Breivik: The Moral Dilemma

[Vassenor]

Because apparently spending two decades in the same nine square meters is too soft.

In three cells. That allow him a very comfortable standard of living that many in developing nations would kill for.

I'm pretty sure if you were locked in the same nine square meter space for two decades you wouldn't be saying that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because apparently spending two decades in the same nine square meters is too soft.

In three cells. That allow him a very comfortable standard of living that many in developing nations would kill for.

It's not like he has three rooms he can just walk between.

He either has to specifically request to move from one to the other, or I think the case actually is that each of the three cells has a specific purpose and he is moved from one to the other at set times for set periods.

Functionally speaking, he has one small cell. It gets repurposed every few hours.

[Ifreann]

Because apparently spending two decades in the same nine square meters is too soft.

In three cells. That allow him a very comfortable standard of living that many in developing nations would kill for.

Yes, it sounds very cozy when you ignore everything bad about it and compare it to the worst living conditions on Earth.

[Imperial City-States]

In three cells. That allow him a very comfortable standard of living that many in developing nations would kill for.

I'm pretty sure if you were locked in the same nine square meter space for two decades you wouldn't be saying that.

Put him in an American or Russian prison. He'd learn quickly to appreciate how soft Norwegian prison is.

[Vassenor]

I'm pretty sure if you were locked in the same nine square meter space for two decades you wouldn't be saying that.

Put him in an American or Russian prison. He'd learn quickly to appreciate how soft Norwegian prison is.

So we're right back to "how dare countries do things differently to America".

[Conserative Morality]

Put him in an American or Russian prison. He'd learn quickly to appreciate how soft Norwegian prison is.

"Other people/institutions are shitty" is not an excuse for being a shitty person/institution.

[Imperial City-States]

Put him in an American or Russian prison. He'd learn quickly to appreciate how soft Norwegian prison is.

So we're right back to "how dare countries do things differently to America".

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?
The goal is to punish the individual, not grant then a life of Spartan comfort.

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

[Vassenor]

So we're right back to "how dare countries do things differently to America".

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

[Ifreann]

I haven't been to the zoo in...gosh, years, I should go to the zoo some time. What was I saying? Right, yeah, I haven't been in the zoo in years, but as I recall we don't treat wild, savage animals with extreme prejudice. We actually do our best to make them comfortable and happy in captivity, but mostly we leave them in, you know, the wild.

Except for when a stray dog goes rabid, and starts biting people, then we put him down.

Rabid dogs, being both rabid and dogs, are not meaningfully responsible for their actions. They're sick. They don't, and can't know any better. Rabid dogs aren't evil. They can't help but hurt people.

Is that how you think of Breivik? Someone who is sick, who couldn't help but hurt those people, who isn't meaningfully responsible for his actions? I doubt you do think that.

Do you think we should kill sick people who, through no real fault of their own, hurt other people, but are not an immediate threat to anyone? Again, I doubt you do think that.

[Need a Name]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

It's a huge part of it. If it wasn't they'd send criminals to counseling instead.

[Medwind]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

I disagree.

[Conserative Morality]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Let's skip the niceties and spend the next 20 years torturing him in a NK prison camp. Break his fingers, castrate him, put out his eyes, flay him alive, all with the most advanced medical treatment available to keep him living, all to prove that we're far more inhumane than he could have ever been.

Seriously, the hell is the point?

[Imperial City-States]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

If the punishment is so severe that you in turn deter the crime from happening. Then it is effective.

Trying to rehab a psychopathic murderer is not effective. And is a waste of Norwegian Tax payer dollars.

[Imperial City-States]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Let's skip the niceties and spend the next 20 years torturing him in a NK prison camp. Break his fingers, castrate him, put out his eyes, flay him alive, all with the most advanced medical treatment available to keep him living, all to prove that we're far more inhumane than he could have ever been.

Seriously, the hell is the point?

But would that, or would it not he more effective at preventing the crime in the first place?

Can't say I'm going to want to commit murder if the punishment involved twenty years of brutal torture

[Vassenor]

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

If the punishment is so severe that you in turn deter the crime from happening. Then it is effective.

Trying to rehab a psychopathic murderer is not effective. And is a waste of Norwegian Tax payer dollars.

The Norwegian government disagrees. Given that no-one has advocated changing the laws to punish him more severely.

[Medwind]

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Let's skip the niceties and spend the next 20 years torturing him in a NK prison camp. Break his fingers, castrate him, put out his eyes, flay him alive, all with the most advanced medical treatment available to keep him living, all to prove that we're far more inhumane than he could have ever been.

Seriously, the hell is the point?

Justice.

[Conserative Morality]

It's a huge part of it. If it wasn't they'd send criminals to counseling instead.

Separation from the general population is the most important aspect of it. Secondary is rehabilitation. Tertiary is punishment. If all we were concerned with was the first, exile would still exist. If we were concerned only with the second, social services would take care of it. If we cared only about the third, we'd torture them.

[Ifreann]

So we're right back to "how dare countries do things differently to America".

No, we're referring to the 'severity' of it.
Spending 20 years in a Norwegian prison
Spending 20 years in a American prison

Which one is more of a punishment?
The goal is to punish the individual, not grant then a life of Spartan comfort.

I can tell you exactly which one I'd prefer if I was incarcerated.

Maybe your goal is to punish Breivik without any regard for Norway's laws or values, but why is that a valuable goal to pursue? Hurting Breivik, no matter how severely, won't bring his victims back from the dead. It won't stop him from hurting anyone else again. It won't stop the next Breivik from hurting people. Maybe it would make you feel better about the state of the world, but why would the government and people of Norway go to such lengths to satisfy you?

[Need a Name]

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

If the punishment is so severe that you in turn deter the crime from happening. Then it is effective.

Trying to rehab a psychopathic murderer is not effective. And is a waste of Norwegian Tax payer dollars.

That rarely happens. In North Korea for example a student stole a sign (or something equivalently small) and got 15 years of hard labor. Severe punishments don't deter criminals en masse.

[Conserative Morality]

But would that, or would it not he more effective at preventing the crime in the first place?

Can't say I'm going to want to commit murder if the punishment involved twenty years of brutal torture

You think Breivik or any other semi-ideological fanatic sits at home planning an attack with the calculation of how much the state will punish them? Look how well torture has worked for so many middle eastern countries. Real free of scumbags, right?

[Need a Name]

It's a huge part of it. If it wasn't they'd send criminals to counseling instead.

Separation from the general population is the most important aspect of it. Secondary is rehabilitation. Tertiary is punishment. If all we were concerned with was the first, exile would still exist. If we were concerned only with the second, social services would take care of it. If we cared only about the third, we'd torture them.

I agree, but I believe that the crimes of this man or so great that even though punishment is the third aspect it still warrants the death penalty.

[Vassenor]

"Murder is bad, and we're going to demonstrate that point by murdering people."

[Zoice]

What did you check? The NKVD handbook?

The primary punitive element of prison is disenfranchisement from society. The loss of your freedom. To not see this as punishment alone is such a failure to understand the rights and freedoms we enjoy in the west that I can only call you entitled.

The punishment matching the crime does not work. It does not rehabilitate, it does not deter crime.
So what the fuck would the point be?

Justice.

With a single word you've conceded that you do not have the moral high ground. You want people to suffer because it makes you feel better. That's what we put people in prison for.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

It's a huge part of it. If it wasn't they'd send criminals to counseling instead.

They do that, or at least things broadly equivalent to it, in Norway.
They don't in much of the west.

Norway has a low recidivism rate.

Why are you proclaiming this as some failure and great evil?
It actually works.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, punishment is not the only point of a prison sentence.

If the punishment is so severe that you in turn deter the crime from happening. Then it is effective.

Trying to rehab a psychopathic murderer is not effective. And is a waste of Norwegian Tax payer dollars.

That point clearly does not exist or the homicide rate in the US would not be so abysmally high.