Anders Behring Breivik, the notorious Norwegian mass murderer, is back in the news, not for his heinous crimes, but for complaining about his prison conditions. He argues his treatment violates his human rights, while many might see his accommodations as a far cry from inhumane. This article dives into the controversy, examining both sides of the argument.
- The Convict: Anders Behring Breivik, responsible for the tragic 2011 Norway attacks.
- The Complaint: Breivik claims his prison conditions violate his human rights, citing isolation as a key issue.
- The Reality: He has three cells, two guinea pigs, a TV, and video games – hardly typical prison fare.
- The Court: His appeal for improved conditions was denied by a Norwegian court.
- The Question: Are his conditions truly inhumane, or just punishment for his crimes?
Breivik’s Case: A Look Inside His ‘Inhumane’ Confinement
Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the horrific 2011 attacks in Norway, which took the lives of 77 people, is stirring up controversy once again. This time, it’s not about the details of his crime, but the conditions of his incarceration. Breivik has consistently argued that his treatment is not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against inhuman or degrading treatment. But what are the facts?
The ‘Luxury’ Prison Life
While it’s easy to assume prison life is always harsh, Breivik’s situation is quite different. He doesn’t languish in a cramped, bare cell. Instead, he has access to three private cells, two guinea pigs (as pets), a flat-screen television, and a video game console. These amenities raise questions: Is this the typical image of solitary confinement? Is it torture or just a consequence?
Isolation: A Bone of Contention
Breivik’s primary argument revolves around his relative isolation. He claims he is “treated like an animal” and his isolation is a form of inhuman punishment. However, the court has repeatedly sided against him, stating that the isolation is necessary, given the risk of violence he still poses. They have also taken measures to counteract the effects of this isolation, although Breivik has not been satisfied. It’s also worth noting that being in prison, by its very definition, entails a certain degree of isolation.
The Court’s Stance
The Norwegian court has firmly rejected Breivik’s appeal, asserting that the restrictions placed on him are justified due to his potential for violence. The court emphasized the measures taken to counteract the effects of isolation, further denying any violation of his rights. The judges also dismissed his claim that the censorship of his mail infringes on his right to correspondence. It seems the Norwegian judicial system is not easily swayed by his claims.
A Reminder of the Unforgivable
The story of Breivik’s prison conditions should not be allowed to detract from the heinous nature of his crimes. On July 22, 2011, he detonated a bomb near government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people, before going on a rampage at a Labour Party youth camp on the island of Utoya, murdering 69 people, mostly teenagers. His actions were motivated by a hatred of multiculturalism. While debating the conditions of his incarceration, let’s not forget the lives he stole and the pain he inflicted.
Conclusion: Justice Served or Human Rights Violated?
The case of Anders Behring Breivik is definitely a complex one. On the one hand, there is the argument that all human beings, regardless of their crimes, deserve to be treated with dignity. On the other hand, there is a need to ensure that violent criminals are not given unwarranted privileges, while making sure that any measures taken are proportional to the crimes committed. The question remains: are Breivik’s current conditions a violation of his human rights, or simply a suitable punishment for his appalling acts? The court has made its decision, but the debate continues. It is also worth noting that many countries worldwide do not provide such luxurious accommodations for their most dangerous prisoners.
About The Author
