The Student Room Group

What I'd like to do to Anders Behring Breivik

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Darklady.
He's probably manipulative to the core, he could be pretending to be sane, who knows?


Sanity is desirable in his case, it means 21 years incarceration. Insanity means probable incarceration in mental hospital forever.

His goal is to be declared sane, it means that his actions were not 'irrational'. To him, sanity would mean that his cause is legitimate.

If he is insane he has nothing to gain from giving the impression of insanity.

I doubt that an insane person would be able to convince someone of their insanity. And I suspect that the original psychological assessment was a knee-jerk reaction in an attempt to ensure permanent incarceration.

Just my $0.02.
Original post by Otkem
He's been declared mentally sane.


Wow, I didn't know that. In my opinion that doesn't make sense, 'mentally sane' people don't kill and attack innocent people like that. :confused:
Reply 42
Original post by Cherriesxo
Wow, I didn't know that. In my opinion that doesn't make sense, 'mentally sane' people don't kill and attack innocent people like that. :confused:


In his world view they weren't innocent as they were labour party activists.
If humanity as a whole is going to shy away from a death penalty, then 'life imprisonment' has to be literal - should you commit murder or any other crime of similar weight, you are incarcerated until death. Twenty-one years is categorically not life, and shouldn't be seen as sufficient retribution.
Reply 44
In the Subcontinent the prison guards would have had good fun with this guy.
Original post by Bonged.
I swear they were activists for the labour party.


They were youth activists.. Most of them probably just attended to have a good time since it was a summer youth camp
Reply 46
Original post by TheHansa
Killing a terrorist who killed almost 100 innocent people is worse than actually killing 100 innocent people?

The way it was suggested was basically torturing him to death.

Original post by TheHansa
His own holiday island with a quality of life higher than what most people here enjoy? Yes that is, "prison" in Norway, what a joke. He will likely serve 3 months for every life he ended.

I hope that was metaphorical? I agree the standard of prisons (at least the newest ones) is a bit high, but he won't end up on a holiday island. If he dies in 19 years he'll serve 3 months for each. If he lives longer that goes up. I can't imagine him ever being released. At least he won't get a chance to do more bad things.

Original post by pink pineapple
I think it's pretty shocking that the maximum prison sent Norway is 21 years and after what happened, which was truly horrific it just doesn't seem justifiable.

They had nothing like this in mind when they set the sentences, so when you generally want to rehabilitate people rather than punish them, giving long sentences does no good. In this case, however, they will probably extend his sentence by 5 years at a time until his death.

Original post by Cherriesxo
Wow, I didn't know that. In my opinion that doesn't make sense, 'mentally sane' people don't kill and attack innocent people like that. :confused:

It's up to the judges to decide. That was based on a report of two psychiatrists concluding he is juridically responsible for his actions (rather than mentally sane in the common sense). The first pair concluded the opposite, so nothing is decided yet.

Original post by KingMessi
If humanity as a whole is going to shy away from a death penalty, then 'life imprisonment' has to be literal - should you commit murder or any other crime of similar weight, you are incarcerated until death. Twenty-one years is categorically not life, and shouldn't be seen as sufficient retribution.

Do you believe in eye for an eye punishment? Not everyone is as disillusioned as this guy, and in he will probably never be released from imprisonment/forced medical treatment if it makes you feel better.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 47
Original post by Jørgen
The way it was suggested was basically torturing him to death.


Not the impression I got.

Original post by Jørgen

I hope that was metaphorical? I agree the standard of prisons (at least the newest ones) is a bit high, but he won't end up on a holiday island. If he dies in 19 years he'll serve 3 months for each. If he lives longer that goes up. I can't imagine him ever being released. At least he won't get a chance to do more bad things.


Someone else posted a video of the most horrific murderers living on an idyllic island so help rehabilitate them. Perhaps I'm wrong but the maximum sentence is 21 years with an extra 26 if he is deemed too dangerous. So at most he'll serve roughly 4 months for each. In many ways it would be better if he was declared insane as he could be held indefinitely for being too much of a danger.
Reply 48
Original post by TheHansa
Not the impression I got.

Someone else posted a video of the most horrific murderers living on an idyllic island so help rehabilitate them. Perhaps I'm wrong but the maximum sentence is 21 years with an extra 26 if he is deemed too dangerous. So at most he'll serve roughly 4 months for each. In many ways it would be better if he was declared insane as he could be held indefinitely for being too much of a danger.


Leaving him on an island to starve would be torture?

Yes but he won't end up there. That's for rehabilitating people who show promise, so they can come back to society and do no more harm. I don't think that will happen to this guy. After his 21 years they can extend his sentence by 5 years at a time indefinitely, I think.
Original post by Darklady.
I think it makes you worse than him, that will only make the situation worse, he needs mental help more than anything, punishing him for it will not solve anything.


lol

thats like saying paedophiles can be changed.

They cannot be changed and should be made to suffer. :biggrin:
Reply 50
I hear the maximum sentence, if he is found sane and guilty, is 21 years and have you seen the prison?! I've been to three-stars hotel that looked way worst than that! However, all things considered, it's a prison; but the problem is, if he goes out (whether legally or illegally), would he actually be a Nelson Mandela for the far right in Norway? It's a thought...

On the other hand, if he is found insane and guilty anyhow, he would be sentenced to be "imprisoned" in a mental hospital. Still, if he is no longer deemed a "danger" to the society, he would be set free... and the above could still happen (the whole Mandela part).

Personally? Whoa, you do not want to hear my own mob theory on what I could do to him! Aside from feeding him or piranhas or sharks, I had thought about the bring-the-dead-to-live injection, where I would kill him in many ways and many times! But otherwise, what Butler's character did in "Law Abiding Citizen" movie, would suffice for me. Seriously.
He is going to be in prison or in some mental hospital for his entire life.

Therefore he is no longer a threat to the public and he will not kill any more innocent people.

I thought that was the main point of prison. To keep them away from the rest of us so they cannot repeat their crimes. I did not think the point of prison was to harm them or make them suffer a great deal. The maximum sentence is 21 years in norway however they can keep you for longer if they deem you a threat. He has made it pretty clear that he will do it again if he gets out. So he will probably be kept for longer.

Hurting him, killing him or torturing him is not really going to achieve anything and it means you would have to introduce capital punishment into the system. He probably wouldnt be eligble for that anyway because when he commited the crimes capital punishment wasnt around. It would be unfair to kill him and not kill the rest of the murderers.

Norway has one of the lowest re offending rates in the whole world by the way and many would say it is because of their prison system. As far as I know they focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 52
Original post by muddywaters51
He is going to be in prison or in some mental hospital for his entire life.

Therefore he is no longer a threat to the public and he will not kill any more innocent people.

I thought that was the main point of prison. To keep them away from the rest of us so they cannot repeat their crimes. I did not think the point of prison was to harm them or make them suffer a great deal. The maximum sentence is 21 years in norway however they can keep you for longer if they deem you a threat. He has made it pretty clear that he will do it again if he gets out. So he will probably be kept for longer.

Hurting him, killing him or torturing him is not really going to achieve anything and it means you would have to introduce capital punishment into the system. He probably wouldnt be eligble for that anyway because when he commited the crimes capital punishment wasnt around. It would be unfair to kill him and not kill the rest of the murderers.

Norway has one of the lowest re offending rates in the whole world by the way and many would say it is because of their prison system. As far as I know they focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.


1. He won't do it again

2. It saves money

Saudi Arabia has a comparable murder rate and it punishes criminals rather than rehabilitate, why don't you want this? It's less cost than giving convicts dedicated psychiatrists, saunas, personal trainers and even then 1-in-5 reoffend.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by kuteascake
It'll cost less money to keep him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, with the highest level of security, than it will to put him to death.. just like it does in America.

The Norwegians are peaceful people (which makes the attack all the more heartbreaking), and they don't want to see him dead.. only punished. I agree with them.

He's an evil man, I'm certainly not denying that, but surely it's better for him to have to live the rest of his life in prison. Hopefully, he may even feel remorse one day.


I doubt it. To him it was a simple matter of kill 1 to save 100. (Except more extreme)
Reply 54
Original post by MrBleh95
I don't believe in capital punishment at all because usually there's a possibility they could be innocent after all. However in a cut and dried case like this I wouldn't want money spent to keep him alive either. I'd tell him the fence is electrified and then leave. He'd have a choice, either live in misery or kill himself using the fence because I really couldn't care less about him or his 'wellbeing'.


the juror system kind of falls down when you distinguish between guilty verdicts that are definitely right and those that are iffy
Original post by TheHansa
1. He won't do it again

2. It saves money

Saudi Arabia has a comparable murder rate and it punishes criminals rather than rehabilitate, why don't you want this? It's less cost than giving convicts dedicated psychiatrists, saunas, personal trainers and even then 1-in-5 reoffend.


It isnt about what I personally want.

My comment about Norway having one of the lowest reoffendning rates in the world was directed at people who are shocked at the quality of their prisons.

1) He wont do it again anyway. He is going to prison for 21 years + as long as they see him as a threat. I think its extremely likely that he will spend the rest of his life in prison because he has said he will do it again and that indicates that he is a threat. This guy isnt getting out of prison and therefore poses no threat to the Norweigan public anymore. If anything killing or torturing him will be more of a threat as it brings a lot more attention to him and his cause.

2) Why not round up the rest of the violent criminals in prisons and kill them? It saves money and while youre at it round up all the disabled people who rely on the Norweigan government and kill them too. It saves money. The Norweigan people are the ones responsible for the system they have right now. Last time I checked Norway is a democracy and the people voted in the political parties which put into place this system.

You cannot kill or torture him now because that was not the law at the time of the offence. Norway doesnt have capital punishment (their choice). If Norway does it to him then they should round up all of the other people who have murdered and kill them too.

Also an execution can be an expensive process, if you look to America in a lot of cases the execution costs more than it would cost to imprison them for life.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 56
I'm unsure about how severe a punishment we should give him, but I do feel sorrowful for him, how could anyone kill so many people? However I think most people are capable of wishing it.
Reply 57
Normally, murderers who are undeniably guilty should just be locked up indefinitely, but I think if he had killed one of my loved ones, I may feel considerably less forgiving, especially because his crime was a calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. To kill that many people is unforgivable.
Original post by Cherriesxo
Wow, I didn't know that. In my opinion that doesn't make sense, 'mentally sane' people don't kill and attack innocent people like that. :confused:


His actions are well-thought out, I believe him to be sane, I think he has a repressed fear of Norway being islamified.

Also give him as little media coverage as possible
Reply 59
Original post by muddywaters51
It isnt about what I personally want.

My comment about Norway having one of the lowest reoffendning rates in the world was directed at people who are shocked at the quality of their prisons.

1) He wont do it again anyway. He is going to prison for 21 years + as long as they see him as a threat. I think its extremely likely that he will spend the rest of his life in prison because he has said he will do it again and that indicates that he is a threat. This guy isnt getting out of prison and therefore poses no threat to the Norweigan public anymore. If anything killing or torturing him will be more of a threat as it brings a lot more attention to him and his cause.

2) Why not round up the rest of the violent criminals in prisons and kill them? It saves money and while youre at it round up all the disabled people who rely on the Norweigan government and kill them too. It saves money. The Norweigan people are the ones responsible for the system they have right now. Last time I checked Norway is a democracy and the people voted in the political parties which put into place this system.

You cannot kill or torture him now because that was not the law at the time of the offence. Norway doesnt have capital punishment (their choice). If Norway does it to him then they should round up all of the other people who have murdered and kill them too.

Also an execution can be an expensive process, if you look to America in a lot of cases the execution costs more than it would cost to imprison them for life.


Disabled folk are innocent, the state has a duty of care.

You were speaking as if the low reoffending rates (if 20% is a low reofending rate these days) justified their sort of prison system and I merely pointed out that Saudi can get amazing results much more cheaply.

Torturing him is pointless but there's no logical reason to deny him the death penalty, he made fun of the courts because even he admits he won't get what he rightfully deserves. the opinions of the people generally reflect the media if the media wanted to bring the death penalty back they could turn peoples opinions round in 2 years max. The act of executing a person is not very expensive at all.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending