UKC

Whilst I do not believe in capital punishment this is daft, his actions set him outside of society so solitary confinement sounds OK.

He didn't do much for the human rights of all the kids he murdered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575

In reply to m0unt41n:


That's not what solitary confinement is for. Keeping prisoners in solitary for long periods of time is recognized by most of the world to be one of the most inhumane forms of treatment, whatever the person has done (as the judge rightly said).

In reply to m0unt41n:




If you read the article, it says he was also woken up regularly during the night (= sleep deprivation), and regularly strip searched in front of female guards (a form of humiliation it could be argued).

In reply to m0unt41n:

One measure of a society is the level of humanity it shows in dealing with the wicked. Surely that is a key characteristic that elevates civilisation above barbarism?

In reply to BnB:

And another is a sane and rational criminal justice policy, but that's boring.

What I want to know is does he get to marry a Nazi?

In reply to m0unt41n:

Yeah, sometimes observing the rule of law can seem pretty counter intuitive and difficult, but it's not worth compromising for the dubious satisfaction of torturing inadequate dimwits like Breivik, so we just have to suck it up.

In reply to m0unt41n:

He killed 69 people, deliberately, slowly and in cold blood.

The biggest emotion I can raise regarding his treatment in prison is: " meh, whatever."

In reply to m0unt41n:

Its the last bit that i notice the most

"Bjorn Ihler, a survivor of Breivik's massacre of young activists on Utoya, tweeted that the judgement in Breivik's favour showed Norway had a "working court system, respecting human rights even under extreme conditions"

In the UK they would have found someone to quote who have said how bad this is and how awful it makes them feel.

In reply to off-duty:


But, let's be frank, a witless criminal justice policy is a nothing but job creation for the police.

In reply to off-duty:


Bit worrying that policeman has a "meh, whatever" attitude towards the correct treatment of prisoners because of the nature of crime they committed. Is there a sliding scale of police brutality allowed depending of severity of crimes?

In reply to off-duty:

On an academic level, I know that those saying he should be treated humanely are right, but I really couldn't care less.

In reply to thermal_t:


I'll investigate and prosecute, but you can't make me care about him.
Police brutality? Loving the red herring.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


For lawyers maybe.

In reply to off-duty:


Yes, no doubt about it my heart bleeds for poor, poor, bleeding Breivik. Sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob sob. Sob.

EDIT [as the dislikes appear], go ahead folks, dislike away as much as you like. My sympathies lie with the victims of Breivik's crimes, and with the families of those victims.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Simple fact is that you can't have laws that apply to some people but not to others. You either stick by the laws or you bin them, and the law is that you can't subject prisoners to that treatment.

The question of competing sympathies for either Breivik or his victims is a load of emotional crap.

In reply to Mikkel:




I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but didn't you see another quote in that article -

Eskil Pedersen, a survivor of the shootings on Utoeya island, said he was "surprised, and then angry and upset" by the ruling.

In reply to thermal_t:

I wish there was

In reply to Jon Stewart:



And you can't make me give a shit about him.

In reply to Tyler:

Yep, that works wonderfully when your government becomes slightly less savoury than what we presently have.

Far better to establish suitable punishments that you apply through thick and thin...so that when thin arrives, El Presidente is still bound to follow it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The law has decided that part of his treatment was a breach of his rights, he lost part of his case. The government may appeal.
I think it's important to make it clear that there don't appear to be any breaches of Norwegian law or allegations of misconduct in relation to his treatment.



On the other hand it seems reasonable to weigh any sympathy for him against his actions.
Add to that mix the actual severity of his "mis-treatment" and the hypocrisy of his use of the human rights act to whine in a court room, whilst performing Nazi salutes and I'm still struggling to get past "meh, whatever."

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I don't give a toss how you feel about Breivik, but I'm quite bothered about the rule of law.

In reply to m0unt41n:
I haven't read the ruling but from what I heard on radio 4 earlier it relates primarily to his solitary confinement. It'll be interesting to see what happens as his solitary confinement may be the only way of ensuring his safety from the risk assessment that will have been completed.
He may well be playing games as psychopathic prisoners often do....he will be making claims for further compensation in a while when he's been attacked by other inmates....

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Selectively.

In reply to off-duty:


Just ECHR then, doesn't matter.


I don't see where the issue of sympathy is relevant. I don't have any sympathy for him, and I doubt the judge did either, I'm just very keen on the law being applied the same to everyone. Surely it's rather important that you understand that?


I'm not asking you to feel any different about Breivik's fate, the question is whether some people are above the law while others are beneath it. Are they?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Yes perhaps! There are definitely cases where the law doesn't protect anyone from harm and I'm not so bothered about those laws being enforced. But the treatment of prisoners isn't one of those cases, it's an important area demarcating the power of the state over individuals, and as such it's not a good idea take a laissez-faire approach.

In reply to Mikkel:



Bit racist, no?

In reply to off-duty:


Even if his treatment is breaking (Stallone Judge Dredd voice) The Law.

Both prosecution and protection under the law are supposed to be uniformly applied regardless of the feelings of individuals in the police, legislature, or government towards those to whom the law is applied.

Edit: Of course people can feel how they like about potential uneven treatment by the legal system or uneven access to legally mandated rights, but it does seem rather dangerous to let a particularly evil bastard set ones personal moral compas to a direction labelled "selective application of the law doesn't bother me." Slippery slope and all that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Not sure where I have suggested that. I thought some clarification might be useful.


Yep. Understand that. That's why I thought it was worth clarifying. The Norwegian treatment of this unprecedented mass murderer and terrorist was within their normal prison system processes and procedures. He didn't think it was fair - challenged it and partally won.
This may improve his treatment and that of any other convicted mass murdering terrorists.



Nope.

But in the grand scheme of things - how do I feel about Breivik's treatment ? - "meh, whatever."
I wonder if the government will appeal.

In reply to wintertree:




Not sure where the impression that I'm in favour of selective application of the law comes from.
I am pretty unconcerned about his treatment in prison. Having read how the Norwegian authorities treated him it seems pretty reasonable, and doesn't appear to have involved any criminal acts or Guantanamo type corrupt system.

Clearly the judge considered some of it was too harsh. Fine.

In reply to m0unt41n:


To quote the great Welsh philosopher: "Oh dear. How sad. Never mind."

In reply to m0unt41n:

As far as I know he's not shown a shred of insight or remorse therefore he remains dangerous. Regular searches seem to me to be perfectly reasonable if it keeps prison officers safer.

And prisons are full of not very nice people, someone else might well take a pop at him if he was allowed to mix. Therefore solitary confinement might be driven by a risk assessment.

Either way, no sympathy for him.

In reply to m0unt41n:


Which isn't an excuse for violating his.

I think Norway's handling of this whole sorry episode has been rather impressive. It can't have been easy.
jk

In reply to off-duty:

Unfortunately policemen in my country have similar disregard for the law.

CB

In reply to cb294:



Similar to what?

In reply to cb294:



That was a genuine question by the way.

It's not clear if you are suggesting I've got a disregard for the law. In which case, read my other posts.
Or making some other point - in which case perhaps you can expand.

In reply to m0unt41n:
Chapeau Bjorn Ihler. I almost want to get a Twitter account so that I can like him, or share him, or whatever it is that one does.

Inevitable result, I'd have thought. How the hell can waking the fellow up every half-hour during the night be justified? (assuming the report is correct and that's what they've been doing).

Interesting how prisoner (and prison officer) safety and the presumption against solitary confinement might balance out against each other, but I can't see how strip searching him in front of women or sleep deprivation can possibly be necessary or useful.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

Hi,

my point was probably made better by the first poster replying to your original statement. I would demand of the police, the prison service, to make it absolutely clear that they adhere to the law down to every last detail, which should be a given seeing as it is their job to enforce it.

Expressing a total disregard for the fact that a court found that the Norwegian prison service failed to do this, and justifying this disregard because of the crimes committed by the prisoner does not inspire confidence that treating everyone the same before the law is your highest priority.

CB

In reply to cb294:



Yep. No argument there.



Did you read my post? Or any of my subsequent posts.
My jobs's to investigate, it's not to care.
And, specifically in the case of Brievik's "mistreatment" - have you read the details of the case that have been upheld? It appears that confining him in a 3 cell complex due to a combination of risk to him and rom him, and because no other prisoner wants to share with him is inhumane treatment.
I may have been able to engender some passion or concern if they had found he was being beaten, tortured or subject to some sort of barbaric routine. That doesn't appear to have been the case.

I wonder whether he will be raising another complaint when released into general prison population that "no-one wants to be my friend "

In reply to off-duty:

Strip searches in front of female personnel, half hourly checks at night with waking up, etc.
Sounds a bit Abu Ghreib light to me, and apparently also the judge!

CB

In reply to cb294:




I know that was part of his complaint. I don't believe that part, amongst others, was upheld.

In reply to off-duty:

As far as I understood the news coverage that was precisely the part of his complaint that was upheld (as a breach of chapter 3 banning cruel and degrading treatment), whereas his complaints against the fact of solitary confinement as such, the handcuffing while moving between cells, and the checks on his correspondence were all rejected.

This is also what I would expect of a civilized state.

CB

In reply to off-duty:



The fact that his prisoners have treated him inhumanely is, well, appropriate. Had he been a vicious dog he would have been put down. As he is still classed as human, the mofo should just take his punishment, he earned it. Man up Nazi boy.

Andy F