Example of institution Norwegian gunman destined for exposes fallacy of Justice

[Stillwater]

When I first read of the story of the Norwegian tragedy, I think the most important thing for me in the whole article I read was the minor detail that if convicted, the gunman would face a maximum sentence of 21 years.

Let's step back a moment. If the same incident occurred in the US., with a single gunman bombing an executive government building, and murdering 100 children, an American Jury would be likely to vote to unanimously execute the individual. In fact, you can get a 20-year sentence merely for possessing enough marijuanna or other scheduled substance.

I was thinking this about a week ago, and about the implications of the approach of these two countries, and their mindsets; then today, I found this wonderful story. This story pleased me very much, in that classic "shock the bourgeoisie" line of humor that challenges middle-class value systems.:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_super_lux_super_max?page=0,0

The intent of the article is pretty clear- it seems targeted to generate a sense of "moral outrage" at the ammenities which are provided to the prisoners- jogging track in a park setting, pesonl trainers, flat-screen televisions in cell, encouragement to pursue creative activities and music, a recording studio for musicians, a rock-climbing wall, private bathrooms, etc.

I think what this article hammers home though, is the fact that the Norwegian legal system has lost faith in the idea of "justice".

In the US., it is believed that in order to provide a sense of "just fairness", it is necessary to visit the wrongdoings and sufferings criminals cause back onto themselves; people who cause harm should be harmed. Let's look at some of the realities, however. People who commit violent crimes, in nearly every case, fit into three categories: those who are mentally ill, those who were themselves victims of terrible acts in their childhood, and those called by poverty or socially traumatic environments into a mindset that one must steal or fight in order to make it in their situation.

The first set is curious in a way, since our legal system is lenient on the mentally ill, understanding that if a person is not in full control of their faculties, they cannot be counted on to act in a way that makes sense from our view of reality; oddly enough, however, I think our system tends to ignore this mitigating circumstance in violent crimes, and punishes people for merely being mentally ill. Likewise, I think our system tends to ignore the violent past many of these people have, that helps to shape them into becoming the person who commited the crime. And finally, not only does our mindset not make allowance for the fact that some feel forced into the lifestyle by circumstances they can't control, it is actually considered an aggravating factor to commit an act in a gang setting, when the reality is that gang members view their peers as their final social support group.

Going further, let's see what the fruits of this system of punishments is: rather than being counseled and treated for mental conditions, and helped to address their problems and deal with them internally, our system in the US. produces people who have been forced to live in a dangerous and hostile environment for decades, suffering rape and being forced to participate in racial-violence, and learning that the only way for them to be safe on a day-to-day basis is to show violent aggression to any who would challenge them. We take traumatized criminals who have committed violent acts in society, and we place them in a hyper-traumatic, hyper-violent environment for countless years, and then marvel that they come out even more violent and desperate.

And the premise that all of this is built on is the idea that people are responsible for their actions- we feel it is just to punish someone for doing ill if they had the ability to make another choice, and still chose to do wrong. But then, are we entirely sure people are even making choices, and are capable of more than one action in any situation? The prevailing scientific paradigm is materialism, and materialism overwhelmingly implies philosophical determinism. If determinism is true, then no one is truly "responsible" for anything they ever do, good or bad. They did not make the choice to act in the way they did- the universe and the conditions and physical laws governing them produced the outcome, not any illusion of choice a person made. So there is clearly a cognitive dissonance in what we believe about the universe (scientific materialism, which implies determinism), and what we think about people and their actions (that people are responsible for what they do and think, even though determinism would forbid this).

So if all of this is true so far, we have a legal system which visits vengence upon criminals, and for actions they may not even be technically responsible for according to our science, and which produces individuals who are rendered even more dangerous to society by their sufferings. Rather than allow them to explore their mental issues, and to work through their problems and become stable individuals who are far less likely to commit desperate acts of harm against others, we allow quasi-religious fallacies about "justice" to prevent us from doing what is best for the criminals and the society they must later interact with.

So oddly enough, rather than being morally outraged about the treatment the Norwegian gunman may receive, I would go so far as to say it is the laudable example of a superior society of people who have had the mental discipline to see through ideas like social vengence, and the foolishness of the idea of punishment, and to take the course of action which rather than vicitimize criminals themselves, is able to see them as victims of their own past and situation, and to help they become greater than they were.

[Lexy]

I concur

[Astral316]

I agree that a superior society acts out of logic instead of emotion/vengeance towards its criminals. However, logic dictates that a government place the protection of the society above the quality of life of a criminal. Determinism really makes no difference here... criminals will be criminals, law enforcement will be law enforcement. Stiff consequences are as much about safety for the majority as it is punishment for the criminal. Eliminating the latter should not effect a proper legal/prison system. I think the guy should be kept away from society for longer than 21 years... more like the rest of his natural life. How he's handled during that period is another matter.

[Lexy]

it is true he should get life imprisonment

[Stillwater]

I agree that a superior society acts out of logic instead of emotion/vengeance towards its criminals. However, logic dictates that a government place the protection of the society above the quality of life of a criminal. Determinism really makes no difference here... criminals will be criminals, law enforcement will be law enforcement. Stiff consequences are as much about safety for the majority as it is punishment for the criminal. Eliminating the latter should not effect a proper legal/prison system. I think the guy should be kept away from society for longer than 21 years... more like the rest of his natural life. How he's handled during that period is another matter.

In the article they mentioned that under the Norwegian system they run screenings, and it is possible to extend the sentence of a person longer than the 21 years by 4-year increments if the person is still deemed to be a threat to society.

I assume from how it is descibed that there are careful psychological screenings to evaluate whether the individual is likely to commit further acts of violence, and that release is contingent on passing these screenings.

I don't think it is a question of needing a longer sentence in this case or any case, I think it is a question of treating and analyzing the individual in a conscientious enough manner that it can be determined when the person has grown past the original state they were in at the time of the crime. I think if the course of therapy is dedicated enough, it would take far less than 20 years.

Thus his release to me would depend not so much on years, but on when he was deemed to have grasped the meaning of his actions, and was taught to approach his emotions in a less destructve manner, and when qualified screeners were able to determine he ran little risk of repeating similar behaviors.

[Astral316]

I think there's no time period within a human lifespan in which it's possible to rebuild trust in a man who methodically carried out over 90 executions. Forgive him, sure... allow him to better himself and be productive, okay... but would you want him living in your neighborhood, being around your children/loved ones? It's easy to have the pacifist mentality when the problem is on the news and not the other side of the front door. Sometimes emotion should be a factor in decision making... it's what separates us from the robots. It's how we learn life lessons. Uncontrolled emotion is bad, yes... being emotionless in far worse in my opinion. Forgetting the gravity of this situation, the lives lost and incredible amount of negative energy manifested... all to help the guy who caused it "be a good boy in society"... that doesn't seem enlightened... inhumane, maybe... but not enlightened.

[Lexy]

People can lie on those tests. It doesn't matter anyway, he should never be released. There is something incredibly wrong with a person who could do what he did. There
is no rehab for that.

[Stillwater]

Don't get me wrong, I think it is entirely possible that he may never develop far enough to be safe in public. But I think it is meaningless to make that judgement now.

I do think, as was said, that to suggest that some iron edict be laid now and forever that he shall never at any time be released is an emotional reaction. I think every case is circumstantial, and that people are capable of change over time. He may be a different person in 15 years, or maybe he won't be. I think at every moment in the game you can look the situation and make a judgement that is relavent to that time, and reflects his mental state then.

I don't see this as an issue of pacifism though; it is more about developing a society where law seeks the best interests of all people involved, and supports those who need support, and protects the safety of all, regardless of their condition.

[Lexy]

He is lucky not to get the death penalty. Life imprisonment is good enough. I really don't care what his mental state is or will be. He took peoples lives, he should face consequences for that.

[Stillwater]

I really don't care what his mental state is or will be. He took peoples lives, he should face consequences for that.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I guess what my thesis here is saying is that the fundamental concept of punishment and consequences in general may be at fault.

What is your argument for why there should be consequences? I mean that sincerely.

[Lexy]

If there are no consequences what is to stop others from committing the same crimes?

[Rudolph]

I appreciate what you are saying, but I guess what my thesis here is saying is that the fundamental concept of punishment and consequences in general may be at fault.

What is your argument for why there should be consequences? I mean that sincerely.

The man is a homicidal psychopath.

The death penalty is simply the sane response to such a threat to society. It is simple self-defense. Life in prison is not a sane option in a case like this. The possibility of escape and further death and mayhem is too great a risk to take a chance on.

Ted Bundy was caught and convicted and then escaped to go on and commit more murder sprees.

[ayearhasgone]

An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Even in the U.S., the prison system is corrupt and overcrowded.  Sure, inmates lack "freedom," but otherwise prison just isn't a big deal.  I've heard stories of abusive spouses intimidating their mates into smuggling drugs into the jails on a regular basis.  Inmates play sports, have free food and shelter, and have universal healthcare.

In the end, as long as the criminal element is separated from normal society, that's all I care about.  And that's all anyone can ever really ask for.  

The death penalty is simply the sane response to such a threat to society. It is simple self-defense. Life in prison is not a sane option in a case like this. The possibility of escape and further death and mayhem is too great a risk to take a chance on.

Considering how incredibly rare prison escapes are these days, this is really a non-issue.

In my experience, people encouraging the death penalty are either 1) religious, or 2) personally offended and angered by the crime, and want to satisfy their own personal sense of justice.

[Astral316]

I do think, as was said, that to suggest that some iron edict be laid now and forever that he shall never at any time be released is an emotional reaction.

An emotional reaction is the hope that he is tortured to death. A logical reaction is this... the past is the best predictor of the future and human behavior is no exception here. We can never get in the gunman's head and be sure he's truly "fixed." So we have to predict and weigh risks/rewards... is this guy's freedom worth more than the 90+ lives he's taken and the more lives he could possibly take? The answer... on every level of my understanding is no.

I don't see this as an issue of pacifism though; it is more about developing a society where law seeks the best interests of all people involved, and supports those who need support, and protects the safety of all, regardless of their condition.

A superior society knows it can't have both security for all and freedom for all until it's completely purged of crime. The mentality needs to change in the free world before it does in the legal/prison systems. Until we no longer live on a planet with significant crime, poverty and abuse then deterrence through harsh consequences for harsh crimes is a necessity.

[Rudolph]

An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.
[....]
Considering how incredibly rare prison escapes are these days, this is really a non-issue.

In my experience, people encouraging the death penalty are either 1) religious, or 2) personally offended and angered by the crime, and want to satisfy their own personal sense of justice.

The eye for an eye comment is quaint but ignores the main point (typical).
The death penalty is self-defense. It is a sane response to a real problem.

What makes you think prison escapes are so rare? While the rate has dropped quite a bit lately it is hardly negligible. If you can find stats to back up your claim I would like to see them. I found this on Yahoo;
"The number of escapees from US prisons dropped from 12.4 escapes per 1,000 inmates in 1981 to .5 per 1,000 in 2001. With approximately 3,000,000 people incarcerated, that would be about 1,500 per year."

That's a lot, imo.

1. I am not religious
2. I am neither offended nor angered by something done on the other side of the world, in a place that I have almost no ties whatsoever to.

In my experience those who oppose the Death Penalty are lost in chronic Denial and refuse to face facts.

[Stillwater]

If there are no consequences what is to stop others from committing the same crimes?

The best way to deter people from commiting crimes is to instill in them a disgust for causing harm at all. If rather than being attracted to carrying out violent acts, people were repulsed at the very thought, then you have far less to worry about.  Don't merely prevent through fear- that is weak.

Although I don't agree with Kongzi (Confucious) on everything, I think he is very wise about this point: he said something along the lines that if you need laws to guide the behavior of your citizens, in the most dire sense, you have already lost the fight. An honor-worthy society teaches its citizens to love and aspire to virtue; if you need to resort to law for control, you have already let animal motives run wild, and you have far more to worry about than what to prohibit- you will have a society of murders and thieves only kept in temporary check for as long as law can maintain it.

From another angle, I think it is also worth noting that punishments have proven to be ineffective deterrants to violent action. States with a death penalty don't generally have lower rates of violent crime. I think that it should be clear why that is- violent offenders don't operate on the principles of logic- the consequences that they will visit onto themselves are not relavent to them; and not caring about future consequences is one of the universal signs of mental illness, which violent offenders have been so often identified with. I think we need to understand that people who commit terrible acts are quite often lacking of some common decent quality. Merely condemning them I think is a lazy approach; I think it is braver to pity them, and give them a path for bettering themselves.

[Lexy]

I think there are people that are truly broken inside, nothing deters them, nothing matters to them and there is nothing you can do to fix them. I think the criminally insane have been damaged beyond repair. They have a thing for evil, good things disgust them, their crimes are inexcusable. Feeling sorry for them doesn't help anyone. You can't implant empathy inside someone like a microchip (yet). How do you propose to change a psycho and how do you know they won't revert back once their support system is gone? You are fighting a lifetime of dark programming. Rehab needs constant maintenance as well, can you guarantee they will continue to better themselves? The only way to insure that is by keeping them locked up. Note that I am referring to extreme terrorists psychos. Unfortunately we have these kinds of people...maybe think of ways to prevent this behavior in the first place instead of trying to correct it...focus on the children of criminals, improve their environment and understanding, help them before its too late.

[blis]

Two main arguments I can see against the death penalty.

1. Juries make mistakes and convict innocent people. Top prosecutors are very good at getting convictions and dont care about whether a defendant commited the crime or not.

2. To say that murder is wrong and then kill people who do it doesnt really say that killing is wrong. It teaches revenge. I think it gives the wrong impression to children growing up in such a country.

I've just got out of prison after four years inside for moving money for some drug dealers. I met quite a few murderers who had been away for decades. A lot of them do change and I wouldnt be scared to have them live on my street. Of course some of them dont and I'm glad they are safely locked away.

Having said that though, this guy is a complete nut-job and I doubt he'll ever be safe to be released. But it's the act of a civilised society that waits to make that decision. The death penalty is just plain uncivilized.

The death penalty isnt self defence. It's revenge. Self defence would be killing someone who's trying to kill you.

To the death penalty guy: What do you think of countries who execute for crimes other than murder? Is that still a sane solution?

[Stookie_]

I have a distant relative in state government that wants to separate the penal system and have a separate court and rehabilitation for non-violent criminals/drug offenders, and make better attempts at rehabilitation for all criminals.

I saw a documentary recently about a meditation program that they had in an Alabama prison, and how much it had changed a good number of inmates over a few years, but then christians and religious right and the current priest in the prison began to put on the pressure and forced it shut-down. The cool thing was that several of the prisoners kept doing it on their own anyways.

[Rudolph]

Two main arguments I can see against the death penalty.
1. Juries make mistakes and convict innocent people. Top prosecutors are very good at getting convictions and dont care about whether a defendant commited the crime or not.
2. To say that murder is wrong and then kill people who do it doesnt really say that killing is wrong. It teaches revenge. I think it gives the wrong impression to children growing up in such a country.
[...]
The death penalty isnt self defence. It's revenge. Self defence would be killing someone who's trying to kill you.
To the death penalty guy: What do you think of countries who execute for crimes other than murder? Is that still a sane solution?

1. This problem is easily remedied. Never apply the death penalty in cases of circumstantial evidence, alone (this is presently the norm in most USA courts). In the case of this Norwegian psychopath his guilt is already obvious. To not execute him because some other guy in prison might actually be innocent is... well, insane.
2. This brings up yet again how deception has so permeated the common consciousness that a large percentage of humanity no longer recognizes the difference between killing and murder.

Convicting a homicidal psychopath of murder who is caught red-handed and then executing him *is* self defense. Plain and simple. The distinction is clear and easy to see. But for those thoroughly indoctrinated (brainwashed) in state mental... er, education programs it is nearly impossible to face squarely and think logically about it all.

Execution is killing but it is NOT murder. And unless the the executioner is a family member of someone the psychopath murdered it is NOT revenge. It does not teach revenge.

What do you think of countries who execute for crimes other than murder? Is that still a sane solution?

Like the insanity of executing a woman for the crime of being raped? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
We were talking about the death penalty for an obvious homicidal psychopath as a collective act of self defense.

[CFTraveler]

I have a distant relative in state government that wants to separate the penal system and have a separate court and rehabilitation for non-violent criminals/drug offenders, and make better attempts at rehabilitation for all criminals.

I saw a documentary recently about a meditation program that they had in an Alabama prison, and how much it had changed a good number of inmates over a few years, but then christians and religious right and the current priest in the prison began to put on the pressure and forced it shut-down. The cool thing was that several of the prisoners kept doing it on their own anyways.

These are great but are but one side of the coin- some states are trying to privatize the penal system, and this had led to lobbying to criminalize things that shouldn't be crimes-like being the children of convicts, for example.
As prisons become for-profit institutions the companies that operate them want more criminals, not less- and this is a very scary precedent.

[GodsProxy]

I often forget to act in Love. In this state of mind, I would automatically recommend the death penalty, since this is clearly demanded by the fact that he has hurt so many people, and it is my duty to righteously stand up for them.

However, having acted in fear, I would've then forgotten the most fundamental and true concept - he is a product of our society, and our society is fundamentally incorrect. Everyone gets to a point where they've had enough. Lets just give him a chance, even if it is only in prison. At least there he can practice astral travel, and prepare for the worst. We don't have to wish it on him - the worst fate - before we'v had a chance to help society at large become a better place, a place where we can offer him the appropriate chance to rehabilitate.

Having said that, we all know prison is one of the worst places to attempt this. We can get there, I know we can.

It all really started with the fact that money is a tool of economic slavery.

And if you really believe that, then you've answered the question - its at the end of my web page.

[Rudolph]

lobbying to criminalize things that shouldn't be crimes-like being the children of convicts, for example.

When, where or how has this been done?

[GodsProxy]

Like the use of mind altering substances. In all appearances, it seems that this should be illegally.

Of course, this is funamentally false, and a mechanism of the trap. It was used historically to rule out telepathic guess in sympo-resna with beings on the outside, and prove the concept that if 1 returns, then we all return.

This is true - from whichever level you may view it.

So what is the answer? Well, substances must be legalized.

Understanding is the only way.

When, where or how has this been done?

[Rudolph]

It all really started with the fact that money is a tool of economic slavery.

Yet another patently false claim. Not an ounce of truth in it.

Money may be a tool but it is more often used for things other than economic slavery.

I use money for good things. So does the rest of my family. So do my friends.

For those who can only see the bad that is done with this tool called 'money'... perhaps a look into one's own heart might be revealing.