The Anders Brevik Case: What to do?

The Anders Brevik Case: What to do?

The Guardian put the issue of Brevi as follows:
"Two psychiatrists will give evidence in an Oslo courtroom today stating that they believe that Anders Breivik was not suffering from psychosis when – on 22 July last year – he murdered 77 Norwegians in a pair of gun and bomb attacks, the worst in the country's history."

Not a person who supports capital punishment, my view is that Brevik (and others of his ilk) should be incarcerated for the rest of his life Period! No chance for parole, no time off for good behaviour.

Even if it could be proven that the Breviks of the world could be cured or rehabiliated, we could never demonstrate they might not lapse. But does that even matter? Those that they've slaughtered will never return to the families that mourn them.

What think you?

I would say that lifetime imprisonment is no guarantee of a long life.

Wisconsin has no death penalty, hasn't had for as long as I can remember. Jeffery Dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment for his rather grotesque dietary habits. A fellow inmate killed him sometime later.

Colorado has the death penalty. In the case presently on the front page nearly everywhere, that might not matter since there's some question about whether authorities can keep him alive that long. He's been kept in solitary under guard, if put in the general jail population he would not live to see nightfall. He's supposed to go to court to face charges tomorrow, if many fellow inmates had their way the only judge he would see is the Supreme Judge of Judges. See below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-jailed-solitary-inmates-talking-killing-article-1.1119173

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I would say that lifetime imprisonment is no guarantee of a long life.

Wisconsin has no death penalty, hasn't had for as long as I can remember. Jeffery Dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment for his rather grotesque dietary habits. A fellow inmate killed him sometime later.

Who among us has a guarantee of a long life?

What inmates do has nothing to do with what the state does. The two are completely separate matters.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I would say that lifetime imprisonment is no guarantee of a long life.

Wisconsin has no death penalty, hasn't had for as long as I can remember. Jeffery Dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment for his rather grotesque dietary habits. A fellow inmate killed him sometime later.

Who among us has a guarantee of a long life?

What inmates do has nothing to do with what the state does. The two are completely separate matters.

Maybe. But, now the state has to spend money protecting this guy from those who would kill him.

Same thing in Norway. I haven't heard "for sure" but it would come as no surprise to find that Anders Brevik is in protective custody, and that if he were put into the general prison population he wouldn't see the sun go down. The state has to pay big money to see to it that vicious killers don't get "offed"..... Hmmmmm.

I am not so sure that the same vengeful spirit exists in Norway as in America. Just because such is typical re the USA and the prison system the roughest and worst in the world doesn't follow everyone is the same.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

What inmates do has nothing to do with what the state does. The two are completely separate matters.

That is like the police half a century ago giving a local chapter of the KKK rope and directions to gallows in the forest while telling them they are going to the neighbouring town for the weekend. The state is responsible for the security and well-being of its inmates. A lynch mob is still a lynch mob, and lynch justice is no justice.

It is considered to be too dangerous to let Breivik into the prison population, and Breivik himself is considered dangerous, so he seems destined for a cell for one with friend, likely for the rest of his life, or at least for a decade. It would be convenient for him to be judged criminally insane, but whatever the verdict, he would be isolated until deemed rehabilitated.

Originally posted by jax:

It would be convenient for him to be judged criminally insane, but whatever the verdict, he would be isolated until deemed rehabilitated.

I don't know. I simply don't know.
I think that's Breivik's case it's one of the must perturbing cases affecting European societies. As a result, and at a certain sense, he has already won.

In Europe, punishment must serve three functions, punishment, example/dissuasion (for society in general) and rehabilitation. Not all European countries attributes the same weight to those functions (for Latin Southern Countries, rehabilitation it's more a kind of yeah, yeah, we'll see that later...), but Scandinavian Countries have made a point of honor on giving all the opportunities for rehabilitation of the individual.

I ask, how do you rehabilitate someone that despises rehabilitation for being a weakness?
On the other hand, I can't accept death penalty and even less that coward and totally unacceptable attitude of "put him into jail, look to the other side, and wait for other prisoners to kill him".

So, I don't know. That's why I despise judges, they also don't know...

This pig-swill murders 77 people and we're to entertain the notion of rehabilitation? That notion makes my head spin. Which of the below apply?

re·ha·bil·i·tate (rh-bl-tt)
tr.v. re·ha·bil·i·tat·ed, re·ha·bil·i·tat·ing, re·ha·bil·i·tates
1. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.
2. To restore to good condition, operation, or capacity.
3. To reinstate the good name of.
4. To restore the former rank, privileges, or rights of.

My attitude would make me a terrible Norwegian. I'm ashamed of myself.

Since I don't support capital punishment, I can't go there, but were I the god in charge of this bastard, he'd never leave the prison.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Since I don't support capital punishment, I can't go there, but were I the god in charge of this bastard, he'd never leave the prison.

I don't know the Norwegian law but I'll suppose that there's no prison for life. I'm totally against using the stratagem of considering someone insane as a way of going around the law and have the person in prison for life. It can be used on you, you know?

What value has a law if we change it because of one person? It's the law a casuistic thing? That's totally against all the magnificent foundation of the Roman system of law, that we follow, based on principles, not isolated cases constituting "precedents".

I don't think there is any belief that he would be rehabilitated, so the "how to minimise the risk of recidivism when back in society" is not so important as it is not too likely he will be back in society. A bigger concern is radicalising of like-minded people, from the "we agree with the goal, but not the means" crowd to the Brevity-worshippers that may agree particularly with the means. This is a killer with an ideology. There is a good chunk of "Islam critics" that have left rationality behind, if they abandon other constraints as well they could become deadly. It would be convenient if he was deemed criminally insane, but convenience shouldn't have a role in a fair trial. Then the diagnosis of the two psychiatric teams disagree wildly makes it a field day for critics of forensic psychiatry.

Originally posted by jax:

This is a killer with an ideology.

I agree. And he's no insane person at all, regardless what psychiatrists that don't even understand the reach of what he did may think.
A wait out, in order to maintain the internal logic and coherence of the law system, would be to consider him as a soldier, an enemy soldier and deal with the case accordingly the laws of war, not the civilian laws. Military laws are much more adapted to tactical needs than elevated principles.

And, probably, that approach would correspond very much to the reality of what happened.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

And he's no insane person at all, regardless what psychiatrists that don't even understand the reach of what he did may think.

Psychiatry is not a precise science...or a science at all. It's a religion. Like Popery.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Psychiatry is not a precise science...or a science at all. It's a religion. Like Popery.

You're learning, Grasshopper!

Bless you, my son!

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Popery.

Isn't that the smelly stuff (flowery bits) you get in glass bowls ?.

Originally posted by LinuxMint7:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Popery.

Isn't that the smelly stuff (flowery bits) you get in glass bowls ?.

I don't know about glass bowls but some popes are kinda smelly