Excuse Me While I play The Worlds Smallest Violin (Brevik)

[Flagg]

Gamepolitics.com

Oslo Mass Murderer Threatens to Go on a Hunger Strike If He Doesn't Get Better Video Games in Prison
February 14, 2014 - GamePolitics Staff

Anders Behring Brevik, the Norwegian man convicted of killing 77 people in Oslo, Norway in 2011 is calling himself a human rights activists in letters complaining to the prison about the quality of video games he gets to play while he is serving his sentence. You may recall that Brevik wrote in his rambling manifesto that he trained himself to kill using Call of Duty and enjoyed playing World of Warcraft.

Well apparently, he's upset that he can't get a more mature class of video games to play like other prisoners.

In a November 2013 letter to prison authorities obtained and translated by Agence France-Presse (as reported on by Kotaku), Brevik threatened to go a hunger strike because he thinks he's being treated "worse than an animal." Brevik's list of demands includes access newer consoles like the PS3 (he has a PS2) and better games with mature content.

"Other inmates have access to adult games while I only have the right to play less interesting kids games. One example is 'Rayman Revolution', a game aimed at three-year-olds."

Brevik also said that he behaves better than most prisoners and deserves more liberties because of this. Finally, proving that he is clearly suffering from delusional thinking, Brevik compares himself to other "human rights activists" suffering for fundamental human rights.

"You seem to think that we — all human rights activists who fight for one fundamental human right (cultural self-determination) — ... are Nazi monsters who should be pushed into suicide," he wrote.

His other complaints? His chair in his cell is not up to his standards and he would like to have access to a PC instead of the typewriter he is restricted to, according to the Agence France-Presse.

Brevik is serving a 21 year sentence (the maximum sentence you can get in Norway) for his killing spree. The government has the right to hold him indefinitely, though his release situation is reviewed every five years. It is unlikely that, given the brutal nature of his crimes, he'll ever be set free. Breivik is serving out his sentence in isolation at Ila prison near Oslo in a three-room cell.

Source: Kotaku

Poor guy. Can't even get a PS3. Obviously he's being abused in his prison suite. I mean honestly, why should someone who cold bloodedly murdered 77 kids be treated with such harshness? It's just not fair! Well, I for one support his hunger strike in full. And maybe if he starves himself to death the people who run this atrocious prison camp will learn to treat their mass murderers like human beings. And give them PS4's even.

[Metahive]

Give him his violent games I say! I vote for Ride to Hell: Retribution. Since playing this game has people swear off violence (and sex) quickly and forever, it's doubly useful as a valid tool for rehabilitation!

[Flagg]

In all reality and without a drop of sarcasm, this guy has it better after brutally murdering 77 children (mostly) than a fucking crack slinger who gets nabbed in the most progressive of American states. People in the US not even convicted of a crime yet are treated worse in jail than this pondscum is after being convicted of killing dozens. So cry me a fucking river. I hope he carries out his threat (he's a coward so he won't) to the end and we can be rid of him and some other prisoner can have his dreadful PS2.

BTW for the record I don't, won't, and never will support the abhorrent conditions in US jails and prisons.

[Metahive]

From what I've read about the Norwegian, mostly rehab-oriented prison system is that it's actually quite successful at what it aims to do with one of the lowest recidivism rates world-wide. Is it worth the price of letting shmucks like Breivik live in relative comfort? Well, in my opinion it is. The alernative of making prison hell and making society as a whole come out worse is too high a price just for the glee of thinking of someone like Breivik anxiously holding onto his soap bar in a shower.

[Flagg]

From what I've read about the Norwegian, mostly rehab-oriented prison system is that it's actually quite successful at what it aims to do with one of the lowest recidivism rates world-wide. Is it worth the price of letting shmucks like Breivik live in relative comfort? Well, in my opinion it is. The alernative of making prison hell and making society as a whole come out worse is too high a price just for the glee of thinking of someone like Breivik anxiously holding onto his soap bar in a shower.

Oh I agree completely. But he's never going to be released so why allow him a 3 room suite of a cell with access to videogames? If they aren't redeemable then why waste the effort (That's not an argument for execution, just for less comfortable surroundings)? I mean I don't think it's an either/ or proposition. But by and large I agree with the Norwegian way of doing things when it comes to prisons. But we literally can't afford to do that here simply because we have so many people locked up. Mostly on stupid as shit drug charges. So while I'm totally in agreement with penal system reform, we first need justice system reform.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder if you could have a prison that believes in redeeming the inmates without letting them go. Not because I approve or disapprove, but because it's an idea that gives one a lot to think about. Probably will do more thinking later after coffee.

Anyway.

What I really like is that this totally undermines any claim by Breivik to be this hardcore badass Man Who Sees What Must Be Done to preserve the Fine Upstanding Nordics or whatever the hell he thinks he is in his own little tangle of neo-nazi neurons. What kind of race would have as its champion someone who complains because all their video games are too old?

[Flagg]

I wonder if you could have a prison that believes in redeeming the inmates without letting them go.

Well here's my issue with that. IMO part of "redemption" is no longer being a threat to society. And if you're no longer a threat to society then why are we keeping you locked up forever? I used to believe in Life without parole rather than execution but I think even that may be too harsh. I'm coming around to the idea that the max sentence should be 30 to life. So if after 30 years even the most heinous murderer has "redeemed" themselves (I prefer reformed) and is able to show through numerous experts that they are no longer a danger to society then they should be given a lifetime parole. So that if they do violate it they are sent back until they can again convince experts that they have reformed and can live within society again.

[Scrib]

From what I've read about the Norwegian, mostly rehab-oriented prison system is that it's actually quite successful at what it aims to do with one of the lowest recidivism rates world-wide. Is it worth the price of letting shmucks like Breivik live in relative comfort? Well, in my opinion it is. The alernative of making prison hell and making society as a whole come out worse is too high a price just for the glee of thinking of someone like Breivik anxiously holding onto his soap bar in a shower.

Oh I agree completely. But he's never going to be released so why allow him a 3 room suite of a cell with access to videogames? If they aren't redeemable then why waste the effort (That's not an argument for execution, just for less comfortable surroundings)? I mean I don't think it's an either/ or proposition. But by and large I agree with the Norwegian way of doing things when it comes to prisons. But we literally can't afford to do that here simply because we have so many people locked up. Mostly on stupid as shit drug charges. So while I'm totally in agreement with penal system reform, we first need justice system reform.

Probably has to do with the fact that he's technically releasable under the law and they might have general human rights/cruelty concerns. Inb4 the whole "games and rooms aren't human rights!" thing.

And of course there's the possible lack of desire to make any exceptions at all. I can understand that.

[Broomstick]

He doesn't like his PS2? Take away his fucking game console and give him a deck of cards and some string to play with. He can play solitaire the old-fashioned way and make macrame shawls for amusement.

If you kill 77 people you lose your "right" to a lot of modern shit. I don't advocate torture, and even scum like him deserve an adequate level of mental stimulation, but as far as I'm concerned he's lost his right to bitch about a lot of things.

[Flagg]

From what I've read about the Norwegian, mostly rehab-oriented prison system is that it's actually quite successful at what it aims to do with one of the lowest recidivism rates world-wide. Is it worth the price of letting shmucks like Breivik live in relative comfort? Well, in my opinion it is. The alernative of making prison hell and making society as a whole come out worse is too high a price just for the glee of thinking of someone like Breivik anxiously holding onto his soap bar in a shower.

Oh I agree completely. But he's never going to be released so why allow him a 3 room suite of a cell with access to videogames? If they aren't redeemable then why waste the effort (That's not an argument for execution, just for less comfortable surroundings)? I mean I don't think it's an either/ or proposition. But by and large I agree with the Norwegian way of doing things when it comes to prisons. But we literally can't afford to do that here simply because we have so many people locked up. Mostly on stupid as shit drug charges. So while I'm totally in agreement with penal system reform, we first need justice system reform.

Probably has to do with the fact that he's technically releasable under the law and they might have general human rights/cruelty concerns. Inb4 the whole "games and rooms aren't human rights!" thing.

And of course there's the possible lack of desire to make any exceptions at all. I can understand that.

While I personally think scumbags like this shouldn't have anything beyond a single medium sized cell and reading material, I don't have a huge gigantic "OMG this is an outrage!" issue to him being allowed PS2 games in a 3 room cell as long as that's the norm for Norway. Especially if they restrict him to playing E and below rated games.

[Raw Shark]

I wonder if you could have a prison that believes in redeeming the inmates without letting them go.

Well here's my issue with that. IMO part of "redemption" is no longer being a threat to society. And if you're no longer a threat to society then why are we keeping you locked up forever? I used to believe in Life without parole rather than execution but I think even that may be too harsh. I'm coming around to the idea that the max sentence should be 30 to life. So if after 30 years even the most heinous murderer has "redeemed" themselves (I prefer reformed) and is able to show through numerous experts that they are no longer a danger to society then they should be given a lifetime parole. So that if they do violate it they are sent back until they can again convince experts that they have reformed and can live within society again.

Purely anecdotal, of course, but I personally feel really good about the fact that the guy I testified against last year in a Murder 1 trial got Life without parole, because 1) I don't really agree with the death penalty and didn't want to testify again and again in endless tax-payer-raping appeals and also because 2) the guy already tried to stab me once, already succeeded in stabbing a girl about 30 times, and would probably cheerfully have another go at me or my kids when he's 60, given opportunity. Therefore, and I fully acknowledge that this may be an emotional response, my response is a resounding, "FUCK THAT IDEA." Hey, if the guy redeems himself while he's doing life without parole and writes a great American novel or something, that's awesome, but as far as I'm concerned he's lost his walking-among-free-men privileges.

[Scrib]

While I personally think scumbags like this shouldn't have anything beyond a single medium sized cell and reading material, I don't have a huge gigantic "OMG this is an outrage!" issue to him being allowed PS2 games in a 3 room cell as long as that's the norm for Norway. Especially if they restrict him to playing E and below rated games.

This may be true for you of course, I just wanted to get ahead of the inevitable response.

Yeah,despite thinking that the guy has it good I'm not personally invested in the individual injustices that come from not having a death penalty and a justice system skewed more towards rehabilitation. It's not about the specific obscenities, and making exceptions to hurt people is perhaps a quick way to go down the slippery slope of retribution when it's not needed. It's a just numbers game.

Purely anecdotal, of course, but I personally feel really good about the fact that the guy I testified against last year in a Murder 1 trial got Life without parole, because 1) I don't really agree with the death penalty and didn't want to testify again and again in endless tax-payer-raping appeals and also because 2) the guy already tried to stab me once, already succeeded in stabbing a girl about 30 times, and would probably cheerfully have another go at me or my kids when he's 60, given opportunity. Therefore, and I fully acknowledge that this may be an emotional response, my response is a resounding, "FUCK THAT IDEA." Hey, if the guy redeems himself while he's doing life without parole and writes a great American novel or something, that's awesome, but as far as I'm concerned he's lost his walking-among-free-men privileges.

So...personal dislike is an argument for warehousing people? I mean, I can take it a few steps further and think of an actual argument but I'm sleepy and I don't want to guess.

[Broomstick]

There have been instances in the US where murderers sentenced to life without parole have had their sentences later modified. A well known case is that of Nathan Leopold, but that was after decades of doing stuff for both the betterment of other prisoners and medical research.

If a prisoner does redeem himself he can ask to have his sentence modified/be paroled/whatever.

[Raw Shark]

So...personal dislike is an argument for warehousing people? I mean, I can take it a few steps further and think of an actual argument but I'm sleepy and I don't want to guess.

I would need a Main Battle Tank to do battle with this strawman.

[Raw Shark]

There have been instances in the US where murderers sentenced to life without parole have had their sentences later modified. A well known case is that of Nathan Leopold, but that was after decades of doing stuff for both the betterment of other prisoners and medical research.

If a prisoner does redeem himself he can ask to have his sentence modified/be paroled/whatever.

This is another reason why I support life without parole but don't support the death penalty. If compelling evidence actually exonerates the guy decades from now, perhaps by means we don't have at this time, then fine, modify the sentence, but a blanket "Hey 30's enough if he acts okay from here out!" just makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

[Scrib]

So...personal dislike is an argument for warehousing people? I mean, I can take it a few steps further and think of an actual argument but I'm sleepy and I don't want to guess.

I would need a Main Battle Tank to do battle with this strawman.

What strawman?
Argument: After 3 decades it is likely that most criminals have redeemed themselves and can rejoin society.
Your counter: I hated this guy so I'm glad that he can never be allowed out even if he's redeemed. (There are of course plenty of good reasons for this but I will not mention any of them, guy sucked, I hated him, end of)

Have I misrepresented your argument?

[Raw Shark]

What strawman?
Argument: After 3 decades it is likely that most criminals have redeemed themselves and can rejoin society.
Your counter: I hated this guy so I'm glad that he can never be allowed out even if he's redeemed. (There are of course plenty of good reasons for this but I will not mention any of them, guy sucked, I hated him, end of)

Have I misrepresented your argument?

I will not mention my reasons? Did you miss the part where I mentioned that he attempted to stab me to death in addition to the murder he was actually convicted of, an event that I, you might presume, personally witnessed and thus personally consider irrefutable? I'll also add that he admitted to it in a plea bargain for your additional edification, so it is also a matter of public record, with apologies that I did not make that clear previously, illiterate, dishonest fuckwad.

[Flagg]

I wonder if you could have a prison that believes in redeeming the inmates without letting them go.

Well here's my issue with that. IMO part of "redemption" is no longer being a threat to society. And if you're no longer a threat to society then why are we keeping you locked up forever? I used to believe in Life without parole rather than execution but I think even that may be too harsh. I'm coming around to the idea that the max sentence should be 30 to life. So if after 30 years even the most heinous murderer has "redeemed" themselves (I prefer reformed) and is able to show through numerous experts that they are no longer a danger to society then they should be given a lifetime parole. So that if they do violate it they are sent back until they can again convince experts that they have reformed and can live within society again.

Purely anecdotal, of course, but I personally feel really good about the fact that the guy I testified against last year in a Murder 1 trial got Life without parole, because 1) I don't really agree with the death penalty and didn't want to testify again and again in endless tax-payer-raping appeals and also because 2) the guy already tried to stab me once, already succeeded in stabbing a girl about 30 times, and would probably cheerfully have another go at me or my kids when he's 60, given opportunity. Therefore, and I fully acknowledge that this may be an emotional response, my response is a resounding, "FUCK THAT IDEA." Hey, if the guy redeems himself while he's doing life without parole and writes a great American novel or something, that's awesome, but as far as I'm concerned he's lost his walking-among-free-men privileges.

That's understandable. This in no way compares to what happened to you (and I'm sorry it did) but I wanted the guy who robbed my house when I was 14 and got away scot free because he was given probation and never showed up to be broken upon the wheel. So I get where you're coming from to a certain, but albeit not to the same, extent.

But see, in my perfect prison system ( ) you wouldn't just be released after 30 years, you'd be up for parole in 30 years. So if the person still shows violent tendencies they would stay locked up until they no longer do or are physically incapable of hurting anyone again. Half the reason for my 30 to life maximum sentence is simply so we don't have 70, 80, and 90 year olds in cells when the likelihood of them committing a violent crime again is minimal. I mean sure they could get a gun and do some major damage, but how likely is that if we have experts to determine their state of mind making recommendations before a likely hard to impress cynical parole board?

[Scrib]

What strawman?
Argument: After 3 decades it is likely that most criminals have redeemed themselves and can rejoin society.
Your counter: I hated this guy so I'm glad that he can never be allowed out even if he's redeemed. (There are of course plenty of good reasons for this but I will not mention any of them, guy sucked, I hated him, end of)

Have I misrepresented your argument?

I will not mention my reasons? Did you miss the part where I mentioned that he attempted to stab me to death in addition to the murder he was actually convicted of, an event that I, you might presume, personally witnessed and thus personally consider irrefutable? I'll also add that he admitted to it in a plea bargain for your additional edification, so it is also a matter of public record, with apologies that I did not make that clear previously, illiterate fuckwad.

Whether he attempted to stab you to death is not, on it's own, a convincing argument for or against the idea that he would be redeemed after thirty years or whether he should be released after that time period. That's the problem with your argument.

[Flagg]

There have been instances in the US where murderers sentenced to life without parole have had their sentences later modified. A well known case is that of Nathan Leopold, but that was after decades of doing stuff for both the betterment of other prisoners and medical research.

If a prisoner does redeem himself he can ask to have his sentence modified/be paroled/whatever.

This is another reason why I support life without parole but don't support the death penalty. If compelling evidence actually exonerates the guy decades from now, perhaps by means we don't have at this time, then fine, modify the sentence, but a blanket "Hey 30's enough if he acts okay from here out!" just makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

I kind of take issue with that. I don't think "30's enough". I don't think anything is enough to really "redeem" yourself if you're a cold blooded murderer. I'm strictly approaching this from a "what's best for society while giving as much justice to the victims" standpoint. I don't think it benefits us to keep geriatrics in prison unless they can still pose a real threat to others.

[Channel72]

But see, in my perfect prison system ( ) you wouldn't just be released after 30 years, you'd be up for parole in 30 years. So if the person still shows violent tendencies they would stay locked up until they no longer do or are physically incapable of hurting anyone again. Half the reason for my 30 to life maximum sentence is simply so we don't have 70, 80, and 90 year olds in cells when the likelihood of them committing a violent crime again is minimal. I mean sure they could get a gun and do some major damage, but how likely is that if we have experts to determine their state of mind making recommendations before a likely hard to impress cynical parole board?

This is pretty much how the Norwegian "preventive detention" sentence works. You get 21 years, after which you're up for parole, and then every five years after that you are reviewed again. A guy like Breivik will probably be in for life.

[Simon_Jester]

So...personal dislike is an argument for warehousing people? I mean, I can take it a few steps further and think of an actual argument but I'm sleepy and I don't want to guess.

Do you not perceive a difference between "I personally dislike Fred" and "Fred is a bloody menace to society with a proven track record of literally destroying innocent lives?"

Whether he attempted to stab you to death is not, on it's own, a convincing argument for or against the idea that he would be redeemed after thirty years or whether he should be released after that time period. That's the problem with your argument.

But do you not grasp the difference between "I hate Fred and want him to suffer" and "I think Fred is dangerous and will always be dangerous?"

Because that's where you're coming down on this case. You, who are totally ignorant of the murderer's personality and behavior, assume that Raw Shark is motivated by personal hatred or spite. It doesn't even seem to occur to you that he might be motivated by having seen and heard this person, both at the scene of a crime and in trial afterwards. That he might have information about this particular murderer that you don't have, which might convince him that the murderer is very unlikely to ever really regret his actions or change his ways.

If we trust parole boards implicitly maybe this isn't a problem- but given the limits of psychology as a science in the modern era, I find it very hard to believe that they can be relied upon as the sole line of defense as to whether certain people no longer pose a threat. Breivik is one such person.

But see, in my perfect prison system ( ) you wouldn't just be released after 30 years, you'd be up for parole in 30 years. So if the person still shows violent tendencies they would stay locked up until they no longer do or are physically incapable of hurting anyone again. Half the reason for my 30 to life maximum sentence is simply so we don't have 70, 80, and 90 year olds in cells when the likelihood of them committing a violent crime again is minimal. I mean sure they could get a gun and do some major damage, but how likely is that if we have experts to determine their state of mind making recommendations before a likely hard to impress cynical parole board?

Part of the problem, then, is fine-tuning that parole board. I'm... really not sure we're there yet.

I kind of take issue with that. I don't think "30's enough". I don't think anything is enough to really "redeem" yourself if you're a cold blooded murderer. I'm strictly approaching this from a "what's best for society while giving as much justice to the victims" standpoint. I don't think it benefits us to keep geriatrics in prison unless they can still pose a real threat to others.

Personally, since I don't really want to find out if an eighty-something CAN pose a violent threat, I'm inclined not to take chances. If we haven't decided that this person specifically should have parole because they personally no longer pose a threat, we should not be releasing them because they're too old to be dangerous.

[Flagg]

I kind of take issue with that. I don't think "30's enough". I don't think anything is enough to really "redeem" yourself if you're a cold blooded murderer. I'm strictly approaching this from a "what's best for society while giving as much justice to the victims" standpoint. I don't think it benefits us to keep geriatrics in prison unless they can still pose a real threat to others.

Personally, since I don't really want to find out if an eighty-something CAN pose a violent threat, I'm inclined not to take chances. If we haven't decided that this person specifically should have parole because they personally no longer pose a threat, we should not be releasing them because they're too old to be dangerous.

Why? Why should we build nursing homes in prisons to keep the infirm elderly murderers who haven't committed a crime in 40, 50, or 60+ years locked up because justice/revenge? So the private prison industry can charge taxpayers out the ass when a Medicare/ Medicaid facility would charge much less? I mean if the 80 year old is still stabbing people and shit that's one thing, but most 80 year olds (if they live that long, prison healthcare is an atrocity) are not even inclined to do that. Even if they did murder someone in their distant past. There will always be exceptions, but you gotta look at the bigger picture.

[Crown]

Gamepolitics.com

Oslo Mass Murderer Threatens to Go on a Hunger Strike If He Doesn't Get Better Video Games in Prison
February 14, 2014 - GamePolitics Staff

Anders Behring Brevik, the Norwegian man convicted of killing 77 people in Oslo, Norway in 2011 is calling himself a human rights activists in letters complaining to the prison about the quality of video games he gets to play while he is serving his sentence. You may recall that Brevik wrote in his rambling manifesto that he trained himself to kill using Call of Duty and enjoyed playing World of Warcraft.

Not to cheapen this with a terrible pun, but I'm willing to bet he played a Rogue.

[Flagg]

Gamepolitics.com

Oslo Mass Murderer Threatens to Go on a Hunger Strike If He Doesn't Get Better Video Games in Prison
February 14, 2014 - GamePolitics Staff

Anders Behring Brevik, the Norwegian man convicted of killing 77 people in Oslo, Norway in 2011 is calling himself a human rights activists in letters complaining to the prison about the quality of video games he gets to play while he is serving his sentence. You may recall that Brevik wrote in his rambling manifesto that he trained himself to kill using Call of Duty and enjoyed playing World of Warcraft.

Not to cheapen this with a terrible pun, but I'm willing to bet he played a Rogue.

I take offense to that. So does my Goblin Rogue Flaggix.