Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik appears in court appealing for early release - BBC News" video.

The whole idea of "justice" is messed up. You can't defeat hate with more hate. Only with love. Instead of throwing people in jail and throwing away the key we focus on reforming people or even better, removing the cause of people turning towards crime to begin with, be it terrorism or other forms of crime.
5
Сомневаюсь, что это кого-то убеждает... Он определенно все еще представляет угрозу для общества. И он останется за решеткой, пока это можно доказать. Или, другими словами, вероятно, на всю оставшуюся жизнь. Тем не менее, если он действительно изменится, у него все еще будут права в нашей системе, и он будет освобожден. Кстати, если гугл переводчик ошибся, извините.
4
No. Giving him more would be a insult to the victims and what they believed in. A society that treats people *equally*, and with compassion. He hurt many people, including some I care deeply about. But that doesn't justify changing our society and meeting his hatred with hatred. Punishing him more would entail letting him win. We're not going to do that, Instead of meeting hatred with hatred, we're going to meet hatred with love. That's the only way to win over hatred.
4
@Sir lord ian Of essex It can work in the UK. Our methods have been proven in Norway as well as in many other countries by now. Of course our system isn't just limited to our prisons. It also includes our welfare system etc. And let's just say that the UK is falling behind the continent when it comes to taking care of its less fortunate...
3
@hsab4646 Exactly. It's not even about confronting people about things. It's just... Talking with people. If he had people he could talk with and wasn't alone with his thoughts things might have turned out differently. You can never defeat hate with more hate. Just with love.
3
@matthummel8306 Yet we have both lower recidivism rates and lower overall overall crime pr capita then most other countries out there. Our crime rate is lower then all but 11 countries in the world. There's hardly anywhere that's safer. I mean, sure, perhaps Iceland... If you don't mind living on top of a vulcanic hot spot... And they have pretty much the same approach anyway... And that's down from quite a high crime rate and recidivism in the eighties by the way... Back when we did have the old school justice system of countries like the US or UK... That said, our system isn't perfect. There has been cases of people being released from either jail or psychiatric hospital who have then commited murder. But at the same time, because we have our system that actually tries to help people the bar is also lower for seeking help, either for the person in question or for their next of kin. In the US for instance, if you suspect that a relative might be mentally ill, on drugs or have commited a crime and you care about them, then the treshold for actually reporting that to the authorities is pretty high as the consequences for the individual in question is pretty high. Here it's not nearly as severe to be reported to the authorities as they genuinely are trying to help. And our prison system and psychiatric hospitals are essentially extensions of our welfare system, that is already using many of the same techniques, except in a jail people don't have the freedom to actually comit a crime, so they might as well make use of the services made available. It's essentially a time out, a removal from society while people are getting ready to deal with society again. That said, there are individuals who end up sitting in jail or mental hospital for the rest of their lives... But by having laws that defaults to never giving up on people we avoid what we call "justismord" ("justice murder", I think it's something like "misscarriage of justice" in English). We have more people who actually contribute to society. We have more people consenting to getting help. We have more people reported in by next of kin etc. And we have less crimes overall. Less victims. And we're a better society because of it.
3
@DDBurnett1 Actually, I'm thinking that there's 319 reason to reform him. Punishing him isn't going to bring any of the dead back to life. It isn't going to heal those who where wounded. Or remove the mental scars. But if we can work out why he did this to begin with, how he started thinking this way and actually can manage to reform him, healing him from his mental illness. Then we can perhaps prevent future victims from happening due to future terrorists. Also, treating him differently from anyone else would entail letting him win, by treating him just the same way as everyone else we honor our dead. People who where in a political party that faught for a society where everyone are treated equally. That said... If he ever is genuinly reformed and released, I do hope he'll get some form of restraining order so he won't get close to any of the victims... They've had enough nightmares about him... I have a friend who's still mentally scared by that day... And I can't deny that if he does get reformed it would be challenging for us... And it would be easier for us if he doesn't get reformed... I honestly don't know what I'm hoping for the most of those two outcomes... Either way he has left a scar that will take a long time to heal...
3
21 years is exactly the right amount. It's the maximum sentence in Norway. Neither more nor less would be right. More would be treating him differently from anyone else. And he doesn't deserve special treatment. Less... Well, look at what he has done... Less just isn't a option. No, he will be treated exactly like anyone else in our justice system. And that entails parol hearings like this one. And evaluations of how dangerous he is to society. He hasn't shown sign of having been reformed yet, and as far as I can tell there's no reason to think he's not still a danger to society. As long as those two remain true he'll remain behind bars. After 21 years that will no longer entail him being *punished*. But just that he'll remain contained for 5 year intervals till he no longer poses a danger to society.
3
@sohilronagh286 This comes back to why you send people to prison. In Norways case it's to reform people and not to punish them. It really doesn't matter if he gets 100 days or 100 years behind bars pr person he killed, neither is going to bring the dead back to life or make those who are mourning the loss of their loved ones feel better. What matters is that society recognize that that the crime commited and acts on that. If we just lock him in and throw away the key then we're no better then him. We'd be dehumanizing him the same way he dehumanized his victims. That's no better then racism. It doesn't matter what he has done. He remains a human, a sick one. And what we do with him reflect on us as a society. If we go ahead and change the rules because of people like him and lock him away forever or kill him or whatever then we let him win. We lose our humanity. The very thing he was attacking. No. We stand by our values. He is going to get every right that anyone else in our society gets. And everyone will get respect and a chance to reform and get our lives back together if we fall for whatever reason. You can never win over hate with more hate. You can only defeat hate with love. And our response to his hate is just more love and compassion.
3
@ColRusSer Thanks. She's married to someone outside the continent, and I've been looking at engagement rings with someone from outside the continent. Given who's reading here with us I think I'll pass on going into more details... As you can see the majority of the local terrorism in Europe lately has been right wing... And even ignoring outright terrorism, that's also where the violence has originated lately here in my home country.
3
Interesting how there's a whole ton of foreigners here talking about what is or isn't respectful towards the victims and their families... The majority of the victims belonged to a political party that believes in a society that tries to help *everyone*. They where the youth branch of the labour party of Norway. And that party does not stand for the idea of throwing people in prison and throwing away the key. As long as he remains a threat to society he'll remain behind the bars. But respecting our laws and treating everyone him included equally is respecting the victims and their families.
3
@matthummel8306 Possibly. It's true that you can't help *everyone*. But a society that doesn't give up on people and that tries to help everyone is still a better nation to live in. Even when it fails sometimes.
2
@HarrySmith-hr2iv Come on, why do you share that comment as a reply to every single comment out there? It might have made sense as a reply to some of the other comments out there. But here it's just bs and you know it...
2
@slawik The majority of terrorist attacks in Europe this last century was not caused by Islamists... The majority was caused by nationalists/seperatists, followed by "unspecified" (think mental illness or unknown motivation). Religiously motivated only comes after that again. And that includes both Islamists and things like the IRA and whatever the unionist terrorists are named... It's only if you limit your time span to the years since 2015 that religious attacks starts to form a majority. But given how many muslim civilians have been killed as so called "collateral" damage after our activites in muslim countries it's not really that strange that we've attracted some unwelcome attention... Sure, a portion of this would have happened anyway, simply because of extremism. But a majority is most likely a result of us essentially being at war in their region, scaring people for life. Brevik has no such excuse... He grew up in a wealthy country, protected from harm. He made the choice to be a racist, and to be a extremist. As for other terrorists... The last major left wing terrorist attack was in 1925 in Bulgaria. But yeah... We're fighting a entity that can't bomb us like the Brits and Germans bombed eachother during WW2. So we'll have to deal with terrorist attacks... In both cases the goal is to scare people and zap away their will to fight.
2
@NLS_7 Well, my family is certainly going to do our part to ensure that we get the diversity we need to survive. You racists don't get that we've never been a unified culture or ethnicity anywhere on Earth, and that not mixing is exactly what leads to the collaps of a society because the lack of diversity leads to a lack of options, a lack of ideas when facing major challenges threatening a society. More genes reduces the risk of dying off to diseases and gives a society more traits to work with. More cultures gives a society more ideas to work with. And both my sister and I (we're white, don't you worry) love people from other continents.
2
@User-hx2jg Okey. So let's say that Norway for whatever reason turned into a authoritarian state. Heck, for examples sake, lets say that all of Europe fell into chaos and authoritarianism. With the current demographics that's not a completely inconcievable idea. And lets say that Africa actually overcame its issues and became as democratic as we currently are. Lets say that say Nigeria (except a perfectly democratic version of Nigeria with no corruption) lead a African Union mission with some other nations into Norway to reinstate democracy here. I'm not going to lie. It would hurt losing friends, perhaps even family. It would be painful to experience all that hardship. And I most likely would have mixed feelings about those soldiers fighting here without knowing the local culture. But I still think it would fundamentally be the right thing to do if democracy actually had fallen here. I'd still expect anyone responsible for avoidable civilian deaths to be held accountable though. There needs to be proper rules of engagement. I'm not going to downplay what's going on in any of the nations you're mentioning. People are being hurt and scared for life. And the west is absolutely not doing enough to actually help people and ensure that people get a better life instead of harming them. And yes, there's people in the west making some truly unbelivably stupid choices. And who are quite frankly cowardly, choosing to use indirect forms of combat instead of endangering western lives despite the risk of that leading to increased civilian casualities. There's no excuse for that. And the way the west pulled out of Afganistan leaving the local population high and dry? It's inexcusable. We had and still have a responsibility there. And the US worrying about China and wanting to redeploy troops eastwards in Asia does not justify just packing up and leaving like they just did. As for the terrorist attacks in the west. Honestly while I think the choice of targets is fucked up we've kind of brought it on ourselves in some cases. And things like Al Qaidas attack on Pentagon, that was actually a justified target in my book. If they had dropped off the civilians on the plane in some way, say with parachutes then I don't really see that much that's ethically worse then US actions there as such. The US goverment had done things that caused a lot of harm for Afgan civilians in the past, helping the Pakistani intelligence organizations with training and equipping various factions in Afganistan in order to fight the USSR, without taking responsibility for the civil war in the aftermath. Intentionally targetting civilians, is unacceptable. Even if you're feeling hurt. No matter how much pain they may have caused that pain isn't lessened by intentionally trying to hurt them back that much. Besides it doesn't work. Germany and Britain tried to target civilians with their bombing raids on eachothers cities. And all it caused was renewed resolve in the war.
2
@nigelsmith3719 If we'd take an eye for an eye we'd all end up blind. No, meeting hatred with hatred never works. The only way to defeat hatred is with love. Punishing Brevik isn't going to bring his victims back to life. Trying to reform him, learning what caused him to become a terrorist and then bringing him back to become a model citizen again however might prevent future victims. Perhaps we can reform some people before they actually kill someone next time. No, punishing people just doesn't work. You need to remove the original cause of the crime. Be that poverty or mental health related.
1
@nigelsmith3719 Excuse me, but I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm not quite sure what you mean with that.
1
@Komodo1312 Speak for yourself. I hope Brevik never qualifies for release. But if he does and someone kills him then that person isn't much better then him...
1
No, he most likely won't remain peaceful. That's why he most likely will remain in jail till he genuinly reforms. But I'm proud of our society that's meeting his hatred with love.
1
@shardlake Basically 21 years is the maximum *punishment*. Those 5 years of containment repeatable as needed isn't punishment, but rather protection of society. The moment it's no longer possible to prove that he's a danger to society those recursive 5 years of containment no longer applies, and if he has served his 21 years he'll be free to go. Of course I kind of doubt that he'll ever stop being considered a threat given his behavior, and history... If he had shown remorse say 5 years in or something and he actually seemed credible in no longer being a danger to society then a apeal after 10 years might actually be plausible despite his crimes... The whole system is aimed at rehabilitation. Something that has proven its effectiveness in the past.
1
Bangladesh 🇧🇩 Sorry, I'm vegetarian. Leather products is a no go for me.
1
@mpalmer7800 Bs. Giving him a fixed sentence like that does nothing for the families left behind after the victims. Making laws that gives that kind of punishments just creates more victims. And quite frankly he was mentally ill. Punishments really doesn't reduce crime. Removing the cause of peoples crimes does. Be that better living conditions in the case of crimes caused by poverty. Or working on a society more condusive towards better mental health, in the case of nut jobs like this guy... If he hadn't been left mostly alone like he was and hadn't been left with a online echo chamber then things could perhaps have been different. If his views had actually been challenged and he had been included more in society and felt included we could perhaps have avoided all the deaths he caused. We can't bring back the dead. But we can reform him and learn to understand why he did what he did to begin with, so we can avoid those conditions being created to begin with.
1
@mpalmer7800 No, that's where Norway differs from say the US. In Norway you don't lose any rights regardless of what you have or have not done. You are not your actions. Someone cheating on their husband. Tough luck, it sucks, but that doesn't make them "evil". Someone robs a store? Awfull life choice, but doesn't make someone evil. Sold drugs? Ditto... We don't know what's going on inside another persons mind. And it's not our place to judge. Brevik made some truly awfull life choices that hurt a lot of people, including friends of mine. And quite frankly he's insane. As long as he genuinely poses a danger to society he will remain behind the bars. But the moment he actually is reformed he will be released. I don't belive in the concept of evil at all. Nor will I ever do so. He needs help to see the errors of his ways. Also, I assume you're American? Or at the very least that you're religious? That seems to be true in most other countries... Well, if you're christian, isn't it gods job to judge people, not *ours*? Jesus said that the first stone should be thrown be he who is without sin. And I don't know about you. But I've yet to meet anyone who hasn't sinned in some way, screwed up royaly. No, removing his rights isn't for us to do. He's simply being held till we can be sure that releasing him is genuinely safe. At the momen that's clearly not the case.
1
@barsbay7598 Thank you...
1
@User-hx2jg Regarding the Iraqis I actually agree. That particular war was started on false premises and was unjust. Bush and Blair should honestly be put on trail for starting that war without better evidence of weapons of mass destruction. That said, Saddam already had used weapons of mass destrution in the past. So he wasn't exactly innocent in that sense... As for Afganistan. Norway was legally obliged to take part in the war in Afganistan due to our ratification of our membership in the NATO alliance and due to the US activation of article 5. Failing to do so would entail violating the terms of our NATO membership, forfitting our membership and leaving us defenseless against Russian agression. As for the US attacking Afganistan. Taliban failed to cooperate with the US when they where hunting for Al Qaida. While I'm sure that the Americans could have gone about it in a better way they most definitively had a just cause for their invasion. Libya was tricky... It might have been legally wrong to help the rebels. But it most definitively was the ethically right thing to do. At least now Libya has a chance of perhaps one day achieving a democracy... Regarding Yemen... It's a shame that the US is supporting Saudi-Arabias proxy war there... I get that it's strategically important for the US. But in that particular case they're siding with the oppressors in the existing regime. And that's ethically wrong, even if it might be legally acceptable... Somalia... There was piracy, that's wrong regardless of how you look at it... And it needed to be stopped. But it's cowardly of us to just sit out the Somalian civil war instead of acting to try to improve conditions for the regular Somali. And I wish Norway would accept more Somali refugees then we are currently doing...
1
@Roy Ellingsen Unnskyld? Hva i alle dager snakker du om?
1