Can Paid Visitors Keep Anders Breivik Content in Prison?

[zoobyshoe]

Another thing:
What is meant by the "incarceration rate" in the US?
If it means average number of inmates per 100.000, then the Norwegian and the US numbers are comparable (now, that number is 90, according to the 2011-report from Central Criminal Care Unit).
However, in 2011, there was 201 pr.100.000 "effected verdicts" that led to incarceration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
"Incarceration Rate" means, of every 100,000 people in the population, how many of those 100,000 are in jail? The U.S. has a higher percentage of its population in jail at any given time than any other country.

 

[TheMadMonk]

I find the criticism of the Norwegian system (especially from Americans) to be a little harsh. The system in Norway is not one that I would recognise coming from the UK but it appears to work for them. It might not fit in with the (in my opinion) backwards mentality that seems to be so pervasive in other countries but Norwegians themselves are the only people who can really assess whether it works for them because they have to live with the consequences.

This talk of the feelings of the families those killed also seems to be dishonest. I suspect that if they were advocating Breivik being allowed visits by paid staff all consideration for their feelings would soon be disregarded because they don't match the politicial views of those who purport to be considering the families. Perhaps I am a little cynical though. With so many different families involved it seems clear that there wouldn't ever be a sentence that satisfies all involved.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As far as I know, incarceration or execution are the only reliable means of preventing criminals from committing crimes in the general population. Imo, the problem for societies where criminal behavior is inordinately high is that there aren't enough prisons to keep the people locked up who need to be kept locked up.

Prisons breed criminals, simplistically they only work at preventing crime if the thought of going (back) to one is worse than the situation the person finds themselves in. As for the only reliable means I disagree, firstly society prevents crime by dealing with the conditions that generate criminality and secondly there are many other forms of sentence (many of which no one has even tried) besides prison that work.

I could go on but I've stated my opinions on this site before on this topic.

This is in line with my personal views on how many crimes unnecessarily demand prison sentences in the UK. The only reason someone should be put in a prison is because they are a threat to society and people should be protected from them (rapists, murderers, thugs etc). For other crimes restrictions on freedom (e.g. curfews via electronic tag), fines and community services would act as punishment, deterrent and give back to society rather than costing society. Combine that with a number of schemes to reduce the causes of the criminals actions (e.g. offer rehabilitation for drug addicts, internships and training schemes for petty thieves caused by poverty etc) and we would hopefully move away from the overcrowded, criminal breeding grounds that the prison industrial complex currently offers. On top of that reforms to the current "large brick building with bars" model of a prison would be good so that we don't just store the worst of the worst in a place where they spend all day associating with like minds.

 

[royzizzle]

I never understood the concept of prisons for rapists, murders, etc... Isn't it much cheaper to just execute them?
Someone willing to rape or commit murder won't be contributing to society anyways. Whats the point of rehabilitation?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Isn't it much cheaper to just execute them?

I think you misunderstand the point of the sentance.

Someone willing to rape or commit murder won't be contributing to society anyways. Whats the point of rehabilitation?

That's a rather bold statement to make, one not supported by ay evidence.

 

[NeoDevin]

In addition to the flaws pointed out by Ryan above...

Isn't it much cheaper to just execute them?

No.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2955269...t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UA2Bq2FSRT4a

Basically: Because of the long, drawn out procedure (long trials, more and longer appeals, etc.) the inmate ends up being imprisoned for a large portion of their life anyway, despite eventually being sentenced to death. Thus, most of the costs for those sentenced to life exist for those sentenced to death as well. In addition, there are the greater costs of trial/appeals (prosecutors, judges, court staff, police presence when transferring the inmate from prison to courtroom and back, etc.) for the death sentence cases, since the trials tend to be longer, and there tend to be more appeals. Add in the cost of maintaining the capital punishment facilities, and paying the people to actually carry out the execution, and it turns out that it's significantly cheaper for society to sentence someone to life than to death.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I oppose the death penalty, but not because of any misplaced sympathy for those who might deserve it. If you have it, it's virtually inevitable that completely innocent people will be executed. Moreover, it's very unevenly applied in the US depending on the ability to obtain good defense lawyers and the jurisdiction where the defendant is tried. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have no death penalty. Others rarely if ever use it although it's legal. Only two states, Texas and Florida, apply it regularly.

However, I have a very different view about ever releasing adult offenders convicted of the kind of crimes that might warrant the death penalty, typically first degree (premeditated) murder. Under what circumstances can we be assured that such a person is no longer a threat to society? I'm not particularly interested in the recidivist rate for convicted killers (for crimes committed as adults). I know it's greater than zero. If the state should not be in the business of executing convicted killers, it should not also be in the business of exposing innocent people to a similar fate.

In particular, how does one judge when someone like Breivik (assuming he's convicted) can safely be released back into society? I'd be very interested in anyone's ideas as to what criteria a convicted mass murderer could possibly meet that would allow us to say he's rehabilitated.

 

[arildno]

Moreover, it's very unevenly applied in the US depending on the ability to obtain good defense lawyers and the jurisdiction where the defendant is tried. .

This is not a particularly good argument, since differentials in punishment are to be expected for any misdemeanor or felony you are talking about.
That the powerful&rich will get away from being punished for the same crime that a poor man will be convicted for, is a no-brainer, it doesn't mean that the poor man didn't deserve his punishment.

that innocents can be irrevokably punished through the death sentence IS, however, a heavy argument against the death penalty.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

This is not a particularly good argument, since differentials in punishment are to be expected for any misdemeanor or felony you are talking about.
That the powerful&rich will get away from being punished for the same crime that a poor man will be convicted for, is a no-brainer, it doesn't mean that the poor man didn't deserve his punishment.

Of course, but the stakes are far higher when there is a death penalty. The two reasons are not independent. In death penalty states, like all states, a poor person is more likely to be wrongly convicted of a capital crime. However, in the death penalty state they may be sentenced to death. Particularly in states like Florida or Texas, they are it higher risk of being wrongly executed. In states without the death penalty, they will at least survive and possibly be exonerated. So your risk of being wrongly executed (within existing law) is dependent on your personal resources and where you are charged with the crime within the US.

 

[rootX]

In particular, how does one judge when someone like Breivik (assuming he's convicted) can safely be released back into society? I'd be very interested in anyone's ideas as to what criteria a convicted mass murderer could possibly meet that would allow us to say he's rehabilitated.

Breivik case is unique and rare, and it is very high-profile. I doubt you can ever make a legal system strong enough to deal with the cases such as Breivik.

After some search I found some cases that might answer your questions:
- Nikolai Dzhumagaliev
- Karla Homolka
- Juha Valjakkala
- Issei Sagawa

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Breivik case is unique and rare, and it is very high-profile. I doubt you can ever make a legal system strong enough to deal with the cases such as Breivik.

I'm not sure what you mean. Breivik should never be released (assuming he's convicted) and resources devoted to rehabilitation should be used for those for whom eventual release can be seriously and responsibly contemplated.

 

[rootX]

I'm not sure what you mean. Breivik should never be released (assuming he's convicted) and resources devoted to rehabilitation should be used for those for whom eventual release can be seriously and responsibly contemplated.

No, I was only saying that what will be done in the case of Breivik should not be done in the cases of all other criminals. I did not argue in favor of his release. I brought this up because Breivik example is repeatedly used in this thread while discussing whether rehabilitation or death penalty is better.

I brought up few cases which suggest possibility of Breivik being harmless in the future. It was just a thought and part-answer to your question "how does one judge when someone like Breivik (assuming he's convicted) can safely be released back into society". However due to the nature of this case, I doubt Breivik will ever be released.

 

[Skrew]

Breivik is happy or at least feels complete after his actions. His goal was to get people to listen and that's what he did. In Norway saying what he said is illegal but in trial they had to let him speak and so his message was spread without government or antifa interference. Had he been able to do that to begin with it's likely he would have never done what he did.

I don't think he cares in the slightest if he lives or dies.