Breivik has won a case against Norway.

Chalky · April 2016

The problem with Human Rights is this: its greatest value is also its fundamental flaw. It seeks to describe all aspects that make people equal, and chooses to express them as rights. So no matter whether you are a king or a peasant, you share the same inviolable rights. Good!

Except that whilst we praise the sense of equality between king and pauper, we cannot believe that such equality exists between, say, >insert name of loved one < and a monster like Breivik. Common sense tells us that cannot be true, surely?

Or is it?

BigBearKris · April 2016

Just wonder how many of the 77 victims would have just as much forgiveness for him...

I'm not saying they wouldn't have, just wondering. It is impressive when You hear that from someone who had survives the tragedy.

I don't think You can ever rehabilitate someone like Breivik, but I would not sentence him to death. I'd put a heavy chains on him and make him work every day. Heavy, unpleasant work. To make him think about his doings over and over again. Not really a torture but definitely a punishment.
Sitting in a cosy cell (honestly guys, I've seen people working full time jobs in UK living in poorer conditions than he has in there) having all the time in the world to plan his strategy to fight the justice system - is that really what we should aim for?

fretmeister · April 2016

Not treating the vilest examples of humanity the way they would treat us is its greatest strength.

Heartfeltdawn · April 2016

skankdelvar said:
I entirely take your point.

The nub of this particular issue is the very visible collision between a well-intentioned, determinedly fair society and a member of that society who violently rejects its core beliefs. We're all rightly horrified by the nature of the events; in Breivik's mind it's simply about competing social visions.

That's it in a nutshell. He's not your normal serial killer/terrorist. So it turns into the battle between one country's atypical penal system versus an atypical criminal.

Heartfeltdawn · April 2016

Chalky said:

The problem with Human Rights is this: its greatest value is also its fundamental flaw. It seeks to describe all aspects that make people equal, and chooses to express them as rights. So no matter whether you are a king or a peasant, you share the same inviolable rights. Good!

Except that whilst we praise the sense of equality between king and pauper, we cannot believe that such equality exists between, say, >insert name of loved one < and a monster like Breivik. Common sense tells us that cannot be true, surely?

Or is it?

Bicycle. But never on a Tuesday.

fretmeister · April 2016

BigBearKris said:

Just wonder how many of the 77 victims would have just as much forgiveness for him...

I'm not saying they wouldn't have, just wondering. It is impressive when You hear that from someone who had survives the tragedy.

I don't think You can ever rehabilitate someone like Breivik, but I would not sentence him to death. I'd put a heavy chains on him and make him work every day. Heavy, unpleasant work. To make him think about his doings over and over again. Not really a torture but definitely a punishment.
Sitting in a cosy cell (honestly guys, I've seen people working full time jobs in UK living in poorer conditions than he has in there) having all the time in the world to plan his strategy to fight the justice system - is that really what we should aim for?

Considering their system has far better measurable results that ours - yes. We should be aiming for it.

Heartfeltdawn · April 2016

BigBearKris said:

Sitting in a cosy cell (honestly guys, I've seen people working full time jobs in UK living in poorer conditions than he has in there) having all the time in the world to plan his strategy to fight the justice system - is that really what we should aim for?

So the problem isn't that his cell is too nice then.

skankdelvar · April 2016

It seems that China - like Norway - has a recidivism rate of around 7%. It therefore follows that low rates of reoffending can be achieved whether through kindly rehabilitation or through stern deterrence (possibly involving firing squads and / or hard labour).

If low recidivism is the key objective of a criminal justice system (as opposed to the tangential promotion of a 'moral society') then either method is as effective as the other. It merely remains for Britain to choose which approach it favours: 'Hug them' or 'Shoot them'.

We could have a referendum.

lloyd · April 2016

skankdelvar said:

It seems that China - like Norway - has a recidivism rate of around 7%. It therefore follows that low rates of reoffending can be achieved whether through kindly rehabilitation or through stern deterrence (possibly involving firing squads and / or hard labour).

If low recidivism is the key objective of a criminal justice system (as opposed to the tangential promotion of a 'moral society') then either method is as effective as the other. It merely remains for Britain to choose which approach it favours: 'Hug them' or 'Shoot them'.

We could have a referendum.

I'm not sure that China's stats can be relied on to be entirely accurate if I'm honest.

fretmeister · April 2016

I'm sure they'll tell us they have a zero miscarriage of justice rate if we ask though.

Heartfeltdawn · April 2016

skankdelvar said:
If low recidivism is the key objective of a criminal justice system (as opposed to the tangential promotion of a 'moral society') then either method is as effective as the other. It merely remains for Britain to choose which approach it favours: 'Hug them' or 'Shoot them'.

The Tiananmen/Oslo dilemma.

Norway for me, squire. If I had the money, I'd love to live there.

blueskunk · April 2016

Send that peice of shit to Guantanamo

Heartfeltdawn · April 2016

He'd be the only white bloke there. Visiting him would be like watching UB40 live.

skankdelvar · April 2016

Heartfeltdawn said:
The Tiananmen/Oslo dilemma.

Norway for me, squire. If I had the money, I'd love to live there.

It is rather lovely, Norway. You should check out the Netflix TV show Lilyhammer to see just how easy it is to integrate.

China looks nice too. Well, the nice bits do. Not so sure about the megacities...

skankdelvar · April 2016

lloyd said:

I'm not sure that China's stats can be relied on to be entirely accurate if I'm honest.

True the Chinese may be putting a gloss on matters. Many governments are predictably sensitive or secretive about recidivism rates. But is the digisphere over-hastily embracing the understandably welcome news of a 7% recidivism rate?

Well, afaics that 7% is an average across all crimes and based on a period of 12 months after release or completion of sentence if served in the community.

According to the US National Library of Medicine's study of worldwide recidivism it turns out that Norway's re-offending rate after two years:

'ranged from 14% to 42% depending on whether the sample included arrested, convicted or imprisoned persons and/or the outcome was arrest, conviction or imprisonment'.

It's at this point that one's eyes start to glaze over and one's head begins to ache. Nothing's ever simple, is it?

english_bob · April 2016

skankdelvar said:
According to the US National Library of Medicine's study of worldwide recidivism it turns out that Norway's re-offending rate after two years:

'ranged from 14% to 42% depending on whether the sample included arrested, convicted or imprisoned persons and/or the outcome was arrest, conviction or imprisonment'.

That sounds like someone couldn't be arsed to sort through the figures rather than that Norway's recidivism rates aren't as good as they say they are.

skankdelvar · April 2016

english_bob said:
That sounds like someone couldn't be arsed to sort through the figures rather than that Norway's recidivism rates aren't as good as they say they are.

That someone would be me quoting the summary from the overall report for the purposes of brevity.

The point is that the average Norwegian re-offending rate after 2 years is around 20% (which is pretty good) but that the rate varies wildly depending on the type of crime, the type of sentence and the offender's age.

Here's an example abstracted from figures compiled by the Norwegian Kriminalomsorgens Utdanningscenter (Criminal Correction Information Centre) These break out the various recidivism rates.

Percentages of re-offending within 2 years by principal crime type among released prisoners - Norway:

Violence - 18%

Drugs - 23%

Thefts - 48%

Robbery - 22%

Sex - 3%

Economic - 21%

Traffic - 8%

Other - 12%

Total - 20%

Within the highest crime type - Thefts - the percentage of re-offending ranged from 50% to 75% depending on the age of the offender.

Percentage of new correctional sentences within two years after started serving a sentence in the probation service

Community Service - 23%

Conditional Sentence with supervision - 21%

Conditional service with treatment - 12%

Total 21%

The rate of re-offending among those who had previously served a community service sentence was considerably higher than among Norway's neighbours (exc. Finland). This is explained by Norway's policy of sentencing prior offenders to community service rather than send them back to prison

Of the Scandinavian nations Norway is the most likely to imprison offenders (including first offenders and for traffic / speeding offences). For comparison in 2005 77% of all 'correctional' clients in Norway were serving a prison sentence compared to 44% of Swedish 'clients'.

But what about the UK? Here only 8% of those convicted and in the correctional system will serve their sentence in prison - a figure which has remained about the same since 2005 (* Source: UK Ministry of Justice)

Unlike the UK, Norway seems to treat first offenders 'hard' with a prison sentence then address re-offenders by means of community service sentences, the effectiveness of the latter varying considerably by age and crime type. Which all sounds OK until you realise that crimes which would - in the UK - attract community service or a fine could get you jugged in Norway.

TLDR Version

Although Norway has a smaller percentage of its population in prison and recidivism rates look good on the surface this is because it seems to have a sterner attitude towards crime of any nature. You're nine times more likely to go to prison for committing an offence in Norway than here in the UK but if you re-offend you're more likely to get community service. Go figure.

ICBM · April 2016

skankdelvar said:
Although Norway has a smaller percentage of its population in prison and recidivism rates look good on the surface this is because it seems to have a sterner attitude towards crime of any nature. You're nine times more likely to go to prison for committing an offence in Norway than here in the UK but if you re-offend you're more likely to get community service. Go figure.

Common sense if you think about it - if you've been in prison and then re-offend, it proves that prison hasn't worked for you and it's probably better to try something else. The reverse is also true of course, if community service fails the first time then it may be better to try prison.

The problem is what you do for a third offence, and I don't think the American 'three strikes and you're out' answer is the right one, even though it would seem logical in some ways. The question is whether you think prison should be for punishment, rehabilitation or just a way of keeping criminals away from the rest of society.

skankdelvar · April 2016

For myself, a combination of all three elements - punishment, rehabilitation and public 'safety' - seems most logical.

It's the degree to which one varies the ratios that seems to make the difference between countries. The punitive element (deprivation of liberty) contributes in some respects to deterrence, which leads one to suppose that the Norwegian 'One strike and you're inside' goes some way towards deterring the kind of casual, low level lawbreaking which seems to pepper British society.

But Norway is a different country in so many ways. It seems to me that quite formalised 'community values' rate higher in the public consciousness than they do here.

tabbycat · April 2016

the meting out of punishment stops with the sentencing, which is the preserve of the judiciary.

this is done according to legislature determined by the public through due democratic process.

a separate body, the prison service, is charged with the task of public protection and rehabilitation.

it is not for the prison service to seek to add to any punishment as determined by the judiciary.

to do so would be exceeding the remit laid down for them in law and leave them open to criminal charges for malfeasance in public office.

as disturbing and destructive as characters like breivik are, if we have a system of justice that is as barbaric and amoral as those we say we need to imprison for barbaric and amoral behaviour, we are not drawing a rational or moral line between his actions and ours, thus invalidating the whole point.

unless we can clearly and consistently differentiate our behaviour and codes from his we have no more right to imprison him than he has to imprison us.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Breivik has won a case against Norway.

Comments