[Snargorf]

By this logic, I can just murder anyone I like, and then demonstrate that I won't do it again.

After that, no reason to keep me in prison any more right? It's not like the dead person or their family count for anything - it's all about me and the government's budget. Yeah?

[pluma]

Serious question: what the fuck is wrong with you? This Puritan "let's murder and torture people for their sins" approach is not working. Criminals are humans.

Yes, it's not about the dead person. They're dead.

It's also not about the family of the dead person. They've already been harmed.

It's not about you, it's about preventing future crimes. If you've been turned into a productive member of society, great -- everyone's off better now. If you haven't, the system has failed society (not just you).

Heck, there's a good chance prison isn't even the best solution for you personally. Most likely you need actual counselling or you're facing social problems. Containment is the last resort.

You don't fix bugs by hiding them -- you fix them by figuring out why they happened in the first place and determining how to decrease the likelihood of them happening again.

EDIT: In response to the killed throwaway: if you kill someone "in the heat of the moment" and it's not self-defence or anything else we consider acceptable, of course there's still a problem in need of fixing: self control. If you kill a man because he sleeps with your wife, no matter how betrayed you might feel, it's still a problem with how you act on those feelings. But this is only visible if you stop thinking "what is an appropriate punishment" and start thinking "why did this happen" and "what could have prevented it".

[Hockenbrizzle]

If I could recommend an interesting film to watch, go see Michael Moore's Where to Invade Next. You don't have to watch the whole thing, but try to find the part where they talk about the Norwegian prison system. And then look for the part where a father who lost his son during a massacre of about 60 children explains his thoughts. It's absolutely heartbreaking to watch. He explains that he doesn't want the criminal to suffer and rot in prison. Instead, he want's the rehabilitation center to help the man so that he can ultimately become a benefit to society. I can't even begin to understand how difficult it would be to say that after such a loss, but I think he was correct in doing so.

My belief is that the society failed to correctly educate the man who eventually became a criminal. I don't think people are born with such desires.

[hnamazon123]

Brevik attacked an event held by the youth movement of a far left political party in Norway so the father (who I assume is also far left) reacting/coping that way is unsurprising.

That's not something to lionize though. Pretty sad all around. There's no great wisdom there, just a leftist coping method employed by the father, similar to what a religious person would do.

[markusfjeld]

The youth movement in question cannot really be considered far-left, except maybe by American standards. They're the youth wing of the establishment party in Norway, namely the Labour Party. We do have proper far-left parties, though.

Besides, I don't think you need to be particularly leftist or religious to cope this way. These ideas of forgiveness and rehabilitation permeate Norwegian (even Nordic) society, and are mostly secular these days. In fact, quite a few Norwegians will tell you that they consider harsh punishments «gamaltestamentleg», i.e. only fit for reactionaries who look to the Old Testament for prescriptions on how to handle things.

[Hockenbrizzle]

Good point, although I didn't mean to lionize the father.

I don't think it matters if the father was left, right or center. Whatever the basis, he made a decision that will ultimately benefit society (which is the main goal, right?). Whatever the political stance, we are a society. Meaning the basic idea, which is that everyone contributes so that the whole benefits, should be of utmost importance.