If they were serious about punishment
they'd give him a Windows 8 machine instead.
Norwegian convicted mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has threatened a hunger strike if prison authorities don't upgrade his video game system to a PlayStation 3, among other demands. "You've put me in hell," Breivik wrote to officials in November in a letter obtained by Agence France-Presse, "and I won't manage to survive …
"much cheaper to let him starve to death and use his body to fuel a furnace."
If you let him starve to death the energy content of the corpse will be fairly low. Better to fatten him up, leave a few nooses around as a hint, and then burn him. Possibly restrict his liquid intake so he's a bit dehyrdrated - the higher the water content the less energy you get out.
I'm all in favour of dead people as a renewable fuel. In fact I'd round up hippies, convicted murderers, and climate change enthusiasts and throw them in the hopper alive - why waste bullets, or make a bolt gun dirty?
"In fact I'd round up hippies, convicted murderers, and climate change enthusiasts and throw them in the hopper alive - why waste bullets, or make a bolt gun dirty?"
Climate change enthusiasts? People who are working for climate change? Curry, Linden, Mcintyre, Watts, those guys?
I think you're a bit harsh.
>"Climate change enthusiasts? People who are working for climate change? Curry, Linden, Mcintyre, Watts,"
Why the hate? Do you really think anyone is listening to the eggheads? Don't worry you and the Koch brothers are going to get the future you want careful what you wish for, etc. As for wanting people to die I guess you fear people when they have to something to say that is dangerous.
"Prison is about rehabilitation, not punishment."
100% wrong. Prison has four aims:
1. punish the offender
2. keep the offender out of society so they can't reoffend
3. deter other members of society from committing similar offences
4. rehabilitate the offender
Item 4 is one of those things that's only done if possible. The level of recidivism in released inmates clearly shows that giving them playstations, TVs, etc weakens 1 & 3 so much they are essentially ineffective. Rehabilitation is basically one of those things - "while we have him in our prison, we may as well try...."
With a name like Fluffy Bunny, you'd think you'd be less serious. My comment was an insulting dig at Windows 8, not actually a comment about the role of prisons.
If I was actually commenting on Brevik, I'd say just surgically remove his eyes, ears and tongue and let him spend the rest of his miserable life, dark and alone, dependant on the charity of others, not whining that his playstation doesn't have the cool new games.....
100% wrong. Prison has four aims: I love this, but feel the need to explain.
1. punish the offender
The purpose of this is to make him hate us. If he didn't hate us before, we must make sure that he does. This is important to point 4 below.
2. keep the offender out of society so they can't reoffend
This one has a side effect - it protects us.
3. deter other members of society from committing similar offences
In other words, scare us so bad, only psychopathic miurderer and criminals will ever commit crimes.
4. rehabilitate the offender
See point one. We need criminals, we need them to apply peer pressure to one another, use their cognitive dissonance to rationalize their crimes, so they can commit better ones when they get out.
Punishment has been used for 30.000 years. It's a proven solution.
"Punishment has been used for 30.000 years. It's a proven solution."
But only if the punishment is sufficiently severe to prevent the offender from ever re-offending. A callous mass-murderer has already stepped completely out of societies norms and value-system. Lovely one-to-one chats that aim to re-adjust their perspective can never work.
But a sentence of absolute misery, deprivation and unending torment might just spark the realisation that "if I do bad things, bad things will happen to me, so be nice". I'm not talking about torture or capital punishment here, I am talking about unending boredom mind-numbing tedium, hard hard work, zero stimulation, absence of routine, constant fear and discomfort. Giving prisoners TVs and a playstation to occupy their days is purely electronic baby-sitting - I know people who spend all day every day in front the TV/playstation - out of choice. If they trash their cells or riot as a group, well so long as they can't get out of the facility that's fine by me - they will learn to live with the consequences of their actions - certainly no loss to me or society as a whole.
You forgot the 5th one which applies in most countries.
5. Waste tax payers money giving them luxuries they don't deserve!
As inhumane as some former communist countries were and maybe some still are, Sometimes a bullet to the back of the head is the best option for certain crimes! cheap and painless and puts an end to it all so everyone can move on.
So it's not punishment you want, it's plain simple public revenge? Great 90% of the time when when you get the right person but a real bark when you paint the wall with the brains of an innocent person!
Tell you what why bother with all that justice bullshit either, eh? Just instigate several teams of covert death-squads, simple, plain street justice it's "cheap and painless and puts an end to it all so everyone can move on". The biggest advantage is that with no evidence of who killed the person, no one has to clean up the mess, except the victim's family! Save an absolute bundle in taxes!
Just a word to the wise though, don't piss off the wrong person, cut anyone up on the road or annoy any of your co-workers, they might mark you out as an undesirable and next thing your family might be soaping down your guts from their living room wall!
"So it's not punishment you want, it's plain simple public revenge? ... Tell you what why bother with all that justice bullshit either, eh? Just instigate several teams of covert death-squads ..."
That's a slippery slope fallacy. That Shane 4 suggested quick punishment (or revenge) for a self-admitted and convicted killer does not directly lead to eliminating the preceding trial, due process, careful consideration of evidence, and appeals.
"It's worth pointing out that Norway has one of the lowest levels of recidivism in the world, something which is largely attributed to the focus on rehabilitation over punishment"
But Breivik can not be rehabiliated - ever!! It is absolutely impossible, how can he ever be reintroduced to society. Lets say he's released in 20 years time, would you accept him living next door to you, dating your daughter, showing your son how to use a gun or how to lead a moving target? I'm guessing not.
So given that rehabilitation is completely out of the question, all that is left is incarceration and punishment and he deserves a lifetime of both.
@ proud2bgrumpy
To give a couple of examples.
Members of the Baader-Meinhoff* terrorist organisation RAF in Germany did return to society after serving gaol time.
Members of the Blekinge Gang terrorist organisation in Danmark returned to society after serving gaol time.
These people were ideologically driven political terrorists with no compunction about killing their targets in cold blood - amongst the most ideologically driven evil people you are likely to imagine. Yet apparently they now walk freely amongst us here in northern Europe.
Now, I leave it to you to decide if you think that it is a good thing or not, but the blanket statement "But Breivik can not be rehabiliated - ever!! " is not true just because you say so and choose to believe it so. It may be true, but neither of us have any way of knowing that.
*For those of you who did not live in Europe during the baader-meinhof RAF terror era, here is a link chosen at random - http://www.baader-meinhof.com/
@ Philip Lewis
Breivik can never be rehabilitated because society will never accept him back - I tried to make that point - it doesn't matter if he has a change of heart, he can never rejoin society because he is simply too well known and his appalling crimes will never be forgotten within the lifetimes of the affected generations.
So you might argue that perhaps he *could* be given a new identity, but I'd say that rejoining society with a false identity is NOT rehabilitation because he will continue to live on the periphery of society where he never has to answer to his past actions which are simply too heinous for forgiveness. If you disagree, I'll ask again - would you want him dating your daughter after his apparent reintroduction to society?
Now, I do know an ex-car thief, an ex-burglar and an ex-drug dealer (marijuana) - the're all law-abiding guys now (so they say, and I have no reason to disbelieve them). Two of these guys do regret their actions, the other simply doesn't want to go back inside, -BUT- they don't have (or need) new identities because the extent of their crimes are within the bounds of society to forgive.
So like I said before Breivik can never be rehabilitated (back into society as Anders Breivik) and giving him a false identity so he can pretend he never did bad stuff is just not rehabilitation.
Well known UK ex-cons who have accepted what they did and who are accepted back into society:
Mark Wright (footballer / car thief), Gino D'Acampo (TV chef / Burglary 2 years), Leslie Grantham (actor / 10 years manslaughter), Martin McGuiness (First Minister of Northern Ireland / former provisional IRA & proud owner of a 500 ibs car bomb), Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (child murderers) in 1993 who were apparently rehabilitated, given new identities only to reoffend similarly again in 2010 (Thompson, I think)
Even in the context of this escalating list of crimes and ex-cons, there's one hell of a gap before we get to Anders Breivik. So like I said Breivik can never rejoin society (under his own identity) and therefore can therfore can never be rehabilitated.
BTW, I did give you an up-vote because even though I completely disagree with your conclusion, your observations are interesting and add to the debate
@ proud2bgrumpy
You can hardly disagree with my conclusion - "hanging is too good for them" and "lock him up and throw away the key". Those two statements sum up my personal position and are quoted in case you missed them. So, it is hardly likely I want ABB dating my daughter.
However, my personal position is irrelevant to discussing the concept of rehabilitation of politically motivated murderers! They exist, have always existed, and apparently rehabilitation happens (proofs by existence).
The knee-jerk reactions of some people's posts here need a counterpoint of abstract reflection to demonstrate that those opinions and feelings are not necessarily "truths" in any abstract or logical sense. They are in many cases not even defensible positions to take in many societies.
You might look up what some of the now released Baader-Meinhof felons did. These people were very seriously evil. Apparently "society" can and does accept the rehabilitated back, no matter how heinous the crime. Like I said, it is up to the individual to reconcile themselves with this fact, and the society in which they live, or indeed want to live.
"BTW, I did give you an up-vote because even though I completely disagree with your conclusion, your observations are interesting and add to the debate"
Well said, sir, amongst the peurile humour (guilty, yer honour), the dogmatic moralising grandstanding, the factually wrong, and the purely opinionated, that is the best contribution in this thread.
And for all those complaining about supposed trolls, do you not think the whole article has really, really weak tech angle, and is PURELY and simply posted to generate some interest?
A bit of foam on the floor?
Pfft, just let him sit on the cold, hard floor.
Oh, and take away everything, including his games and his bucket. Then board up his window, let him eat the putrid slops discarded by the prison kitchen, and hose out his cell about once a year, with high pressure, boiling hot water mixed with bleach.
This a sadistic mass murderer, not a boy scout, and he's supposed to be in prison, not a holiday camp.
"This a sadistic mass murderer, .."
Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not. You probably should read up on the subject before you have an opinion. He is very definitely a sick puppy with serious psychological issues, but his motivation was clearly political and well thought through. His action was an extremely well executed killing spree intended to strike at the heart of the Norwegian political establishment.
a) Attack the "head" by blowing up the PMs office and anything nearby
b) Attack the "roots" by slaughtering the young "blue eyed" recruits to same establishment
He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer.
The political establishment, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone else has learned the wrong message (if they actually learned anything, which I doubt) from this tragic event. The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing.
And for good measure, so you know where I stand I will throw in a few colloquialisms. "Hanging is too good for him" and "they should lock him up and throw away the key" spring eagerly to mind.
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not."
"He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer."
Well ... he killed 69 people, so he's pretty definitely a mass murderer. Not sure how you get around that. He murdered more than one person. He's a mass murderer. He is, that's what that means. Mass murder. He murdered more than one person. Can't really make that any clearer.
Is he sadistic? Not sure, haven't read the news reports in a few years. Is your post to make the point that he wasn't sadistic? It's very unclear what point you are trying to make, you're very vague.
"The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing."
Well, he's been variously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, then later as having a narcissistic personality disorder.
You'll have to walk the rest of us through how you legislate against someone having a mental illness that manifests in violence. Because no'one in the history of the world, so far, has worked that one out, but you seem to think you've more clue than the current legislators. Maybe you do. Considering you're not sure what "mass murder" means though, I'm not hopeful.
The adjective "sadistic" is what is wrong about the OP. From that incorrect adjective, false conclusions follow. You, likewise chose to ignore that adjective and make out that I do not think ABB is a mass murderer, which is a gross misreading of what I wrote.
Judging by the downvotes, you were not the only one who failed to read all of what was written.
It did not at all suggest ABB was not a mass murderer as he is by any definition of the adjective "mass" used in connection with "murder". I went on to point out that his crime was not motivated in any way by sexual or other deviant notions, as with a great many mass murders (incl. the "sadistic" ones). Basically, mass murders typically do it because killing people gives them their jollies, though clearly there are lots of variations). ABB is very definitely not one of those - which was my point.
FYI: I live in Scandinavia - this all happened in our territory and trust me, we got bombarded from all sides with way more information and op-eds than you can imagine.
ABB is certainly a few bob short of a pound, but he is not a sadist and no one to my knowledge has suggested otherwise.
The rest of your post is pointless and largely wrong and/or irrelevant because it assumes that I do not think ABB is a mass murderer, a gross misreading of my post. So you, like the post to which I replied, make conclusions based on a false premise.
Hi Phil,
Not to keep banging over the same ground, but you literally said
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not."
"He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer."
That's not you saying "he's not sadistic". That's you saying "He's not a sadistic mass murderer". Twice.
So I addressed the "mass murderer" part (err, yes he is) and you've confirmed you agree. Great!
I then asked if your point was that he's not sadistic, because it was hard to tell what your point was. Apparently your point was that he's not sadistic. Great!
Hope you don't mind a quick tip - Next time it would be better, if you, in your original post, were to say (twice), something along the lines of;
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but "sadistic" he very definitely is not."
AND
"He is exactly, not 'sadistic' "
Because then it's clearer what you meant. Because you've missed the "mass murderer" bit off both times. See? Great!
I also asked why you mentioned legislation, because it seems we're agreed that he has violent mental health issues, and you seemed to suggest that could be legislated against - when you wrote (and sorry to keep quoting you, but it helps, when addressing things that YOU wrote, that didn't make much sense to me, as a reader, to reference the bits you wrote that made no sense whatsoever. Okay? Great! )
So, you said
"The political establishment, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone else has learned the wrong message (if they actually learned anything, which I doubt) from this tragic event. The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing."
Afraid I still don't understand that. What should they legislate that would prevent another Anders Behring Breivik type character, a man with violent mental health issues (who isn't sadistic), doing something similar in future?
Sorry about the confusion with the whole "you obviously didn't mean to say he's not a mass murderer" thing, it's just you wrote (twice) that he's "not a sadistic mass murderer", so I jumped to the conclusion that you meant "he's not a sadistic mass murderer", and not that you ACTUALLY meant "he's not sadistic". Sorry about that, I'm easily confused when people write things they don't mean, and I read them.
Have a Great! day