

I dont think society should suffer because of the selfish whims of the families.

Do you have any empathy? Dozens and dozens of families and individuals have had young loved ones coldly murdered by this man, and you completely dismiss the desire of the families for revenge or punishment of Breivik as "selfish whims"?

Selfish whims? I say that you are the selfish one, who cares more that a mass murderer is rehabilitated and that his human rights are not infringed than the natural human desire for revenge and justice the families of the fallen likely feel.

Society has already suffered by the hand of this man, his actions are unmatched in their cruelty and lack of humanity. He is far too much of a risk to be re-released into society, so society shouldn't have to suffer from him any more. There's a world of difference between rehabilitating a person who assaults or robs than a murderer of Breiviks's caliber.

We are too soft and we think of ourselves as too superior. A clear boundary must be drawn that says "cross this line, do this thing, and you will bear the consequences without fail". What Norway and many other "civilized" European countries say is "rape and murder, we will consider you victims of your circumstances and try to help you rather than punish you, we won't stoop to your level and do to you what you did to your innocent victims". No matter one's circumstances, people know what's right and what's very, very wrong.

Rehabilitation can be a great thing, even the better thing in many circumstances, but in others, punishment must exist for certain crimes as both a deterrent, and to give society faith that truly bad crimes result in punishment and that the system is just.

Reply 44

DiddyDec01

Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

This guy is the reason as to why so many families have lost their kids and he wins a trial for inhumane detention? He deserves the most disgusting form of punishment for what he's done.

What makes us better than him then?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 45

hektik

Original post by BaconandSauce

Have to agree with this

we have principles and we should uphold them regardless of who the person is or what they have done

If we fail here we are not better then 'them'

Why does a mass murderer deserve to be treated with respect, kindness and humanity when he has demonstrated that he is completely unwilling to offer these things in return?

This isn't a serial thief or a somebody that's commit a nasty assault, this is a man that methodically planned a both a deadly bomb attack in Oslo, killing 8, and then shot and killed 69 people, mostly children and teenagers.

We may have principles of respect and kindness towards others, but should they apply in Breivik's case? He has shown very clearly that he cannot be trusted to respect, to show kindness or humanity to those around him.

You argue that if we are not consistent in Breivik's case, we are "not better than 'them'". Why does a person that does not respect us deserve our respect? It's an unfair trade off, where we give to him but get nothing in return, putting him at an advantage.

Reply 46

BaconandSauce

Original post by hektik

Because we are better then he is.

It's really that simple

But don't get me wrong I do agree with your argument and believe we need to drop human rights legislation and have a Human Rights and Responsibilities legislation instead.

But while this is not the case we do need to keep the moral high ground

Reply 47

hektik

Original post by DiddyDec

What makes us better than him then?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why does a mass murderer deserve to be treated better than he treated his 77 murdered victims?

Reply 48

DiddyDec01

Original post by hektik

Why does a mass murderer deserve to be treated better than he treated his 77 murdered victims?

It is not about deserving. It is about setting us apart from monsters.

Reply 49

hektik

Original post by BaconandSauce

I agree that we must be moral. We must treat others with respect with the expectation that they will, in turn, treat us with respect. That is our contract to one another.

Breivik has broken that contract in an extreme, unimaginably cruel manner. If it were eye for an eye, we could be extremely cruel in return. I'm not advocating that, but why should we treat him with such a high level of respect when he has demonstrated so little, if any, for so many around him?

Because he has grossly violated the respect of so many around him, he shouldn't expect any in return; he should be afforded only a basic level of humanity.

The argument that "we are better than he is" I don't understand, can you explain it further?

Reply 50

BaconandSauce

Original post by hektik

But that's the thing we have no such contract (and I agree with you it should be a contract)

We are better than him

we have standards defined by legislation if we ignore this for him then who else will we ignore it for? People we don't like because of their political opinions etc... It's a slippery slope which is why despite what he has done we have to maintain the standards we set for ourselves (it's what differentiates us from countries where mob rule is the order of the day)

Reply 51

hektik

Original post by DiddyDec

It is not about deserving. It is about setting us apart from monsters.

Breivik did some extremely cruel, unprovoked things to others. He caused incredible suffering to dozens of families and hundreds of individuals.

Why should he be treated better by "us/society" considering what he did to "us/society"? Why do we need to treat him with more respect, to "set ourselves apart from monsters"? Does his extreme transgression not deserve an extreme repercussion?

Reply 52

BaconandSauce

Original post by hektik

Does his extreme transgression not deserve an extreme repercussion?

What you are talking about is simply revenge

This is how the mob works

Reply 53

TaintedLight

Would swap my room for a prison in Norway tbh

Reply 54

hektik

Original post by BaconandSauce

What you are talking about is simply revenge

This is how the mob works

That would mean punishment for crime is revenge, and therefore should not happen.

The alternative would be to not punish for crimes, which would be unfair. It would mean a person can commit a crime and there would be no repercussion for that action, therefore no incentive not to do it.

Set punishment is necessary as a deterrent to committing a crime, and carrying out the set punishment when the crime is committed is necessary to prove to people that the punishment will be used when the crime is committed.

Reply 55

BaconandSauce

Original post by hektik

Punishment also include rehabilitation.

But punishment is also managed and one of the things we use to determine what is an acceptable punishment is human rights legislation

Reply 56

hektik

Original post by BaconandSauce

Punishment also include rehabilitation.

But punishment is also managed and one of the things we use to determine what is an acceptable punishment is human rights legislation

I agree

Reply 57

Farm_Ecology

Original post by hektik

I was refering to the justice system is general. The comment referred to the idea that the rest of society shouldnt have to suffer higher reoffending rates because the victims families want their entirely selfish revenge. This assumes of course, that the evidence suggests that rehabilitation systems work better, which it does.

As far as Brevik is concerned, the justice system need to apply to all, and not thrown out whenever the mob calls for blood. It is essential that the justice systems is upheld with integrity, otherwise it collapses.

But yes, i am putting the human rights of a mass murderer over the desire for vengence of his victims. By wanting a justice system based on revenge, they are essentialy placing their own weaknesses over the good of the nation. Revenge is nothing but selfish indulgence that only serves to make one person feel better because they have seen another feel worse. This is not what a good justice system is based on, and not what our society should be endorsing.