Talk politics.

If Norway had the death penalty, their people would've been spared the embarrassment of having to tolerate this guy, to feed him and provide luxurious accommodation on the taxpayer's dime for him, only to be sued in return.

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Being civil to a barbarian could only yield more pain for everybody else but the barbarian themselves.

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

He should rot in a dungeon.

From:

Or hang from a tree.

From:

The true test of a civilization is in this, in how it reacts to ugly things: championing speech that makes the blood boil, not just speech that makes people feel good. Treating even criminals with human dignity, not just the law-abiding.

Breivik current actions have put Norway to that test, and from over here, it looks like Norway has passed. They have sequestered him for his own safety (he has been attacked by other inmates) but in relative comfort, rather than the traditional "solitary" cell. He has even been afforded a day in court to address his complaints. And from all indications, Norway will respond with both the dignity deserved of his status as a human being, and the denial deserved of his status as a mass-murdering Nazi fuckhead.

God, the man is such an entitled crybaby.

From:

Is shooting 77 people speech, though?

From:

I'm not aware of anyone who would claim it is.

From:

Then what does "championing speech that makes the blood boil" have to do with Breivik's case?

From:

It is an example of the sort of "ugly thing" society must meet head on without the knee-jerk response that "common sense" or "mob justice" would normally demand. "Treating even criminals with human dignity, not just the law-abiding," as I said later in that same paragraph.

Breivik is a mass-murdering monster who ought not to ever be allowed in civilized society again. Maybe someone can even argue that he ought to be killed for what he did. But I doubt anyone here would agree that he should be tortured. My point is: there are limits that civilization places on itself, but those limits mean nothing until they are tested by the most heinous acts, the most heinous people. Free speech means nothing if we say: "Well, for everyone but Donald Trump." The rights of the accused and convicted mean nothing if we say: "Well, for everyone but Breivik."

Note that I am not saying that Breivik's complaint is legitimate. On the contrary, I was noting that Norway seems to have treated him with exceptional dignity, far more than I'd be tempted to do if I were in the position to make such decisions. (Though the question of what harm, if any, isolation causes, even if in luxurious conditions, is one worth asking.)

From:

Again, why bring up free speech in a criminal situation? Or has free speech become the default run-to adage when speaking of human/civil rights?

From:

Because when it comes to things like mass-murderers, emotions run high and it's harder sometimes to make the valid point that even mass-murderers deserve fair treatment and dignity (even if their punishment is the death penalty.)

Bringing up a less contentious example of the difficulty of living up to societal ideals makes for a good analogy with which to frame the more contentious one. If you don't like the free-speech part, ignore it. I believe my point stands on its own merits.

From:

OK, I will.

From:

Relative comfort? This room looks better than the average living-room in my country. You know, living-rooms inhabited by people who've never killed anyone.

From:

Well, no one ever accused me of under-utilizing understatement. ;)

Seriously, though, I can appreciate the instinct to react with outrage when this prisoner then complains of "inhuman treatment." That room is at least as big as college dorm rooms here, or a small one-room apartment, and it's just one out of three, rooms, if I'm reading the OP correctly. However, I have to point out: was his complaint specifically about the accommodations, or the isolation?

A gold cage is still a cage, after all. Solitary confinement has its own effects on a person, whether it's in a palace or a hole in the ground (and no, I'm not going to claim that the two are equivalent, but I hope the point I'm trying to make isn't so easily obfuscated that way.)

I'm not saying he's right, but he might have a point, even if only a small one. Imprisonment is not a moral evil, and perhaps execution is not one either. These are things that some might argue about, but for the most part most people would agree that there is a place for these things. Torture, on the other hand, is something I would argue that we ought not to do, even to the worse of "monsters." If we decide that we must kill a mass-murderer, so be it, but if we're going to keep such a person alive, it must be with the full respect for their human dignity and human needs, else we become monsters ourselves. It is the only way we defend society and civilization from becoming itself monstrous (for example, the U.S. response to 9/11, which was to become more monstrous and to sacrifice freedoms for illusory false "security.")

I'm not saying he's being tortured, or that his isolation is in any way a cruel and unusual punishment. But, it's a question worth asking: is forced isolation, regardless of how luxurious the cell is, harmful above and beyond what is just punishment? It ought to be asked, and if doctors and psychiatrists say: "No," then send him back. If they say "yes," then let him be in the general population. It's on his own head, though, when those people who are looking for his blood succeed in their quest.

Edited Date: 15/3/16 18:53 (UTC)

From:

It's the isolation. There's a reason for that isolation. And no, that reason is not torture. It's for both his safety and more importantly, other people's safety. Put him back into the world? So that he could kill more people, or more likely, be killed on day one? How's the former justice, and how's the latter not mob rule, essentially? The only options are either isolation or disposing of him outright. Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter. If he has gone to tremendous lengths to harm society, it means he has resigned from that society - so isolation is the only option he has brought upon himself. That, or ridding society of him altogether.

From:

It's for both his safety and more importantly, other people's safety.

Yes, as I've acknowledged. That question at hand is whether that isolation is, itself, harmful. If it isn't, then there is nothing wrong with the isolation. If it is, then we'd expect to see a cost-benefit analysis weighing the potential harm of one option vs the harm of the other.

"The only options are either isolation or disposing of him outright."

Some might disagree. If he wishes to be in the general prison population, that is something the prison officials have to weigh. If he is a danger to others (or vice versa) they can either isolate him, or address that danger in other ways. But my point is: simply keeping him in a box without other human contact for the rest of his life could itself be seen, by some, as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course, there is the other option, as you say, of simply killing him. There are many who would argue that a truly civilized society has no need of resorting to such options.

From: