What Do You Think About This Decision?

[amichel]

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.

I think you're still missing my point. I'm not advocating for not punishing them, I'm not even arguing for reduced punishment. It makes perfect sense to still punish them, they still chose to do the things they did. I'm just arguing against people who think that these people deserve to have their human rights stripped, because, as I've been saying, these things are multi-factorial.

 

I just don't think you can say he's a "perfectly normal person". The fact that he doesn't regret what he did, to me, implies that he's not perfectly normal.

 

I don't have enough neurobiology know how to describe the exact changes in the brains of mentally ill people. That's why I'm using terms like brain chemistry and wiring. Obviously it's not that simplistic, but I don't think that invalidates my argument.

 

In the end, I think this is a philosophical disagreement, not a logical or scientific one. I just choose not to believe that people are pure evil (note the word pure - there are definitely bad people out there) with no biological or sociocultural basis. Maybe I'm wrong, but who knows.

[Lothrandir]

"we have rules and regulations...that don't differentiate between inmates and other students."  Well, you should. This is not a cooking competition, but a place where future leaders are trained.

 

"many people, after having reacted on a very emotional basis to start with realize there are principles beneath these passions that we have to stick to." Yeah, the university does have principles and rules, but since when have principles been so objective as to ignore perspectives. As a public institution a university is answerable and accountable to the wider public. How exactly is admitting a mass murderer an argument in favour of a civilized society or the rehabilitation for the sake of learning more about "democracy, justice, pluralism and respect for individual human rights'. a worthy standard of justice for 70 people murdered because of hate?. If you want to be a part of civilized society, then start behaving like it. This is not an ordinary criminal, nor was he illiterate, uncultured or insane to begin with http://www.nrk.no/norge/hadde-treningskamerat-fra-midtosten-1.7724579. He has demonstrated mass violence tendencies, and will now be getting adequate training for their political advocacy.

 

 

Why has this guy not been classified as a terrorist yet?. Mass man slaughter for intimidation,political, ideological, religious or hate reasons - isnt this the definition that the world endorsed post 9/11. This guy had declared racial intentions . It seems that terrorism is reserved for just one faith, and all followers of that faith are held equally responsible for any random nutcase.

[amichel]

 

"we have rules and regulations...that don't differentiate between inmates and other students." Well, you should. This is not a cooking competition, but a place where future leaders are trained.

 

"many people, after having reacted on a very emotional basis to start with realize there are principles beneath these passions that we have to stick to." Yeah, the university does have principles and rules, but since when have principles been so objective as to ignore perspectives. As a public institution a university is answerable and accountable to the wider public. How exactly is admitting a mass murderer an argument in favour of a civilized society or the rehabilitation for the sake of learning more about "democracy, justice, pluralism and respect for individual human rights'. a worthy standard of justice for 70 people murdered because of hate?. If you want to be a part of civilized society, then start behaving like it. This is not an ordinary criminal, nor was he illiterate, uncultured or insane to begin with http://www.nrk.no/norge/hadde-treningskamerat-fra-midtosten-1.7724579. He has demonstrated mass violence tendencies, and will now be getting adequate training for their political advocacy.

 

 

Why has this guy not been classified as a terrorist yet?. Mass man slaughter for intimidation,political, ideological, religious or hate reasons - isnt this the definition that the world endorsed post 9/11. This guy had declared racial intentions . It seems that terrorism is reserved for just one faith, and all followers of that faith are held equally responsible for any random nutcase.

No I'm pretty sure lots of people have slated him as a terrorist.

[武田信玄]

By some people's logic, we should stop condemning Hitler and the Holocaust because I bet Hitler had a bunch of mental issues too. Perhaps someone from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada or some other similar lobby/interest groups should write a letter to the Hague court to stop the trials on former Nazis.

[amichel]

By some people's logic, we should stop condemning Hitler and the Holocaust because I bet Hitler had a bunch of mental issues too. Perhaps someone from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada or some other similar lobby/interest groups should write a letter to the Hague court to stop the trials on former Nazis.

Really? You're bringing Hitler into this? I can't even argue with that.  

 

People keep presenting you with reasonable arguments.  This isn't a reasonable argument. 

[Falling]

A person can condemn an act, and still understand that there were a set of circumstances in the world that both contributed to the decision to commit the act, and were outside of the actors control. 

 

People are not isolated agents. Our actions are influenced heavily by forces beyond our control. Some of these are biological, and (maybe many more) are social. 

[amichel]

A person can condemn an act, and still understand that there were a set of circumstances in the world that both contributed to the decision to commit the act, and were outside of the actors control. 

 

Thank you for expressing so eloquently what I've being trying to say! 

[Falling]

Thank you for expressing so eloquently what I've being trying to say! 

 

I have a lot to say on this, but purposely avoid entering into these discussions because they can be very time consuming. 

[amichel]

I have a lot to say on this, but purposely avoid entering into these discussions because they can be very time consuming. 

 

 

True.  I should probably try that out as well! 

[Falling]

True.  I should probably try that out as well! 

 

The downside is that these discussions can be very stimulating. 

[武田信玄]

Really? You're bringing Hitler into this? I can't even argue with that.  

 

People keep presenting you with reasonable arguments.  This isn't a reasonable argument.

 

You think Anders are very far from Hitler?

[amichel]

You think Anders are very far from Hitler?

Yes, quite far. By pretty much any measure.

[GrumpyMoriarty]

You think Anders are very far from Hitler?

 

And as we progress on our rounds, we have here a classical presentation of a debate suffering from an acute case of Godwin's Law. As you can all see, the common symptoms are present -- as an online discussion grows increases in duration, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. 

 

I would prescribe a conservative treatment of a brief cooling-off period, with follow-ups in good academic research and critical thinking, as well as a general recommendation to refrain from hyperbole. Questions?

[GrumpyMoriarty]

"we have rules and regulations...that don't differentiate between inmates and other students."  Well, you should. This is not a cooking competition, but a place where future leaders are trained.

 

"many people, after having reacted on a very emotional basis to start with realize there are principles beneath these passions that we have to stick to." Yeah, the university does have principles and rules, but since when have principles been so objective as to ignore perspectives. As a public institution a university is answerable and accountable to the wider public. How exactly is admitting a mass murderer an argument in favour of a civilized society or the rehabilitation for the sake of learning more about "democracy, justice, pluralism and respect for individual human rights'. a worthy standard of justice for 70 people murdered because of hate?. If you want to be a part of civilized society, then start behaving like it. This is not an ordinary criminal, nor was he illiterate, uncultured or insane to begin with http://www.nrk.no/norge/hadde-treningskamerat-fra-midtosten-1.7724579. He has demonstrated mass violence tendencies, and will now be getting adequate training for their political advocacy.

 

The university is not a cooking competition, but it is also not a place for elitism either (or at least it should not be in theory). We should not be confusing the roles of the university. It is an institute of education, not of judgement, and definitely not of discrimination. Unless there was a ruling from a judge (who does deal with judging) declaring that this person is not suitable/unfit for further education, there is no real place for the university to deny him an education based on his past criminal history.

 

Furthermore, denying him educational resources, even IF there was an indication that he would not be willing to learn and educate himself "properly", is even less of an argument here. I am sure we all know a few people in university who have been partying all year, not really learning anything of use and not really gaining a proper education whilst using up the tuition money their parents provided (and a little bit more). Since they don't seem to be gaining much from their education at university, should we deny them that resource too?

 

And what's more, where do we stop with this? The man is only asking for educational resources and we're all up in arms, what if its something more than just that? What if he has a medical emergency in 6-7 years time and one of us is conveniently practicing in Norway, should we judge on whether we perform medical intervention based on his criminal actions? No. His criminal actions are a judicial and societal issue, but not one of medicine nor education. These are basic resources that should be provided to everyone and based on what I understand in Norway, education is free anyway, so it is appropriate, if not recommended, for educational institutions to provide these resources to all who seek them.

[Lothrandir]

The university is not a cooking competition, but it is also not a place for elitism either (or at least it should not be in theory). We should not be confusing the roles of the university. It is an institute of education, not of judgement, and definitely not of discrimination. Unless there was a ruling from a judge (who does deal with judging) declaring that this person is not suitable/unfit for further education, there is no real place for the university to deny him an education based on his past criminal history.

 

Furthermore, denying him educational resources, even IF there was an indication that he would not be willing to learn and educate himself "properly", is even less of an argument here. I am sure we all know a few people in university who have been partying all year, not really learning anything of use and not really gaining a proper education whilst using up the tuition money their parents provided (and a little bit more). Since they don't seem to be gaining much from their education at university, should we deny them that resource too?

 

And what's more, where do we stop with this? The man is only asking for educational resources and we're all up in arms, what if its something more than just that? What if he has a medical emergency in 6-7 years time and one of us is conveniently practicing in Norway, should we judge on whether we perform medical intervention based on his criminal actions? No. His criminal actions are a judicial and societal issue, but not one of medicine nor education. These are basic resources that should be provided to everyone and based on what I understand in Norway, education is free anyway, so it is appropriate, if not recommended, for educational institutions to provide these resources to all who seek them.

 

Denying an "educated & sane terrorist" opportunity for education is not at all related to elitism, nor is this discrimination based on race, gender, disability or other norm which may be socially unacceptable. University is a place of education, but what is the role of educated professionals who have witnessed the actions of the educated terrorist?. You can't just randomly admit anyone without exploring their background. Why do you think employers have background checks? They need to confirm work place safety. Admitting applicants is a subjective and non apathetic process, and an institution can make a decision at its discretion which can be challenged in court.

Im not endorsing or supporting these, but for reference -

 

http://urbanchristiannews.com/2014/11/canadas-law-society-refuses-admit-graduates-trinity-western-university/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/16/umass-will-not-admit-iranian-students-certain-science-and-engineering-programs

 

 

No, it is an argument because public safety is concerned here, and for the same reasons why a convicted arsonist shouldn't get education

in chemical toxicology. We are not talking about a random lunatic here. This Individual had a background in discriminatory and hate politics, and built his political ideology around racial genocide (Read his inspired 1500 page manifesto). Having declared malicious intentions before, their is a real chance that he can use these political credentials for future crimes. He took  9 years to prepare for this, he can do more after 21 years. Partying and Killing 70 people out of hate is a ridiculous comparison. Party people are not spending mine or your money, nor are their bad grades killing me or you. It would be more reasonable if you were comparing kids with money partying and not studying vs kids with no money but desire for education not admitted to university because of financial barriers. 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-24/norway-killing-suspect-may-explain-motives

 

No one is advocating for a death sentence here, which it would not be completely unjustified to do so. Opposition to a criminal getting education which can facilitate his future crimes out of public safety does not indicate any ethical dilemma or vengeful tendencies so as to deny him any form of treatment as a future physician. This is specialized education and a future tool, not a basic resource (which he was granted), and both medicine and education are connected with society.

[GrumpyMoriarty]

 

Denying an "educated & sane terrorist" opportunity for education is not at all related to elitism, nor is this discrimination based on race, gender, disability or other norm which may be socially unacceptable. University is a place of education, but what is the role of educated professionals who have witnessed the actions of the educated terrorist?. You can't just randomly admit anyone without exploring their background. Why do you think employers have background checks? They need to confirm work place safety. Admitting applicants is a subjective and non apathetic process, and an institution can make a decision at its discretion which can be challenged in court.

 

Well first of all... no one's safety is directly comprised by this decision since the university will be educating said prisoner WITHIN the jail, not on campus. All your claims about this degree helping him to harm the public is an epic work of speculation which I will address subsequently. And yes most universities do admit undergrads in a non-professional program without doing a background check. All I had to do to get into an undergrad program at my university was to send in my applicant fee, transcript, and fill out a few forms explaining why I am awesome and the best candidate for said school. Only in professional programs (dent, nursing, med, law etc.) will proper background checks be performed since graduates from this program are almost certainly going to come into contact with at-risk/sensitive individuals and hence should be verified for professionalism. 

 

 

Partying and Killing 70 people out of hate is a ridiculous comparison. Party people are not spending mine or your money, nor are their bad grades killing me or you. It would be more reasonable if you were comparing kids with money partying and not studying vs kids with no money but desire for education not admitted to university because of financial barriers.

 

Based on your logic, anyone learning anything in chemical toxicology or doing research in pathogenic microbes should be thoroughly screened and (if possible) administered truth serum to determine if they have nefarious goals. But lets face it no one does that. The lab I work in teach undergrad student researchers based on who applies first and has the flashiest CV (even though no verifiers were required), not if they have the cleanest rap sheet.

 

Once again, you are trying to confuse the issue here by drawing a strawman comparison. My point wasn't about that partying students should be equated with mass murderers. It is that the role of educators is to teach to the best of their ability, not question who their students are or what they are learning the information for without a VERY strong suspicion. Unless Anders is asking his profs "How do I mindwash-- I mean manipulate-- I mean persuade people to accept a controversial topic" there is no real basis for questioning his motives.

 

 

No, it is an argument because public safety is concerned here, and for the same reasons why a convicted arsonist shouldn't get education

in chemical toxicology. We are not talking about a random lunatic here. This Individual had a background in discriminatory and hate politics, and built his political ideology around racial genocide (Read his inspired 1500 page manifesto). Having declared malicious intentions before, their is a real chance that he can use these political credentials for future crimes. He took  9 years to prepare for this, he can do more after 21 years.

 

Once again, you are obfuscating his crime and his past with the present situation. What he has done in the past is the past and a judge has tried his case already, and his punishment has already been doled out. As much as you agree/disagree with the sentencing, his crime is no longer a factor in this equation unless there is significant evidence that he is planning on doing similar murderous acts.

 

This is a huge stretch of imagination considering that there is scant, if any, evidence is indicating that getting a Poli Sci degree is going to help him harm more people. Most of these information can be directly accessed via this little thing called the Internet these days (which all prisoners in Norway have access to directly from their cells), so I fail to see how not allowing him to learn poli sci at a university is going to prevent him from getting the information through other means should he just want to use it for nefarious purposes.

 

And come on, Poli Sci is hardly specialized education and a future tool... Since even the poli sci undergrads I know don't consider their degree "specialized education". As I have previously said, since prisoners in Norway do have access to internet from their cells, they could just as easily learn the information for themselves with all the free online educational resources out there today. Not very specialized if you ask me.

 

You also seem to lack a basic understanding of what political science is. Political Science is not politician training nor rheotoric+ charisma workshop. Its an academic field of study focusing on critical analyses and scholarly thinking regarding political behavior, governmental policies, and forms of governments. Students are not really involved in actual political practice at all. Its like claiming that a degree in theoretical physics can help Anders build an atomic bomb, or that learning kinesiology/sport science will help Anders become an Olympic athlete.

 

So unless you can somehow show evidence that an undergraduate Political Science degree (which can be learned online easily) will somehow help further his criminal career (another statement that has not been proven), you are just throwing wild conjectures into the air in the hopes that raising emotional points will compensate for the lack of reasoning in your arguments there.

[Organomegaly]

Lol @ the fact this thread diverted to Hitler

 

I think you're still missing my point. I'm not advocating for not punishing them, I'm not even arguing for reduced punishment. It makes perfect sense to still punish them, they still chose to do the things they did. I'm just arguing against people who think that these people deserve to have their human rights stripped, because, as I've been saying, these things are multi-factorial.

I just don't think you can say he's a "perfectly normal person". The fact that he doesn't regret what he did, to me, implies that he's not perfectly normal.

I don't have enough neurobiology know how to describe the exact changes in the brains of mentally ill people. That's why I'm using terms like brain chemistry and wiring. Obviously it's not that simplistic, but I don't think that invalidates my argument.

In the end, I think this is a philosophical disagreement, not a logical or scientific one. I just choose not to believe that people are pure evil (note the word pure - there are definitely bad people out there) with no biological or sociocultural basis. Maybe I'm wrong, but who knows.

 

I do get your point - things are always multifactorial indeed, and some people are raised in more difficult life situations than others, which as you've said can lend itself to mental illness and general emotional and behavioural problems. My language regarding usage of the word "normal" in the realm of free will is that a person is "normal" if they have the sanity and consciousness to make free-willed choices. Thus, Anders is a "normal" decision-maker and the blame for his choice can justifiably fall on him, not on externalities beyond him even though they could be involved. You didn't disagree there I don't think.

The definition of "normal" I understand from your statement: "The fact that he doesn't regret what he did, to me, implies that he's not perfectly normal" - is a normal that implies Anders must be repentant to be "normal"; it takes goodness as the default state of a human being. I gather this because of the alternative option: why would he regret it for any other reason but that he was suddenly good? It wasn't on impulse or in psychosis that he did as he did - it was deliberate and concordant with a comprehensive self-invented, evil  philosophy. He would regret it only if he regretted his "evil" philosophy and embraced a "good" one. I reject the idea that a non-repentant Anders is a non-normal one: normal human beings can be evil ones who don't lament their actions, and evil is a part of the human experience. With regard to I don't believe that some people are pure evil; well nor do I, and I don't think Anders is. There are certainly no people who are pure good either. But, I do think people can be more of somethings than others and that is what the judgement for justice must discern. A great example of making judgements on blameworthiness is the Li sidecase we see discussed here, as those suffering from insanity when committing a crime simply cannot be held responsible, and should not be punished contingent on them receiving continuous treatment to ensure public safety.

 

Anyway, you are completely right about the subject we are in  - how we choose to define what a "normal person" is is entirely a philosophical issue, and in practice we are in agreement since you think Anders should be punished as well. I was probably a bit too harsh because you reminded me of arguments for essentially not punishing anyone on the basis that everything we do is biologically predetermined anyway, and there is no such thing as free will. But I do not think that is your belief.

[Organomegaly]

Well first of all... no one's safety is directly comprised by this decision since the university will be educating said prisoner WITHIN the jail, not on campus. All your claims about this degree helping him to harm the public is an epic work of speculation which I will address subsequently. And yes most universities do admit undergrads in a non-professional program without doing a background check. All I had to do to get into an undergrad program at my university was to send in my applicant fee, transcript, and fill out a few forms explaining why I am awesome and the best candidate for said school. Only in professional programs (dent, nursing, med, law etc.) will proper background checks be performed since graduates from this program are almost certainly going to come into contact with at-risk/sensitive individuals and hence should be verified for professionalism. 

 

 

 

Based on your logic, anyone learning anything in chemical toxicology or doing research in pathogenic microbes should be thoroughly screened and (if possible) administered truth serum to determine if they have nefarious goals. But lets face it no one does that. The lab I work in teach undergrad student researchers based on who applies first and has the flashiest CV (even though no verifiers were required), not if they have the cleanest rap sheet.

 

Once again, you are trying to confuse the issue here by drawing a strawman comparison. My point wasn't about that partying students should be equated with mass murderers. It is that the role of educators is to teach to the best of their ability, not question who their students are or what they are learning the information for without a VERY strong suspicion. Unless Anders is asking his profs "How do I mindwash-- I mean manipulate-- I mean persuade people to accept a controversial topic" there is no real basis for questioning his motives.

 

 

 

Once again, you are obfuscating his crime and his past with the present situation. What he has done in the past is the past and a judge has tried his case already, and his punishment has already been doled out. As much as you agree/disagree with the sentencing, his crime is no longer a factor in this equation unless there is significant evidence that he is planning on doing similar murderous acts.

 

This is a huge stretch of imagination considering that there is scant, if any, evidence is indicating that getting a Poli Sci degree is going to help him harm more people. Most of these information can be directly accessed via this little thing called the Internet these days (which all prisoners in Norway have access to directly from their cells), so I fail to see how not allowing him to learn poli sci at a university is going to prevent him from getting the information through other means should he just want to use it for nefarious purposes.

 

And come on, Poli Sci is hardly specialized education and a future tool... Since even the poli sci undergrads I know don't consider their degree "specialized education". As I have previously said, since prisoners in Norway do have access to internet from their cells, they could just as easily learn the information for themselves with all the free online educational resources out there today. Not very specialized if you ask me.

 

You also seem to lack a basic understanding of what political science is. Political Science is not politician training nor rheotoric+ charisma workshop. Its an academic field of study focusing on critical analyses and scholarly thinking regarding political behavior, governmental policies, and forms of governments. Students are not really involved in actual political practice at all. Its like claiming that a degree in theoretical physics can help Anders build an atomic bomb, or that learning kinesiology/sport science will help Anders become an Olympic athlete.

 

So unless you can somehow show evidence that an undergraduate Political Science degree (which can be learned online easily) will somehow help further his criminal career (another statement that has not been proven), you are just throwing wild conjectures into the air in the hopes that raising emotional points will compensate for the lack of reasoning in your arguments there.

 

He gets credibility through a degree from an esteemed institution; it is undeniable that universities are paths to leadership. Yet tell me which University would boast to have such a person among them their alumni? There is such a thing as institutional pride - the admitted students should fulfill the regular intellectual criteria but also the civic criteria that ask not just that you are human in being, but in action. 

 

 The concept of selectively admitting students is not as alien as is being made. Consider if he was a top, exceptionally accomplished student and applied to schools like Stanford, Yale or Harvard: none would elect to have a mass murderer in their ranks and despite his accomplishments would never make it in. Or if he applied to Law or Medical school; who would accept someone not fulfilling civic criteria expected of any decent human being? He has no right to education unconditionally; he simply has the fortune of having it in the public Norweigan system which have far different admission mandates than private institutions or schools in which the safety and well-being of others is concerned. It's not as if the school is jumping at the seams to take him, but rather that his admission was unavoidable in the first place given the rules that they've set. I've already stated why I don't think he should be granted admission; just as in medicine we screen for academic and non-academic qualities, so too should the governing bodies of the great learning institutions - which are in my opinion places of privilege. But this is the system they have, and I respect them for following it unconditionally.

 

 I also highly doubt that studying some formal poli-sci is going to make him more of a criminal. He is no fool about the political sciences, this is already obvious from reading his work. Nor do I think he is a safety risk, for the same reasons already mentioned. I simply question his right to attend this institution as it pus a criminal, an already influential one no less as he has amassed a group of followers who take his manifesto as creed, in a position of leadership; that we cannot take away criminals' human rights is not a good argument, because the very act of incarceration takes away the fundamental right to freedom.

 

[GrumpyMoriarty]

He gets credibility through a degree from an esteemed institution; it is undeniable that universities are paths to leadership. Yet tell me which University would boast to have such a person among them their alumni? There is such a thing as institutional pride - the admitted students should fulfill the regular intellectual criteria but also the civic criteria that ask not just that you are human in being, but in action. 

 

 The concept of selectively admitting students is not as alien as is being made. Consider if he was a top, exceptionally accomplished student and applied to schools like Stanford, Yale or Harvard: none would elect to have a mass murderer in their ranks and despite his accomplishments would never make it in. Or if he applied to Law or Medical school; who would accept someone not fulfilling civic criteria expected of any decent human being? He has no right to education unconditionally; he simply has the fortune of having it in the public Norweigan system which have far different admission mandates than private institutions or schools in which the safety and well-being of others is concerned. It's not as if the school is jumping at the seams to take him, but rather that his admission was unavoidable in the first place given the rules that they've set. I've already stated why I don't think he should be granted admission; just as in medicine we screen for academic and non-academic qualities, so too should the governing bodies of the great learning institutions - which are in my opinion places of privilege. But this is the system they have, and I respect them for following it unconditionally.

 

Selectively admitting students is great and often necessary to prevent wasting of educational resources. However, my point was that certain criteria are inappropriate for general education selection, as is the case of criminal history here, since I do not feel like criminal history would have any direct relationship with whether or not this student is a good candidate for the program. It is cases like this, however, that really challenges our position regarding rehabilitation programs for criminals since a huge part of the issue here is that many (perhaps including yourself) may not consider Anders "redeemable" as a person and thus should not be given an opportunity for education.

 

That being said, I get why you are uncomfortable with the notion of a notorious criminal in a university. Heck since we are both matriculants for Mac med, I can say that I'll probably be as uncomfortable as you are if Mac admits a student like that even for some general program like poli sci. That being said, I feel like that's more of a personal feeling, and less of a logical response. And once again, I should stress that no student's physical safety or well being is at risk since he is being educated within the prison and will not come into contact with his fellow "classmates". I do acknowledge however that the university's decision may place some degree of emotional trauma on other students, especially since many of these students are relatives/close ones of vicitms of Anders' crimes.

 

 

I also highly doubt that studying some formal poli-sci is going to make him more of a criminal. He is no fool about the political sciences, this is already obvious from reading his work. Nor do I think he is a safety risk, for the same reasons already mentioned. I simply question his right to attend this institution as it pus a criminal, an already influential one no less as he has amassed a group of followers who take his manifesto as creed, in a position of leadership; that we cannot take away criminals' human rights is not a good argument, because the very act of incarceration takes away the fundamental right to freedom.

 

 

I guess we can at least agree that the notion of a poli sci degree being of help to his criminal activities is BS. Well then the issue really boils down to what you and I can agree/disagree on what criminals should have access to. Being future docs, I hope that we can at least agree that if he were to have some form of medical emergency, we can both look past his criminal activities to intervene medically as needed. I think that education is not a resource that we should deny to prisoners, regardless of their crimes, as education often gives most criminals an opportunity to get themselves out of a cycle of crime and reduce overall recividism. I remember reading about this somewhere, but most educators in prison systems in are not explicitly informed as to the nature of the crimes their students have committed, unless somehow the educators' personal safety is at risk. If this is still true, (too lazy to look it up, someone feel free to prove me wrong), then I think that similarly Anders' criminal activity should not be factored into his education.

 

Yes, the very act of incarceration is limiting a person's fundemental right to freedom, but it is easily understood by considering that a criminal has forfeited this right when he violated his victims' right to not be killed. However, that does not mean that criminals have also forfeited the right to some level of dignity, as espoused by various public and judicial opinions over mistreatments in prison, such as Abu Ghraib. As I said before, the fundemental issue is whether we can consider education for criminals a right that they should be able to easily access, and I for one believe that education in most cases help criminals find a way to avoid returning to criminal activites upon release. I am not certain whether education for Anders will help change the man, but I do believe it is at least worth a shot.