Oslo

[JP]

no i dont think about it being an issue about not punishing him at all, i dont care, would have been ok with me if he had been killed in the process, thats not the issue.

More telling is the fixation of some people - and especially in some countries - to immediately to start thinking about punishment, like that is the solution or the main issue at the moment.

i dont think its really going to be an issue in norway, i really doubt this guy will ever walk free in his life - if he survives prison in the first place.

[xrodolfox]

What a terrible tragedy.
Clearly, i think that the right wing needs to be forced to take responsibility for this attack.

That said, I agree with JP that long prison sentences aren't a clear-headed solution, since that might not be solution in even this particular case. In the US, where long sentences are the rule, those long terms do not make the US safer at all. When confronted with appalling and senseless human acts, the solution isn't to go to that same place, but rather to act from reason and solidarity with the rest of the community. Clearly, safety comes first, but locking people up for longer periods of time isn't nesessarily the same as safety. This particular case might even require something different than a long prison sentence to really help make amends in the lives of those harmed by this killer. Now, especially, is the time to react with reason.

In that spirit, I hope that the families and communities most harmed by this are supported through this terrible ordeal.

Rodolfo, Apart from countries looking at a life sentence as a possible deterrent, are you honestly saying that you think this guy will ever be safe to be released. The guy in Norway planned his attack over 8 years, if he was released after 21yrs, just think what evils he could plan in 21yrs. Sometimes lomg sentences are not only an attempt as a deterrent, but because some people do need permanently locking away for others safety.

I do not think that prison terms work that well as deterrents for terrible crimes. Perhaps they work as deterrents for petty crimes.

I do not know if the guy in Norway should ever be released. I do not know if he will make reparations, or amends, or anything. I cannot predict the future. WIth that in mind, I also do not think it is wise to speculate on the future about what should happen in 21yrs. IMO, if this man were held in US prisons, where there is no program or system to be held accountable to the communities harmed and all that happens is being removed from society, then it is highly doubtful that 21yrs behind bars would change anything. I do not know the Norwegian justice system nor what will happen in 21yrs. I do not expect that Norway is so dissimilar from the US in whom is accountable for a crime (the state), and thus I would be surprised if in 21yrs this man would be fit to be free. To be clear, IMO that is a product of the penal system just as much as it is of the individual. That doesn't always have to be the case.

You say
This particular case might even require something different than a long prison sentence to really help make amends in the lives of those harmed by this killer

How can you even suggest that there is a way that this guy can make any amends for the level of atrocity that he has commoutted- what do you have in your head as an idea for a way that you reckon he could make amends?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
^That's what I was talking about.

By "amends", it would require the sort of work done in South Africa to heal the wounds (that still haven't healed) of apartheid. IMO, justice isn't being locked away by the state, but rather those that harmed helping repair what was damaged and taking responsibility for that damage. In cases of murder, that is quite a high bar, and it is much more than money, but actual sincere actions that are accepted by the victims.... which in a case like this might never be reached.

I do not know the future, so I do not know what will happen, but I doubt this case will have any restoration to it, and instead, like most cases, be one where the crime of murder is considered a crime against the state and the victims are just witnesses to a process they have little part in (other than to help convict).

ps I think the USAs predicament is far more complex with masses to do with gun laws, politics, all sorts, (way too complex for me) and their attempt at death penalty and long prisons terms is not addressing the real issues. And I dont want this thread to be diverted to talk of USA polisies, hence this as a ps.

I really do want to know rodolfo, how you reckon this guy could ever make amends.

Frankly, I doubt this man could ever truly make amends.
But then again, I do not know the future. I think that there is a lot of good that comes from trying, and the opportunity to create from what was destroyed.

I think it is problematic if it is the state that is "victim" here where a "justice" is just about punishing someone with a long sentence where the ostensible purpose is just to keep others safe without much else to it. That's at least, how the system is in the USA. The basic premise, IMO, is wrong, and thus we get more crime the more prisons we build.

I chafe at the knee-jerk reaction that locking people up for longer actual helps those that have been harmed, and that's the nexus of my post. Speculating whether this man could actually be released after 21yrs of no accountability other than a prison cell to me seems rash... but if that is all that occurs, like in the USA, then I doubt that that anything will change. If the system is different, requiring responsibility from the man who committed these crimes, then even this man is never freed, at least the results in the communities that were harmed are likely to be much better.

[xrodolfox]

All justice systems need to be build around prevention (the punishment needs to overweight the possible gain of a crime), safety (to protect the society from the offender) and revenge (for the victims).

Think about it like this:
A person murders another. Now afterwards, for whatever reasons, it is absolute sure that he wont or cant do it again.
Should he not be punished at all?

And if you think so, wouldnt that then also include things like old nazi leaders, people who did war crimes in wars long past, even that austrian guy who kept his daughter for 20 years in the basement.

Now in this case, think about the kids involved. There are more than 200 people that are most likely to have some mental issues now. Is it fair to them that in 20 something years some of them might see that guy in the streets again?

I think there are many premises that are totally incorrect from this post.

The problem here is that the frame used to answer these questions (and even ask them) is based on a system that doesn't actually work to keep communities safe at all. Having a victim "seeing the murderer on the streets again" all depends on the context. There are many cases where the murderer takes responsibility and acts on it so that the murderer actually makes amends. It is rare, but in those cases, that murderer is someone that the victims actually seek to free, and where "seeing them on the street" is actually helpful.

To be clear, the current penal system in the US (and most countries) is about punishment, not actually making people safer, or for any justice for victims. It is about the state, and it's rules. I do not know how it is in Scandanavia.

I think that this man should be held accountable and this man needs to help restore what was lost. I do not think this person should be free to do this again, but I also think that just locking him up and throwing away the key will solve very little. Making this man suffer will also do very little. Making this man take responsibility could do a lot.

[Hiking Fox]

There are many cases where the murderer takes responsibility and acts on it so that the murderer actually makes amends. It is rare, but in those cases, that murderer is someone that the victims actually seek to free, and where "seeing them on the street" is actually helpful..

Like in this case, in which the survivor of a race-hate shooting campaigned vigorously for the man who wounded him and killed two others to be spared the death penalty, on the grounds that killing him would achieve nothing, whereas freeing him might do some good for the world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/21/texas-executes-911-revenge-killer

[moggy]

moggy, define 'making amends' please. You mean, 'make him pay for what he did'? Because that is simply revenge, and I don't think it has a great place in a modern justice system....

I used the phrase 'make amends' in my post because rodolfo did, and I'm genuinely asking him what he means, and in which way anyone can make amends for this.

Hiking fox, if he gets released, do you think he will no longer pose a threat to people?

[moggy]

I dont think that anybody's initial thoughts could possibly have been about punishment- I think everyones initial thoughts were with the victims.

[Heinrich]

The problem here is that the frame used to answer these questions (and even ask them) is based on a system that doesn't actually work to keep communities safe at all.

Im sure Im misunderstanding you. To me it sounds like youre saying that if there was a system where eveyone is safe, there wouldnt be a need for punishment. Which Im sure youre not.

[xrodolfox]

The problem here is that the frame used to answer these questions (and even ask them) is based on a system that doesn't actually work to keep communities safe at all.

Im sure Im misunderstanding you. To me it sounds like youre saying that if there was a system where eveyone is safe, there wouldnt be a need for punishment. Which Im sure youre not.

You are correct. I did not assume a system in which everyone was safe from all crimes.

What I was stating is that YOUR assumptions result in conclusions which do not work. Keeping people in prisons DOES NOT KEEP COMMUNITIES SAFE(R). It may seem that if you remove people who commit crimes from a community, that community would get safer, but that is not actually what occurs.

[baldy]

I came across that I found interesting.

[xrodolfox]

^that I'm down with.

[Fallen_Horse]

All justice systems need to be build around prevention (the punishment needs to overweight the possible gain of a crime), safety (to protect the society from the offender) and revenge (for the victims).

Think about it like this:
A person murders another. Now afterwards, for whatever reasons, it is absolute sure that he wont or cant do it again.
Should he not be punished at all?

And if you think so, wouldnt that then also include things like old nazi leaders, people who did war crimes in wars long past, even that austrian guy who kept his daughter for 20 years in the basement.

Now in this case, think about the kids involved. There are more than 200 people that are most likely to have some mental issues now. Is it fair to them that in 20 something years some of them might see that guy in the streets again?

I gotta go with Rodolfo on this. Revenge serves no purpose for the betterment of society, the betterment of the offender, and the betterment of the victim(s). You asked if someone should go free for murder as long as they are guaranteed to to not offend again? Of course they should! The ONLY useful contribution of punishment is to protect society from further harm and to help reform the offender. If the offender is reformed and society is protected, no further punishment is necessary. Revenge will not bring back the dead, nor will it prevent more death, nor will it benefit society. The reason that no one instantly goes free after murdering someone is because there is no way to be sure that the offender is instantly cured of violence. So what you have put forth is not a plausible real life scenario, although it is an interesting thought experiment. In reality, no one goes free after murder because there is no certainty that they will not do it again. They must be incarcerated and (hopefully) reformed. Then they are allowed to go free.

One problem with the debate is that everyone defines 'justice' differently, but just so we're clear, I define 'justice' to be actions that are taken that result in the best net benefit to society, the offender, and the victim(s). And I am not referring to emotional benefit, but logical benefit. The victim or their family might be emotionally happier (at least for a short time) if the offender is punished severely, but punishment for the sake of punishment serves no benefit to society, the offender, or the logical outcome of the victim(s) and family. The victim(s) are still dead, and the family must still grieve, whether or not the offender is being 'punished' for their actions....

Just my 2c

[muchluv]

I have to disagree with the notion that long prison sentences are not good deterrents. If we reduced max sentence to 5 years, The murder rate would leap, I bet. I don't have any proof of this and it is speculation, but also common sense I think. Maybe it wouldn't make that much difference to your average nutjob murderer, but organised criminals etc.

Along with this, the idea that murderers would be released straight away if they could prove they wouldn't do it again. This again would work against the etterent.

Maybe new thread for this?

[offense74]

The interesting thing to me would be how he got to where he is. He is insane. If you by "free will" gather up people and gun them down as he did, you don't have empathy. It might have been temporary but it doesn't seem like it since he doesn't seem to understand the magnification of what he did even now afterwards. To not have empathy among people who's brains are designed for social communities (which your brain is designed for) is to be insane.

The human brain is not fully developed at birth. During the time it grows to the size that it has when we are adults it develops according to the context in which it is in. For it to function properly some things need to be present and some things need to not be present. Some of these things are obvious in theory but hard to manage for parents who themselves have "broken" brains or who are just stressed out by modern life.
It makes me nauseated when people believe that a person that has seen his parents get killed then dragged off to be a slave for the reminder of his life is supposed to make the same moral judgements as us more priviledged people. He won't.

There is hope for everyone however. The brain can change and if it does I don't see why he shouldn't be let out? He will in that case not be the same person as he was when he did the crime. Of course there's probably a slim chance that he will ever be "sane" enough to be allowed to be let out and in that case he needs to be somewhere where he can't cause harm.

And for those who believe in harder punishments I have good news! Since the US are hard on drugs, marijuana will be eradicated there any day now!

[xrodolfox]

Yeah, New thread might be a great idea.

That said, you "common sense" actually doesn't work. This "common sense" is mostly a myth, most often used by institutions and individuals to maintain a more authoritarian state with less individual and community responsibility.

That's why in every place with long sentences, the crime is always done against the state, and thus the saying goes, "You do the time and you're free" rather than having to actually be accountable, and this fact is especially true for victims who get absolutely nothing in terms of institutional resolution (other than revenge).

What *did* work was when the state was even more authoritarian and there was swift state-sponsored revenge that was way disproportional to the crime being committed. Thus, having hands chopped off for stealing -on the spot- does deter stealing; but the direct consequence is that stiff sentences most often just select for criminals to plan better so as to not get caught. Since most states have a system in which the sentence takes at least several days to be carried out, and at worst is imprisonment or years later, state sanctioned murder, these do not work as deterrents against crime at all. What they do is just make it so that someone who plans to commit a crime just plans better, or resigns to being caught (like the guy in Oslo) or killed in the process, willing to take punishment/revenge retribution.

To be clear: Even if Norwegian punishment system were about swift revenge, this Oslo Killer would've committed his deadly acts. Since most murders are of passion, swift revenge (or even slow revenge as in the USA) doesn't deter murder. All it does is incentivize avoiding being caught.

It's the same with kids.

What kids learn from being punished for misbehaving isn't that the misbehavior is bad, nor does the child being punished reflect on the reasons why the misbehavior might be harmful to others/themselves... instead, children think, "how can I avoid being caught next time..."

That's the problem with revenge or long sentences, they totally miss what is needed, while not addressing the problem at all. I know for sure I've broken the law (speeding, for example), but my concern has always been "don't get caught -be vigilant-" rather than "hmmm, those speed laws must really be scientifically determined so as to maintain safer roads, including myself and those around me... perhaps I should slow down..."

I got my license taken away as a teen from driving twice the speed limit once too many times (120mph or 190km/h). I kept doing it regardless of how much I had to pay or how much inconvenience it caused me. My focus was on not getting caught. I used to read books on how to speed and not get caught. Thoughts of my own demise or that of others were never a part of the equation. I felt like I was in control (never driving under the influence of anything other than adrenaline). Even a few solo accidents at 90mph or over didn't slow me down.

What finally stopped me wasn't a judge telling me that I was a danger on the road (I was still thinking about not getting caught), but rather a simple science teacher explaining the physics of roads and how basically, my car at that speed was not in as much control as I felt. He explained the physics of how the back wheels drag behind the car when turning (due to the design of cars). He also explained how roads were limited by speed (and actual road design limits). After a few classes, not only did I understand how to take turns more safely, I also understood why driving my car well above the speed limit was a danger to those in my community, so I finally slowed down.

Of course, I still avoided the cops, but my focus has been more on driving responsibly. Punishments didn't work for me, they don't work on my kids or other kids, and they certainly have been shown not to actually make communities safer from crime.

[moggy]

Absolitely no expense was spared in the rehabilition of Jon Venables, yet,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/0 ... n-offences

The details of the original murder are truly horrific.

I think that whatever stance Norway now takes will be carefully thought out- for now they are still in shock, but have already taken sensible measures like refusing this guy his wish to be able to make his views heard in open court.