Major explosion and shooting in Oslo

[Ardius]

But I suppose it's all part of the psychology of the idea in the first place, the better it and more expensive it is the better the treatment of rehabilitation, all the details will add up.
We know for a fact the way we do it does not work. People often re-offend the moment they are out of prison.
I like the idea of guards joining in the recreation and of a 50/50 split between male and female guards.
It's clever.

Why does rehabilitation require better living conditions? A horrible, damp, dark, tiny, depressing prison cell is arguably a type of rehabilitation.

Nice prison cell does not turn a nasty person into a nice person...

An interesting subject though, but personally I think I lean towards the simplistic punishment vibes, there doesn't seem to be much proof that giving murderers or rapists a nice time in prison is better than giving them hell for turning them around.
The whole point of prison time is a deterrent, not rehabilitation - you are not meant to go to jail in the first place! People should fear jail-time, not rely on it as a fail-safe for when someone's head gets messed up and morality goes out of the window.

If you burn your hand on something, the next time you want to touch it, you have an overwhelming sensation of not wanting to touch it. If you keep burning your hands, you will eventually never touch it. A basic psychological concept - pain/punishment.

 

[DK]

I'm just waiting for the moment when a high-ranking BNP member gets drunk and calls Breivik a hero.

 

[Moot]

Why does rehabilitation require better living conditions? A horrible, damp, dark, tiny, depressing prison cell is arguably a type of rehabilitation.

Nice prison cell does not turn a nasty person into a nice person...

An interesting subject though, but personally I think I lean towards the simplistic punishment vibes, there doesn't seem to be much proof that giving murderers or rapists a nice time in prison is better than giving them hell for turning them around.
The whole point of prison time is a deterrent, not rehabilitation - you are not meant to go to jail in the first place! People should fear jail-time, not rely on it as a fail-safe for when someone's head gets messed up and morality goes out of the window.

If you burn your hand on something, the next time you want to touch it, you have an overwhelming sensation of not wanting to touch it. If you keep burning your hands, you will eventually never touch it. A basic psychological concept - pain/punishment.

They bold bits of text I would say are views and not what is or should be.

The pain thing is too simple, that is just a learning process for someone who was previously clueless it would give them pain. Somebody who commits crime already knows what will happen, the knowledge doesn't work, then there are the prison re-offenders, it doesn't work even after they have experienced it, and then there are those that know that if they do a crime they will be given the death penalty, they will DIE, but they still do it. The whole idea of punishment needs to be looked at and to be asked if it is really relevant or worthwhile.
I think the most that is needed is to be reminded what they have done is wrong, and take measures to prevent them from doing wrong again. Whatever that maybe, but not punishment or hardship, just controlled environment. But in my view more should be done on early signs of a criminal, with mentoring and following from school years. You can get informative psychological profiles from children. At the moment this information is not logged on a database, and children are left to become adults with the hope they will be responsible in the community. Which obviously doesn't happen to hundreds of thousands of individuals.

 

[ALP1986]

I've found it rather odd how Fox News was trying to deny the fact he was a Christian and a conservative*.

I mean if you look at his writings he'd clearly get on very well with Glenn Beck.


*Note: I am not attempting to make a dig at Christians or conservatives, the problem is with the term extremist or fundamentalist, and not the religious or political prefix.

 

[Ardius]

They bold bits of text I would say are views and not what is or should be.

The pain thing is too simple, that is just a learning process for someone who was previously clueless it would give them pain. Somebody who commits crime already knows what will happen, the knowledge doesn't work, then there are the prison re-offenders, it doesn't work even after they have experienced it, and then there are those that know that if they do a crime they will be given the death penalty, they will DIE, but they still do it. The whole idea of punishment needs to be looked at and to be asked if it is really relevant or worthwhile.
I think the most that is needed is to be reminded what they have done is wrong, and take measures to prevent them from doing wrong again. Whatever that maybe, but not punishment or hardship, just controlled environment. But in my view more should be done on early signs of a criminal, with mentoring and following from school years. You can get informative psychological profiles from children.

Of course they are views, just as your words are opinions too, there is no "it should be" otherwise we wouldn't be having this very discussion.

Yes, people will do things even though they know that they won't like prison or death. Thats because their problems are so strong they feel its a necessary risk or just accept the punishment. This isn't something that can be helped by making prison nicer or trying to rehabilitate them..for example, a drug addict who steals - this is not something that can be prevented by prison, no matter how harsh or nice the prison is.

I still don't see why prisons should be nicer, the people you refer to wouldn't change either way, but the people who do fear prison would no longer fear it.

I agree that simple punishment is not the answer to all crime, but thats not to say it doesn't have its place with some types of people and crime.

 

[Moot]

I think a "nice" prison can fix much more than a harsh one. A nice one can fix a drug addict pretty easily. The "nice" prison is all about rehabilitation in my view, not just human rights, an element of care is provided, in addition to the good psychology of a decent prison a drug addict will also have his addiction treated with prescriptions and counselling and also by being in a controlled safe environment.
It's just a bit expensive to setup, but it could save a lot by preventing repeat crime.
Taking it down a lot of steps, how about little changes at a time for our normal prisons.
The UK should make half it's prison staff women (in male prisons), that may have a nice subtle effect to start with on environmental issues in prison life. Possibly even having mixed female/male inmates in social/recreation areas and then separate living quarters.

 

[[Nor]MclarenF1]

In this article in the Norwegian newspaper "Dagbladet" there is a 360 panorama of what has become a sea of flowers in memory if the victims.
I knew there was alot, but this is immense!

 

[DK]

I've found it rather odd how Fox News was trying to deny the fact he was a Christian and a conservative*.

That's probably because some people may start drawing parallels between Breivik and the likes of Michelle Bachmann.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've found it rather odd how Fox News was trying to deny the fact he was a Christian and a conservative*.

I mean if you look at his writings he'd clearly get on very well with Glenn Beck.

Here's the deal, and Bill O'Reilly has probably been the worst so far, they do not want to claim that a fundamental Christian extremist can call himself a Christian. They deny that his acts have anything to do with Christianity.

The problem they are running into is that Muslims do the same thing when it comes to terrorist attacks. You will hear Muslims denounce terrorist attacks and say that is not the teachings of Islam. But the pundits on Fox News that are now saying this man is not a Christian do not want these Muslims to be able to defend Islam as non-violent.

To make matters worse, people who are always on the attack against Fox News are treating people like Bill O'reilly the same way he does Muslims that denounce terrorist acts. The hypocrisy is thick on both sides here.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But the pundits on Fox News that are now saying this man is not a Christian do not want these Muslims to be able to defend Islam as non-violent.

More to the point, they're all too aware of the way there are similarities between their beliefs and Breivik's. They're understandably very keen to distance themselves from it - but the way they're going about it is all wrong.

Australia has been largely immune from this kind of punditry, but unfortunately we're being tainted with it. Where America has Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, we have Andrew Bolt and "The Bolt Report", which is basically him taking cheap shots at the government for half an hour on Sunday mornings. Just the other day, footage emerged of the opposition leader having an encounter with a disgruntled citizen, who referred to him with a term that will be blocked by the swear filter. Most people laughed this off, but Bolt skewed it, openly stating that everyone who votes for the government is old, cranky, abusive and out of touch with "reality". Almost everything Bolt says and does is designed to be super-critical of the government. There's a major controversy down here over the introduction of a carbon tax, and this is Andrew Bolt's favourite punching bag. He's always criticising the government for it and praising the opposition for opposing it (despite the fact that the opposition have no policy of their own and no idea other than that they want to be in power). Andrew Bolt is essentially spineless, without a shred of integrity to his name. The only reason why I watch his half-hour show is because it's utterly hilarious to watch him act like he's somebody important when he's little more than a shill for the opposition. Most the Australian media are openly mocking him, but he's blissfully unaware of it.

I didn't mean to go off-topic like that, but I just wanted to highlight that a) the attitude of O'Reilly and Beck is not endemic to America, and b) that we, unfortunately, have someone cut from the same cloth. I've seen Bolt's latest piece dealing with Breivik, and one thing is pretty clear: Breivik represents a threat to their entire ability to be legitimate. Their beliefs are deeply rooted in the notion that the Bible and Christian values are morally right. Breivik, however, has twisted those values and taken them to extremes, and this undermines the legitimacy of people like O'Reilly and Bolt and Beck. To separate themselves from Breivik and say "he does not speak for us" is not enough; they need to separate Breivik from their faith as much as possible, lest he endanger peoples' perception of that faith as being morally right. And that's the problem with this kind of media - their power is only ever transient at best. It depends entirely on their audiences. If people decide that Breivik is a fundamental Christian and see parallels with this pundit or that one, then they will be disinclined to keep listening. The pundits revel in telling people what they should be thinking and when they should be thinking it, but without an audience, they are powerless. So what they're really doing is only self-serving. And that's why they never should have been allowed to be in the positions they are in in the first place.

 

[rocko100]

Did any body see the prison he's going to? Its practically a hotel, I'll find the link later.

 

[FoolKiller]

Australia has been largely immune from this kind of punditry, but unfortunately we're being tainted with it. Where America has Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, we have Andrew Bolt and "The Bolt Report", which is basically him taking cheap shots at the government for half an hour on Sunday mornings.

So, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum? We also have MSNBC, which is barely more than a mouthpiece for the administration at this point. People like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are basically the idealogical opposite of Beck and O'Reilly, and don't realize.

There is also Keith Olbermann, but MSNBC fired him and he is on some new channel started by the ultra-serial Al Gore.

Did any body see the prison he's going to? Its practically a hotel, I'll find the link later.

Pictures have been posted in this thread already, and we have been discussing it.

 

[ZeGermanBastorD]

Shows how more evolved ahead of us Norway is compared to America or even UK.

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/halden_fengsel.jpg
http://bigdaynews.com/wp-content/uploads/halden-fengsel-prison.jpg
http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000b13oDviidKc/s/860/860/Halden-Luxury-Prison-Norway-029.JPG

Other countries should aspire to this.

Wow, a deluxe jail.

I like it, but I wouldn't put everyone into it. I would create 3 different classes of jails.

1st class (deluxe): imprisonment 0-12 month
2nd class (basic): imprisonment 1-5 years
3rd class (hardcore): imprisonment 5-... years

F.e. for an prisoner with 25 years it would go like that: 20 years 3rd class jail, 4 years 2nd class jail & 1 year 1st class jail.

Ohh yea, and the catering would be also differently, what you can have in your cell (TV, radio, cigarettes, etc.), different "service" quality, etc.


Now, what do you think how long does it take till the Ghost Adventures crew enters the Utøya island? This place is now for sure haunted.

 

[Neal]

Moving away from the prison conditions in Norway and whether a TV programme will use an island where 68 people were murdered 6 days ago the police have called off the search for further victims at Utøya and are due to interview Anders Breivik again tomorrow behind closed doors after receiving "a lot" of new information about last Friday.

 

[FoolKiller]

Moving away from the prison conditions in Norway and whether a TV programme will use an island where 68 people were murdered 6 days ago the police have called off the search for further victims at Utøya and are due to interview Anders Breivik again tomorrow behind closed doors after receiving "a lot" of new information about last Friday.

Are there still people missing? I assumed everyone was accounted for? Do they believe some of the people that tried to swim ashore might have been killed and washed out or something or is the island really that big?

 

[Neal]

Are there still people missing? I assumed everyone was accounted for? Do they believe some of the people that tried to swim ashore might have been killed and washed out or something or is the island really that big?

I think the wording of the story has changed since I first read it as I assumed they'd finished searching the whole area but it's just the island. See below.

"The police announced that they had finished combing the island, although forensic scientists were still at work there and the surrounding lake was still being searched for the missing.

But the BBC's Jon Brain in Oslo says that the police have admitted for the first time that they don't know how many people are still missing."

The island is fairly small judging by the pictures I've seen so they've obviously been thorough combing it, finding everyone who tried to swim to safety and didn't make may never be possible depending how deep it is.

 

[ZeGermanBastorD]

Are there still people missing? I assumed everyone was accounted for? Do they believe some of the people that tried to swim ashore might have been killed and washed out or something or is the island really that big?

Yes, I think they are still missing 3 or 4 people.

They could be under wather (& there is a lot of wather), they could have been wounded but reached one of the other islands and still hiding there, or died there, or they where never on the island.
Wrong calculation or they where ill at the time, stayed at home or visited a friend.

Here's a map of the loaction: Google Maps : Utøya

Let's hope the best. 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum? We also have MSNBC, which is barely more than a mouthpiece for the administration at this point. People like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are basically the idealogical opposite of Beck and O'Reilly, and don't realize.

There isn't really anyone at the opposite end down here. Not that I'm aware of. Moronic punditry is only a relatively new thing here in Australia, and as far as I know, Andrew Bolt has a monopoly on it.

 

[arora]

July 24, Warsaw Poland concert, Morrissey

We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried S--- every day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ey-compares-fast-food-to-Norway-massacre.html

Nothing quite like seizing the moment to push your crackpot agenda.

 

[Encyclopedia]

^ You should see the debates on various Swedish forums, especially by social democrat supporters, using this dreadful event to earn political points.

 

[FoolKiller]

July 24, Warsaw Poland concert, Morrissey



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ey-compares-fast-food-to-Norway-massacre.html

Nothing quite like seizing the moment to push your crackpot agenda.

The last line from that article:

"Morrissey has decided not to comment any further as he believes his statement speaks for itself," the spokeperson said.

And he is right. It proves that he is a douche bag.

 

[hightyme]

I think he wants to expose others, why he's asking for a public trial & yet they won't give it. He knows something the rest of us don't, sure he acted inhumanly about it, but maybe he was limited on choices. I just hope the trial does go public.

 

[Joel]

I think he wants to expose others, why he's asking for a public trial & yet they won't give it. He knows something the rest of us don't, sure he acted inhumanly about it, but maybe he was limited on choices. I just hope the trial does go public.

I think he's probably just a nutjob with something to say. Likely along the lines of "go away immigrants".

 

[Neal]

I think he wants to expose others, why he's asking for a public trial & yet they won't give it. He knows something the rest of us don't, sure he acted inhumanly about it, but maybe he was limited on choices. I just hope the trial does go public.

He was "limited on choices" so he killed 76 people? Are you really sympathising with this person? FFS

 

[hightyme]

Definately not sympathising, but this guy had military experience & was a Freemason; either he's part of a plan or against one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Definately not sympathising, but this guy had military experience & was a Freemason; either he's part of a plan or against one.

Or crazy.

 

[Joel]

Definately not sympathising, but this guy had military experience & was a Freemason; either he's part of a plan or against one.

Yeah I don't think so. He could have made his statement otherwise, the car bomb in Oslo would have been enough. He's bat 🤬 crazy that's it.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Yeah I don't think so. He could have made his statement otherwise, the car bomb in Oslo would have been enough. He's bat 🤬 crazy that's it.

Yup, he carries the illusion that he is a knight of the crusades and is doing the world good - even mentioning himself by an english name. Complete nutjob!

 

[TobbE26]

the latest news are that he was planning manny more acts of terrorism inc. blowing up the royal palace and the "arbetar parti" office.

 

[TT3AZ]

Well, a typical scandinavian terrorist. As i have written before, terrorism isnt only concentrated to middle east, it can happen and will affect the whole world. End of story.

Second, its very true that there is alot of these extremists in nothern countries, and as i have written in other threads, similar partys have expressed them selfs in simalar way openly.

There was a interview with a leader of a swedish national party, and he said to the reporter "yes, we will use violence if that is neccersarly to spread our propoganda". So there are actually groups in sweden openly confessing that they will use violence to take over the power, and still they are beeing allowed under the freedom of speech to say and act as they want to. Quite funny?