What Do You Think About This Decision?

[z12345]

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3157925/mass-murderer-anders-breivik-accepted-to-university-of-oslo-political-science-program-1.3158243

 

 

[Birdy]

I agree with the rector.

 

"The appropriate response to his terrorism is to stick to the rules."

 

They have rules which permit for the continuing education of inmates and so he is permitted. While his particular crimes are likely unique (to Norway) in their scale, I'd imagine there are probably other inmates guilty of equally abhorrent crimes who are studying there.

 

I admire the university for sticking to their principles, despite the fact that I'm sure they knew there would be bad press.

 

Also, I just noticed that the date on the article is from 2011. I'd imagine he'd have graduated or he'll be close to graduation soon.

[snacks]

I agree with the rector.

 

"The appropriate response to his terrorism is to stick to the rules."

 

They have rules which permit for the continuing education of inmates and so he is permitted. While his particular crimes are likely unique (to Norway) in their scale, I'd imagine there are probably other inmates guilty of equally abhorrent crimes who are studying there.

 

I admire the university for sticking to their principles, despite the fact that I'm sure they knew there would be bad press.

 

Also, I just noticed that the date on the article is from 2011. I'd imagine he'd have graduated or he'll be close to graduation soon.

 

I think that was the date of the crime. The article is from last week it seems. But otherwise, agreed!

[Birdy]

I think that was the date of the crime. The article is from last week it seems. But otherwise, agreed!

Oh, you are correct. Should have looked more closely.

[Falling]

Almost tangential, but I think it is a good policy to allow prisoners access to education. This only comes to mind because I've been following some tweets about Bernie Sanders, but yeah. 

 

Carry on. 

[Birdy]

Almost tangential, but I think it is a good policy to allow prisoners access to education. This only comes to mind because I've been following some tweets about Bernie Sanders, but yeah. 

 

Carry on.

 

I agree completely. Education is, IIRC, the best way to reduce recidivism. Particularly of people who are coming from very low SES backgrounds. Having a criminal record makes it even harder for them to get work, so increasing their education can improve their chances of becoming productive members of society. In a civil society, prison needs to be about rehabilitation, not just blind vengeance. Treating prisoners poorly just makes things worse for everyone.

[Organomegaly]

For most criminals, education would reduce relapses to criminal behaviour. For the likes of Anders, there is nothing uneducated about him. In fact, he is driven by potent ideologies, and was well-read enough to articulate a 1500 page manifesto which outlines his fascist principles. It is wrong to equate cruelty with lack of education, or to suggest that the latter gives way to the former. Matters of the intellect often have nothing to do with matters of humanity.

 

 For him, education will not be rehabilitative; his intentions for joining the University are likely to covet a platform from which he can further express his backwardness. I disagree with the Universities decision. Principles should not always prevail on their merely being a principle, but should give way to the constantly evolving circumstances that they purport to address. Few principles stand absolutely, and access to education as this case illustrates is not one of them. We suspend the rights of criminals because they have thieved upon the rights of others. The University could have made a statement by barring his entry; that the intellectual world rejects his ideologies and that Anders' very belief in them renders him unwelcome in circles of civilized thought. Not only an intellectual statement, but such a decision would have also respected the family and friends of victims at the University of Oslo, whose happiness should without a doubt come before the barbarian Anders'.

[katakari]

For most criminals, education would reduce relapses to criminal behaviour. For the likes of Anders, there is nothing uneducated about him. In fact, he is driven by potent ideologies, and was well-read enough to articulate a 1500 page manifesto which outlines his fascist principles. It is wrong to equate cruelty with lack of education, or to suggest that the latter gives way to the former. Matters of the intellect often have nothing to do with matters of humanity.

 

 For him, education will not be rehabilitative; his intentions for joining the University are likely to covet a platform from which he can further express his backwardness. I disagree with the Universities decision. Principles should not always prevail on their merely being a principle, but should give way to the constantly evolving circumstances that they purport to address. Few principles stand absolutely, and access to education as this case illustrates is not one of them. We suspend the rights of criminals because they have thieved upon the rights of others. The University could have made a statement by barring his entry; that the intellectual world rejects his ideologies and that Anders' very belief in them renders him unwelcome in circles of civilized thought. Not only an intellectual statement, but such a decision would have also respected the family and friends of victims at the University of Oslo, whose happiness should without a doubt come before the barbarian Anders'.

 

Well written; a good way to disguise, that among your strong assertions, you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to back them up. Hopefully you will not also apply this morality to the treatment of your patients.

[Organomegaly]

Identify the morality you're specifically objecting to and what statement I made that requires evidence; these are clearly opinions based on subjective appraisals of right and wrong,  and while I think education for the vast majority of criminals is an excellent rehabilitative action - which you are right, is an evidence-based decision - this extremely well-read man Anders has no need of it; it will not benefit him and thinking otherwise is frankly naïve given the breadth and extent of his background that appears in his manifesto.

 

 The Rector said something similar: "He will need to read about democracy, justice, pluralism, and respect for human rights...he will now have ample time to reflect on his atrocities". I almost laughed out loud - as if he did not consciously address these philosophies of tolerance beforehand and actively reject them to reach his current philosophies.

 

 And please - it is sanctimonious to automatically assume that any intellectual stance one holds will translate to outcomes in patient care. What "morality" have I championed which will detriment my patients exactly? I am taking a stance only on this very particular situation; have identified no general principles that I espouse that could reasonably be translated to implications to my care of patients and nowhere did I imply that I would suspend my professional obligations even I had him as a patient. 

[武田信玄]

The more disturbing side of this story is that he was sent to jail for only 21 years (21 years of timeframe, with only 10 years min). I mean, I always try to support the left, but when I see something as absurd as this, I just have to shake my head a little.

 

Do you guys remember Tim McLean? One thing I still remember to this day is not the gruesome murder, but what his mother said after hearing the verdict: "If the judge believes in the justice for Mr. Li (not criminally responsible, sent to a psychiatric ward and got released last year), then where is the justice for my son?" That gotta be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever heard.

 

I just don't understand why today's society forces these average citizens to show compassion toward these sub-human criminals. Why not show some compassion toward the victims? The guy who killed 77 innocent people was sent to jail for only 10 years minimum, the same guy who tried to start another extremist party while in jail, and now is accepted into the best university in this country??? Why doesn't some Norwaynian stand up and say "sorry but I don't want my tax to go support this mfker's education".

 

And for Tim Mclean's killer, I mean, for someone to kill and eat another human being, this person has to be crazy. How can you even use this card to say he is not criminally responsible? Does that mean all crazy people can do whatever they want without any consequences? Does that mean anyone can start murdering people and later on just need to say "cuz I heard god's voice in my head" and then walk away?

 

Why not just treat everybody equal, crazy or not crazy, and let the family decides whether they want to forgive the criminals or not? Yes we need to be compassionate, but we don't always have to be compassionate.

[amichel]

The more disturbing side of this story is that he was sent to jail for only 21 years (21 years of timeframe, with only 10 years min). I mean, I always try to support the left, but when I see something as absurd as this, I just have to shake my head a little.

 

Do you guys remember Tim McLean? One thing I still remember to this day is not the gruesome murder, but what his mother said after hearing the verdict: "If the judge believes in the justice for Mr. Li (not criminally responsible, sent to a psychiatric ward and got released last year), then where is the justice for my son?" That gotta be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever heard.

 

I just don't understand why today's society forces these average citizens to show compassion toward these sub-human criminals. Why not show some compassion toward the victims? The guy who killed 77 innocent people was sent to jail for only 10 years minimum, the same guy who tried to start another extremist party while in jail, and now is accepted into the best university in this country??? Why doesn't some Norwaynian stand up and say "sorry but I don't want my tax to go support this mfker's education".

 

And for Tim Mclean's killer, I mean, for someone to kill and eat another human being, this person has to be crazy. How can you even use this card to say he is not criminally responsible? Does that mean all crazy people can do whatever they want without any consequences? Does that mean anyone can start murdering people and later on just need to say "cuz I heard god's voice in my head" and then walk away?

 

Why not just treat everybody equal, crazy or not crazy, and let the family decides whether they want to forgive the criminals or not? Yes we need to be compassionate, but we don't always have to be compassionate.

Meh, I have a hard time writing anyone off as pure evil. Yes, he may not have been declared insane from a legal perspective, but people who do things like this either have something off in the brain chemistry, had terrible things done to them as a child, or, usually, both.

 

There are lots of not so nice people in the world. But most of them don't commit mass murder or eat people's body parts. There has to be some other factor and that deserves some consideration.

 

 

Now I don't mean to say they shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. I just have trouble writing them off as sub-human, and therefore having no compassion for the circumstances that lead to whatever crime they committed.

[武田信玄]

Meh, I have a hard time writing anyone off as pure evil. Yes, he may not have been declared insane from a legal perspective, but people who do things like this either have something off in the brain chemistry, had terrible things done to them as a child, or, usually, both.

 

There are lots of not so nice people in the world. But most of them don't commit mass murder or eat people's body parts. There has to be some other factor and that deserves some consideration.

 

 

Now I don't mean to say they shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. I just have trouble writing them off as sub-human, and therefore having no compassion for the circumstances that lead to whatever crime they committed.

That's why I say let's just eliminate this psychiatric assessment before the judge makes the verdict, treat everybody equal, and let the victim's family decide whether to lessen the punishment based on the criminal's mental condition. When I hear all these interest groups advocating for the rights of the criminals, it's like spitting onto the wounds of the victims and their families.

[amichel]

That's why I say let's just eliminate this psychiatric assessment before the judge makes the verdict, treat everybody equal, and let the victim's family decide whether to lessen the punishment based on the criminal's mental condition. When I hear all these interest groups advocating for the rights of the criminals, it's like spitting onto the wounds of the victims and their families.

Except that we have a justice system, not a revenge system. For good reason. Criminals should still have rights. It may not feel great for those on the other side, but it's part of living in a civil society.

 

Besides, what about people who actual are psychotic when they commit their crimes.

[Nyscol]

That's why I say let's just eliminate this psychiatric assessment before the judge makes the verdict, treat everybody equal, and let the victim's family decide whether to lessen the punishment based on the criminal's mental condition. When I hear all these interest groups advocating for the rights of the criminals, it's like spitting onto the wounds of the victims and their families.

 

I don't think the purpose of the psychiatric assessment was ever wholly intended to "lessen" the punishment. It's about applying the "right" punishment, and moving forward with appropriate judicial arrangements. It has been shown over and over again that prison creates and exacerbates mental health problems. Do you really want someone with an extreme mental health condition in gen pop. where they are barely capable of handling mild to moderate mental illness? Is placing some of the most mentally disturbed individuals in an environment which will worsen their condition productive?

 

The families of victims can't make these kinds of decisions because they aren't forensic psychiatrists, judges, or legal or mental health professionals who can make an unbiased, professional assessment based on needs, not emotions.

 

Heck, if we started basing punishments solely on the opinions of the family of victims then we might as well bring back capital punishment. Hell, why not torture while were at it. This is why we already have victim impact statements, so that the families of victims may have their say.

 

Edit: I just had to correct some misinformation about Vincent Li. He was not "released." He is allowed to take brief unsupervised trips. He will likely be in the Selkirk facility for the rest of his life (if not most of it.) Also I just saw your statement about them being "sub-human." I'm not sure what stage of the process you are in (premed, med student etc) but please please, never work with psych patients.

[武田信玄]

I don't think the purpose of the psychiatric assessment was ever wholly intended to "lessen" the punishment. It's about applying the "right" punishment, and moving forward with appropriate judicial arrangements. It has been shown over and over again that prison creates and exacerbates mental health problems. Do you really want someone with an extreme mental health condition in gen pop. where they are barely capable of handling mild to moderate mental illness? Is placing some of the most mentally disturbed individuals in an environment which will worsen their condition productive?

 

The families of victims can't make these kinds of decisions because they aren't forensic psychiatrists, judges, or legal or mental health professionals who can make an unbiased, professional assessment based on needs, not emotions.

 

Heck, if we started basing punishments solely on the opinions of the family of victims then we might as well bring back capital punishment. Hell, why not torture while were at it. This is why we already have victim impact statements, so that the families of victims may have their say.

I never said let the family decide on the verdict. I said get rid of psychiatric assessment from our legal system and let the judge make the decision. Then, and only then, the only people who have the rights to lessen the punishment based on mental conditions are the victim and their families, and how much lessening will be decided based on laws.

 

Regarding your first paragraph, please answer me this, do you really want Mr. Li who ate Tim McLean's insides to walk around in your neighbourhoods unsupervised? Because this is what he is getting right now after only 7 years. Also, please answer Tim's mom's question, where is her son's justice? Are you seriously going to tell her that what happened to her son is a tragedy but hey ma'am sorry there is nothing we can do, that we are not going to punish Mr. Li because he heard God's voice in his head?

[Nyscol]

I never said let the family decide on the verdict. I said get rid of psychiatric assessment from our legal system and let the judge make the decision. Then, and only then, the only people who have the rights to lessen the punishment based on mental conditions are the victim and their families, and how much lessening will be decided based on laws.

 

Regarding your first paragraph, please answer me this, do you really want Mr. Li who ate Tim McLean's insides to walk around in your neighbourhoods unsupervised? Because this is what he is getting right now after only 7 years. Also, please answer Tim's mom's question, where is her son's justice? Are you seriously going to tell her that what happened to her son is a tragedy but hey ma'am sorry there is nothing we can do, that we are not going to punish Mr. Li because he heard God's voice in his head?

 

As for the idea of Vince Li walking around my neighborhood, who knows, there could be many more Vince Lis walking around my neighborhood who are afraid to seek help because they have been shamed by the stigma against the mentally ill that you are helping create. There's nothing anything of us can do about that but to have an open, frank, and scientific discussion about mental illness free of value laden terms such as what people "deserve." This is not about what people deserve, it is not about "justice." What happened to Tim is a horrible horrible tragedy for all involved, including Vincent Li. Now can we please move past the idea that people only do bad things simply because they are bad people? 

[武田信玄]

When did I ever say about torture and capital punishment? That's really a nice way to twist my word. All I'm asking is to keep these dangerous criminals in jail if they like to eat people or set off bombs in public.

 

Btw psychiatric patients do not equal to Anders or Vincent li. You can say whatever you want to say, but again if you start to eat people or bomb people, then you need to be punished. Justice system should not be used to promote vengeance, but still it needs to serve out punishment for criminal activities.

[武田信玄]

As for the idea of Vince Li walking around my neighborhood, who knows, there could be many more Vince Li's walking around my neighborhood who are afraid to seek help because they have been shamed by the stigma against the mentally ill that you are helping create. There's nothing anything of us can do about that but to have an open, frank, and scientific discussion about mental illness free of value laden terms such as what people "deserve." This is not about what people deserve, it is not about "justice." What happened to Tim is a horrible horrible tragedy for all involved, including Vincent Li. Now can we please move past the idea that people only do bad things simply because they are bad people?

 

Vincent Li got off alright. My tax money is even helping him getting treated.

 

And right, because I want to keep someone in jail who set off a bomb in public and killed 77 people, or someone who beheaded another human being and ate his insides, I'm now creating a stigma against mental patients.

 

I mean, are you serious? Tim's killed, his family got no compensation, and Vince got treated partly by using tim's family's tax dollars. So from the end of it, Vince finally opened up about his mental problem by eating Tim's insides, got his mental treatment, and now let's celebrate?

[Nyscol]

When did I ever say about torture and capital punishment? That's really a nice way to twist my word. All I'm asking is to keep these dangerous criminals in jail if they like to eat people or set off bombs in public.

 

Btw psychiatric patients do not equal to Anders or Vincent li. You can say whatever you want to say, but again if you start to eat people or bomb people, then you need to be punished. Justice system should not be used to promote vengeance, but still it needs to serve out punishment for criminal activities.

Anyways I won't argue anymore. I don't want to ruin a good light-hearted discussion. We agree to disagree. Sometimes political and moral differences are insurmountable. 

 

Off-topic but have you ever considered a career in law instead? Prosecution? You seem pretty hell-bent on condemning people.  I'm just razzin you.

[oshaku]

I don't believe there can be justice for everyone. I believe we can try our best, but there will never be any justice (that suffice) for the millions of Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Poles, Arabs, Croates etc. who died during wars, slaughters, mass shootings what have you. We can't place a quantifiable value on lives (as much as insurance companies like to think otherwise). One life is lost, and nothing we can do can balance that out in the universal scale. What Tim Mclean's family is asking for us not justice, but revenge. That is something I'm fundamentally against. Mr. Li was deemed insane at the time he committed his crime, it doesn't mean he's in the same state of mind for all time thereafter. "Crazy" people can get less crazy with treatment to the point that they can be left unsupervised. Obviously, my opinion is based on trust in the people responsible for Mr. Li's care.

 

I object to the classification of any human as sub-human. It's a dangerous thought that validates all sorts of atrocities around the world. Dehumanization was found to frequently preceed massacres.

[Organomegaly]

@ Amichel - beginning of your first post (I can't quote for some reason) is basically an argument for pre-determination. There is always nature and nurture; our free wills leave us responsible over how we act with what we are given. We all make conscious choices, and there are very few who are truly robbed of their free will in the way you are suggesting. There are "truly" evil people in the world - what I get from your post is an implication that we are all good and through misfortune beyond us we turn evil.  As a result, I would be careful distinguishing between biology as a means and biology as a prime cause (i.e. your argument over brain chemicals - which came first: conscious choices that led us towards criminal tendencies or the chemical imbalances which caused the choices we could never control. Chemical imbalance theories are now widely regarded as being too simplistic a model).

[Nyscol]

I don't believe there can be justice for everyone. I believe we can try our best, but there will never be any justice (that suffice) for the millions of Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Poles, Arabs, Croates etc. who died during wars, slaughters, mass shootings what have you. We can't place a quantifiable value on lives (as much as insurance companies like to think otherwise). One life is lost, and nothing we can do can balance that out in the universal scale. What Tim Mclean's family is asking for us not justice, but revenge. That is something I'm fundamentally against. Mr. Li was deemed insane at the time he committed his crime, it doesn't mean he's in the same state of mind for all time thereafter. "Crazy" people can get less crazy with treatment to the point that they can be left unsupervised. Obviously, my opinion is based on trust in the people responsible for Mr. Li's care.

 

I object to the classification of any human as sub-human. It's a dangerous thought that validates all sorts of atrocities around the world. Dehumanization was found to frequently preceed massacres.

I thought I would share this quote from Li as I think it encapsulates your comments regarding getting better with treatment.

 

"I understand people are scared because of my behaviour on the Greyhound bus. I am not at risk for anybody. I don’t believe in aliens. I don’t hear voices. I would call my doctor if I heard voices again. Yes, I understand their fear,” Li said. Mental illness is an illness. It is treatable. My schizophrenia is not the real me, but it is an illness.”

 

I realize this forum wasn't intended to be about LI, so I apologize for derailing it. But here's the article. By the way, anybody on this forum interested in pursuing forensic psych? 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/greyhound-bus-beheader-vince-li-wins-right-to-leave-mental-hospital-without-on-escort

[amichel]

@ Amichel - beginning of your first post (I can't quote for some reason) is basically an argument for pre-determination. There is always nature and nurture; our free wills leave us responsible over how we act with what we are given. We all make conscious choices, and there are very few who are truly robbed of their free will in the way you are suggesting. There are "truly" evil people in the world - what I get from your post is an implication that we are all good and through misfortune beyond us we turn evil. As a result, I would be careful distinguishing between biology as a means and biology as a prime cause (i.e. your argument over brain chemicals - which came first: conscious choices that led us towards criminal tendencies or the chemical imbalances which caused the choices we could never control. Chemical imbalance theories are now widely regarded as being too simplistic a model).

What? I never said everyone starts out good? I said that its multi factorial. People make choices, and should be held responsible for those choices, but those choices are influenced by circumstance, and to argue otherwise is silly.

 

I also never said that these people are devoid of free will. Only that I object to their classification as "sub human". I'm not saying they hold no responsibility for their actions, only that things aren't black and white.

 

I think you're twisting my words a bit. I never said that biology forces criminal actions (that would be the definition of "criminally" insane - not what I'm talking about), only that it can predispose someone to make poor choices and commit heinous acts. This doesn't excuse the crime, but we, especially as people who will care for vulnerable populations, should try to understand what underlies these crimes.

 

Do you really think that someone who kills 77 people has nothing wrong with their wiring? Come on.

[BTJJ]

We have a saying that "hard cases make bad law". Brevik is one of those cases. Not including Brevik, Norway has one of the lowest murder and violent crime rates in the world. Brevik should be hanged (IMO), but it is not worth changing laws just because of one person.

 

Here in Canada, there is an impression among many that the "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a loophole, that it is easy to fake insanity, that lawyers and psychiatrists or co-conspirators trying to subvert justice, etc. Insanity defenses are extremely hard. The Li and Turcotte cases are hard cases as well, which have tested the public's patience with the centuries' old common law principle that criminal liability does not attach without the "mens rea". But just like it wasn't worth blowing up the whole plea bargain system just because Karla Homolka got off easy, it's not worth throwing out a few centuries of precedent because of Li and Turcotte.

[Organomegaly]

Do you really think that someone who kills 77 people has nothing wrong with their wiring? Come on.

 

True, you didn't say anything about predetermination, but statements like these imply it. You are making an argument for essentially voiding the need for punishment without realizing it. It is not "just" to punish people for things outside of their control, as you are suggesting it ultimately is because of "wiring". If its true that criminals like Anders have serious deficiencies in their neural circuitry that lead them to act criminally, and they had no hand to play in these neural deficiencies, then why punish them? That makes no sense.

 

As you mention, the point of view that is more logical is that the lifetime decisions we accumulate, in addition to the environment we are reared in combined with genetics results in behaviour that is MEDIATED through our biological circuits, not CAUSED by them. The latter is essentially the language of a pre-determinist. If you discuss wiring again, I'd be interested in you expanding on what exactly you mean to imply by it in terms of cause and effect. Search about recent thought on depression and chemical imbalance theories where the idea of a "serotonin low" is thrown around day and night; it is too simplistic a model, and just because SSRis can work lends no credence to the idea that the chemical imbalance was even to blame.

 

Rather, here is what I think was "wrong" with Anders: he consciously and intelligently developed a set of philosophies that rejected democratic pluralism; he was xenophobic and articulated that his country, no, his continent, was being encroached on by immigrants of a specific race and creed; he studied the works of fascist leaders and amassed sympathies for their causes; he violently responded to the uncomfortable situation he saw in Norway through developing his own set of philosophies which altered his judgement of right and wrong. Now here I would say that consciously moulding your basic sense of morality would produce a change in wiring from at birth, but I would disagree that this "wiring" problem caused the change in morality. He was not acting out of an angry impulse he later regretted or out of psychosis he later awoke from; it was a conscious choice he still now upholds and does not lament in an otherwise perfectly normal person.  He is an example of the sociocultural-geographical tension that underlies every corner of the world we live in now, where in some continents the intermixing of different races, creeds and backgrounds is met by intellectual opposition that people can't legally express; so they turn to hate crime, mass murder and other heinous criminal responses when their views don't match the zeitgeist.

 

Anders and the following of people he has amassed now are worth studying for what they represent socioculturally; what causes their ideals to emerge, what stifles them, what the consequences can be for the emergence of them and how they can be prevented from developing.