Crosswords1 min ago
Anders Behring Breivik, Norway Murderer, Wins Human Rights Case
http://
I have read this twice and I still can't believe it !
I have read this twice and I still can't believe it !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Every time a prisoner wins a Human Rights case, there is always a clamour of people queuing up to see who can be the most amazed /outraged within the AB community.
And usually, I chime in with the same point – so will happily do so again.
In a civilised society, punishments are decided and implemented by law.
In this case the punishment deemed suitable is loss of liberty – and that is what the punishment is supposed to be.
Regardless of the crime for which any prisoner is incarcerated, it is the loss of liberty that is the punishment – that does not mean that prison authorities get to add on their own individual extra portions – that is against the system of justice that keeps society civilised.
We don’t add in flogging, electrocution, exposure to (other) psychopaths, or any of the endless list of things that the outraged think should happen to the prisoner in question, because that takes us down the road of mayhem and loss of control of our society.
That is why – in this case – the use of solitary confinement has been correctly judged as a cruel and unusual punishment, and the prisoner has won his case.
If people want to put into practice the harsh levels of punishment, the lack of which outrages them so much, then they need to move to somewhere in the world that is less civilised than Europe, and enjoy the systems employed there – but that of course means living under the repression of the governments that exercise such brutality – and the risk of it being visited on them without recourse to justice.
Civilisation comes at a price, and one of those prices is equal treatment of prisoners regardless of their crimes – imprisonment is the punishment, and the only punishment, anything else leads to cases of abuse of human rights being proven, and it will always be so.
And usually, I chime in with the same point – so will happily do so again.
In a civilised society, punishments are decided and implemented by law.
In this case the punishment deemed suitable is loss of liberty – and that is what the punishment is supposed to be.
Regardless of the crime for which any prisoner is incarcerated, it is the loss of liberty that is the punishment – that does not mean that prison authorities get to add on their own individual extra portions – that is against the system of justice that keeps society civilised.
We don’t add in flogging, electrocution, exposure to (other) psychopaths, or any of the endless list of things that the outraged think should happen to the prisoner in question, because that takes us down the road of mayhem and loss of control of our society.
That is why – in this case – the use of solitary confinement has been correctly judged as a cruel and unusual punishment, and the prisoner has won his case.
If people want to put into practice the harsh levels of punishment, the lack of which outrages them so much, then they need to move to somewhere in the world that is less civilised than Europe, and enjoy the systems employed there – but that of course means living under the repression of the governments that exercise such brutality – and the risk of it being visited on them without recourse to justice.
Civilisation comes at a price, and one of those prices is equal treatment of prisoners regardless of their crimes – imprisonment is the punishment, and the only punishment, anything else leads to cases of abuse of human rights being proven, and it will always be so.
I always marvel at those who pontificate that the death penalty should not be used in 'civilised society', yet extremely uncivilised events and crimes that ought to warrant the death penalty occur with alarming regularity in said 'civilised society', when all too often the civil thing would be to reciprocate retribution, nothing less.
ChillDoubt - //I always marvel at those who pontificate that the death penalty should not be used in 'civilised society', yet extremely uncivilised events and crimes that ought to warrant the death penalty occur with alarming regularity in said 'civilised society', when all too often the civil thing would be to reciprocate retribution, nothing less. //
I think you make your own point against your own argument here - capital punishment is not a proven deterrent, and as you advise, it is simply a method of retribution - and that concept has no place in a civilised society.
I think you make your own point against your own argument here - capital punishment is not a proven deterrent, and as you advise, it is simply a method of retribution - and that concept has no place in a civilised society.
The State dropping down to the murderer's level and demanding retribution by killing them, is never the civilised option.
I do not see the solitary confinement as being cruel in the circumstances, and if it is unusual that can only be because few cases would need it. Or are folk suggesting it should be more common to make it ok ?
I do not see the solitary confinement as being cruel in the circumstances, and if it is unusual that can only be because few cases would need it. Or are folk suggesting it should be more common to make it ok ?
OG - //I do not see the solitary confinement as being cruel in the circumstances, and if it is unusual that can only be because few cases would need it. Or are folk suggesting it should be more common to make it ok ? //
I think the term 'unusual' is a legal term, and it refers to something outside the normal custodial regulations - rather than it is a rare occurrence.
I think the term 'unusual' is a legal term, and it refers to something outside the normal custodial regulations - rather than it is a rare occurrence.
Naomi - ////capital punishment is not a proven deterrent//
No, but it's a lasting solution. //
No argument there - but why do the pro-CP lobby not approach the argument from the retribution perspective? Wheras they constantly hammer home the 'deterrant' argument, which flies in the face of statistics, and common sense!
Anyone who avoids a potential capital punishment offence because they have considered the potential outcome is someone who was not minded to commit the offence in the first place.
No, but it's a lasting solution. //
No argument there - but why do the pro-CP lobby not approach the argument from the retribution perspective? Wheras they constantly hammer home the 'deterrant' argument, which flies in the face of statistics, and common sense!
Anyone who avoids a potential capital punishment offence because they have considered the potential outcome is someone who was not minded to commit the offence in the first place.
and that concept has no place in a civilised society.
--------------
Neither do heinous crimes (particularly involving children) andy, yet they occur with alarming and possibly increasing regularity.
As naomi says, let's have lasting solutions and stop wasting taxpayers money. A roof, 3 meals a day, access to media and a warm bed must be barbaric torture for the families of the victims.
--------------
Neither do heinous crimes (particularly involving children) andy, yet they occur with alarming and possibly increasing regularity.
As naomi says, let's have lasting solutions and stop wasting taxpayers money. A roof, 3 meals a day, access to media and a warm bed must be barbaric torture for the families of the victims.
ChillDoubt - //and that concept has no place in a civilised society.
--------------
Neither do heinous crimes (particularly involving children) andy, yet they occur with alarming and possibly increasing regularity. //
Of course not, no-one would argue there.
But to murder someone because they have murdered someone takes society down to the murder's level, and that is why capital punishment has no place in a civilised society.
//naomi says, let's have lasting solutions and stop wasting taxpayers money. A roof, 3 meals a day, access to media and a warm bed must be barbaric torture for the families of the victims. //
Since the only alternative to state-sponsored murder is to incarcerate the criminal involved, the cost of incarceration is borne by the society as part of the price it pays for its civilised approach to this difficult moral dilemma.
--------------
Neither do heinous crimes (particularly involving children) andy, yet they occur with alarming and possibly increasing regularity. //
Of course not, no-one would argue there.
But to murder someone because they have murdered someone takes society down to the murder's level, and that is why capital punishment has no place in a civilised society.
//naomi says, let's have lasting solutions and stop wasting taxpayers money. A roof, 3 meals a day, access to media and a warm bed must be barbaric torture for the families of the victims. //
Since the only alternative to state-sponsored murder is to incarcerate the criminal involved, the cost of incarceration is borne by the society as part of the price it pays for its civilised approach to this difficult moral dilemma.
Hopkirk - //If he doesn't like solitary confinement, allow the family and friends of his victims to visit an entertain him. //
I refer you back to my original post.
His punishment by maw is loss of freedom and liberty - no provision is made for adding on your colourful notion of the actions of bereaved families if given access to Mr Breivik.
I refer you back to my original post.
His punishment by maw is loss of freedom and liberty - no provision is made for adding on your colourful notion of the actions of bereaved families if given access to Mr Breivik.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.