Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mass killer's rights

Options
  • 20-04-2016 3:54pm
    #1
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭


    A court in Norway has upheld a claim that Anders Breiviks' human rights were violated by his treatment in prison. This violation consisted of

    'his isolation from other prisoners, frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed while moving between the three cells at his disposal violated his human rights"

    Not only was the ruling in his favour the government has to pay his court costs of about €35,000.

    Surely a mass murder the like of which was committed by Anders Breivik should mean a complete waiver of your human rights? I would have no sympathy for his case and given his actions and complete lack of remorse and can see no justification for allowing him even to live let alone pander to his human rights.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Cathy.C


    Nobody should be exempt from human rights while incarcerated because some people in prison are awaiting trial or awaiting appeal hearings.

    Even if they were all for sure guilty, to treat them less than human just means stooping to their level. Society should always try and be above that. It sets an example if nothing else.


  • Options
    #3
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    No wonder he's in isolation with his tendency to mass murder


  • Options
    #4
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I don't see what the problem is with being handcuffed while moving from cell to cell, but the frequent strip searches and total isolation are indeed violations of human rights, and are almost certainly being done to f*ck with him rather than out of necessity.

    Anyone who believes that human rights should end upon conviction, or indeed that the death penalty should still be in operation, is denying that miscarriages of justice can take place, and do so on a relatively frequent basis. The judge who presided over the Guilford Four and Maguire Seven expressed regret that he couldn't hang those involved, and look how that turned out in the end?


  • Options
    #5
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I don't see what the problem is with being handcuffed while moving from cell to cell, but the frequent strip searches and total isolation are indeed violations of human rights, and are almost certainly being done to f*ck with him rather than out of necessity.

    Anyone who believes that human rights should end upon conviction, or indeed that the death penalty should still be in operation, is denying that miscarriages of justice can take place, and do so on a relatively frequent basis. The judge who presided over the Guilford Four and Maguire Seven expressed regret that he couldn't hang those involved, and look how that turned out in the end?

    This case is fairly cut and dried though. There is no chance of a miscarriage of justice.


  • Options
    #6
    dodderangler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    He didn't give those people any rights when he killed them so what genius decided to give him rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    dodderangler wrote: »
    He didn't give those people any rights when he killed them so what genius decided to give him rights.

    He had them from when he was born just like everyone else.

    Do people really think it wise to have a system were it can be decided that individuals have simply lost their rights? It's pretty clear cut for a serial killer that no one will care, but the idea that it would stop there is fanciful.


  • Options
    #8
    RedXIV
    Registered Users Posts: 8,422 ✭✭✭RedXIV


    Put him in general popuation in the prison, some of the others in there that abuse human rights might sort him out and then everyone can be happy right?


  • Options
    #9
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    'his isolation from other prisoners, frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed while moving between the three cells at his disposal violated his human rights"

    He had normal, free rights like every other one of his countrymen before he did what he did. It was his decision and his alone to put himself in prison.....as well as trying to make a mockery of the courts with his moment in the public.

    He hasn't been stripped of all that and he isn't being treated like a dog, it's that he isn't being treated the way he wished he would be for someone of his "reputation"


  • Options
    #10
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    RedXIV wrote: »
    Put him in general popuation in the prison, some of the others in there that abuse human rights might sort him out and then everyone can be happy right?

    Ah but you see his human rights mean he shouldn't be put in danger so he should be kept in isolation but he doesn't like that apparently.


  • Options
    #11
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,107 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    His human rights were infringed upon, we either have them or we don't.

    It doesn't make him any less of a scumbag, it doesn't validate anything about his actions or anything like that. The people in charge of guarding him let themselves down is all that happened here.

    The human rights charter has got to be protected, that means treating your prisoners with a certain level of care.

    As I said, either the human rights charter matters or it doesn't. It can't be both and it can't be selective.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    gramar wrote: »
    This case is fairly cut and dried though. There is no chance of a miscarriage of justice.

    So what do you propose? Should there be some sort of panel of judges who rate how cut and dried each case is, and if it exceeds a particular level of desiccated dicedness we revoke human rights for the crack?

    Or do we not formalise it at all, and just have a rule that if the general consensus is "That dude's definitely guilty", we get lax with the rules?

    Is it really so hard for people to grasp that, for the concept of human rights to work, everybody has to have them no matter how distasteful we might find specific individuals?

    In order for you to have them, he has to have them.


  • Options
    #13
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    The whole point of human rights is that everybody, every human being has them and they are inalienable - they cannot ever be legally taken away from them, by anybody or anything.


  • Options
    #14
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    osarusan wrote: »
    The whole point of human rights is that everybody, every human being has them and they are inalienable - they cannot ever be legally taken away from them, by anybody or anything.

    So how is imprisonment not a violation.


  • Options
    #15
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    I for one, welcome a return to a Draconian legal code.


  • Options
    #16
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Varik wrote: »
    So how is imprisonment not a violation.

    I've never seen a human rights code or law that prohibited lawful imprisonment.

    Doesn't imply a free-for-all once you get there.


  • Options
    #17
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Varik wrote: »
    So how is imprisonment not a violation.

    Because Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights "provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence."


  • Options
    #18
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Because Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights "provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence."

    Grand so no issue.


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,007 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gramar wrote: »
    'his isolation from other prisoners, frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed while moving between the three cells at his disposal violated his human rights'

    Would have thought that was for his own protection but hey ... let them at him.


  • Options
    #20
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    I for one, welcome a return to a Draconian legal code.

    Move to Russia


  • Options
    #21
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,506 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    He's manipulating the system to his own ends knowing the court system will side with him. On good behaviour, theoretically he could be let out after 21 years (they'll find reasons to keep him detained). More liberal prison and judicial systems operate on the basis that people are fundamentally good, just misdirected or disadvantaged, that it's not their fault, but when an evil f*cker like him comes along, it makes a mockery of the whole thing. He'll spend the rest of his life with frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal with the taxpayer footing the bill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    In order for you to have them, he has to have them.

    To begin with, yes. But then...
    osarusan wrote: »
    The whole point of human rights is that everybody, every human being has them and they are inalienable - they cannot ever be legally taken away from them, by anybody or anything.

    No that is not the whole point as you put it.

    These rights can be forfeited. Breivik forfeited them himself through his own actions. The laws weren't made up after his deed.

    The rights of the murdered to their lives trump his right to liberty always. We call this ancient and noble convention "justice". Are you uncomfortable with that?


  • Options
    #23
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    gramar wrote: »
    This case is fairly cut and dried though. There is no chance of a miscarriage of justice.

    This has been said about every single miscarriage of justice in history, by somebody or other.


  • Options
    #24
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    gramar wrote: »
    A court in Norway has upheld a claim that Anders Breiviks' human rights were violated by his treatment in prison. This violation consisted of

    'his isolation from other prisoners, frequent strip searches and the fact that he was often handcuffed while moving between the three cells at his disposal violated his human rights"

    Not only was the ruling in his favour the government has to pay his court costs of about €35,000.

    Surely a mass murder the like of which was committed by Anders Breivik should mean a complete waiver of your human rights? I would have no sympathy for his case and given his actions and complete lack of remorse and can see no justification for allowing him even to live let alone pander to his human rights.

    That's not the way the law works, however, as no such sentence exists. The "frequent strip searches" seem to have been carried out at night on a half hourly basis which is fairly blatantly taking the piss. They should just stick him in whatever high security regime they have and leave him there to rot - abusing the eejit only makes him a martyr.


  • Options
    #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This has been said about every single miscarriage of justice in history, by somebody or other.

    Good man.


  • Options
    #26
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,284 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Given that his movements and contacts with other people are so controlled, I'm not entirely sure why the strip searches are required so frequently, so I'd accept that his rights were probably being breached there. But a prisoner complaining about being handcuffed? Seriously? Given his violent past if I was a prison officer there I'd bloody well want him handcuffed every time I moved him between cells. And as for the isolation thing, will he still want to complain about his rights being breached when someone shivs him in the dinner queue? Or what if none of the other prisoners want to go near him? Can he sue because the other kids won't play with him? Norway's penal system is very progressive and I read recently that the rates of recidivism are among the lowest in the world. But sometimes you've got to accept that some people are bad and need to be locked away for the common good.


  • Options
    #27
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    topper75 wrote: »

    These rights can be forfeited. Breivik forfeited them himself through his own actions. The laws weren't made up after his deed.

    The rights of the murdered to their lives trump his right to liberty always. We call this ancient and noble convention "justice". Are you uncomfortable with that?

    No, they cant. Thats the entire point. Otherwise we just remove them whenever we want and they may as well not exist for anyone.

    You could reasonably argue his treatment didnt infringe his rights but to say he has none is worrying behaviour to me.


  • Options
    #28
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    All rights language is invented: it has no existence or merit beyond what civil society decides. Breivik is having a laugh taking this case; he is making a mockery of Norway. A man who saw himself as having the authority to permanently negate the capacity of others to hold rights demands that his now be upheld.
    The problem is how to remove his rights to the extent that society deems appropriate without having to listen to claims that we have sunk to his level. It's an interesting problem in language and logic.


  • Options
    #29
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Hard to feel sorry for pure evil.


  • Options
    #30
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    All rights language is invented: it has no existence or merit beyond what civil society decides. Breivik is having a laugh taking this case; he is making a mockery of Norway. A man who saw himself as having the authority to permanently negate the capacity of others to hold rights demands that his now be upheld.
    The problem is how to remove his rights to the extent that society deems appropriate without having to listen to claims that we have sunk to his level. It's an interesting problem in language and logic.

    He can't be singled out, so essentially he can be sent to the toughest regime, but it can't be one invented solely for him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Lurkio wrote: »
    He can't be singled out, so essentially he can be sent to the toughest regime, but it can't be one invented solely for him.

    That would actually depend on how society decided to construct the thing. He falls into the category of mass killer. Does he have a claim to political status? iz he unique? Remember that it is Norways to decide: the globalism of the UN declaration and the particularism of the EU human rights regime ( or whatever entity applies) are relevant only to the extent that Norway chooses to accept them.


Advertisement