I’m most certainly not, that would be idiotic. And while effects in society and with people are complicated, just because the effect can’t be pinpointed with 100% accuracy, it would nevertheless be incorrect to therefore declare that nothing about the effects can be known. We can know quite a lot about prisons and other methods as “deterrance”, and even better, we can compare them with “avoidance”, that is, methods to avoid crime happening in the first place.
So in other words, you decline all data because the data is not pure? All research, no matter how many trends the data indicates, is useless to you?
Okay, good to know.
In real life, people who make decisions in Europe have no such problems interpreting the data and adapting their approaches. Though, as I already said, it’s part of a whole framework of society to protect Human Rights and dignity and catch people before they fall, not kick them when they’re down.
Are you saying that you’ve never heard ofKohlberg’s stagesof moral development? How’s that foolish? And you seem to misunderstand what I said.
And nobody said anything about not considering consequences. The difference is that somebody who’s only motivation in deciding something is fear of punishment or interest in reward will stop behaving if he’s no longer watched; whereas somebody who’s reached the final stage of recognizing what actions are good or bad* because of the consequences they have* will do the right thing even if nobody watches them.
Telling my boss I disagre with his decision is quite a different situation from not parking in a handicapped spot, and yet again different from telling my husband what I think about his parents.
But my decision to not park in the handicapped spot is made not by fear of getting a ticket, but by my own ethics that handicapped people need those spots and it would be assholish to park there.
I frankly don’t understand why you misinterpret this?
I was unsure that it was recently completely forbidden - as per Pauls link, in 1999 from private schools, too. But it persisted quite a long time compared to most continental European countries.
Keep it civil, everyone! The subject of this thread is a prison in Norway, not the Kohlberg scale of morality development or the accurate placement on it of anyone here.
[/moderating]
(I know, not my forum but I don’t think the mods here will mind.)
Here’s some interesting news: In a rather unusual fundraising event, inmates at Halden prison are donating one day’s allowance in support of the victims of the terror attacks. Article in Norwegian from a local newspaper, I’ll translate some:
The article says that the money will be used to buy flowers for the memorials in Oslo and at Utøya, and possibly for a memorial fund for the victims.
That’s not correct, private gun ownership is legal. You can apply for permission if you have a clean police record, and either a hunting license or a sports shooting license. More info: Firearms regulation in Norway - Wikipedia
(If I recall the news stories correctly, Breivik had two legal and one illegal gun, and used illegal ammo.)
No. He’d be killed if any of the other inmates got to him. Several inmates have already said this, and one of the criminal gangs in Oslo has put a price on his head.
IMO, there are two major reasons for keeping Breivik away from the other inmates and alive: One is that I think the “best” punishment for him would be to grow old behind bars, experiencing how society changes away from his monocultural “ideals” and realizing that he has utterly failed in his life. The other is for our own sake. Even more these days, we have to keep our ideals of a liberal community where everyone, no matter the atrocities they have performed, are treated humanely.
Sorry, this is wrong. Norway has one of the highest gun densities in Europe, roughly the same level as Switzerland, Finland and also the US. However, we have quite strict gun control. You need a license to buy a gun, and self-defense will never be accepted as intended use on an application. For a hunting rifle or shotgun, you only need a national hunting license, for a sporting rifle you need to be a member of an officially acknowledged shooting club, for a pistol you need a minimum of 6 months’ active (as in “showing up at organized training” and, if you want more than a minimum number of handguns, active participation in competitions) membership in a shooting club. Age limit is 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns.
But you’ll never be allowed to buy a handgun for self defense AKA shooting at other people. Most Norwegian gun owners regard guns as sporting or hunting tools, not as something you use at other persons. I even doubt that armed robbery of people at a shooting range would pose a significant personal risk for the robber here…
He used expanding/fragmenting ammo, yes. But expanding/fragmenting rifle ammo (AKA varmint ammunition) can be bought legally if you have a gun license in the appropriate caliber.
I saw a map in a newspaper the other day. Norway and Sweden had about the same gun density, 31 and 32 (don’t remember which was which) weapons per 100?/1000? persons. Finland was much higher with 45.
However, to nitpick: According to the wiki article, Finland, Sweden and Norway have very similar numbers for gun ownership with 32.0, 31.6 and 31.3 guns per 100 residents, respectively. But I was wrong WRT the US (88.8) and Switzerland (45.7).
Still, the principal difference between Scandinavia/Finland and the US is on gun control and what use you’re allowed to acquire a gun for. In SE and NO, self defense is an unacceptable motivation for acquiring a gun, and sporting handguns are quite tightly controlled.
Robbery yes, but are you really saying that if the average Norwegian was facing down a gun, or saw a family member being threatened with one, it would not naturally occur to them to pull their own gun and dipense with the threat?
Is it just that home invasion is unheard of there, so doesn’t come to mind for you?
According to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4185567.ece (in Norwegian), it’s only legal to use magazines with 3 bullets for semiautomatic weapons in Norway, but Breivik bought 10 magazines with 30 bullets each from USA.
TrueCelt, gun owners are required by law to keep their guns locked away (ref. Firearms regulation in Norway - Wikipedia ). So in case of a home invasion, a law abiding gun owner wouldn’t be able to simply grab his gun and shoot. On the other hand, this also means the guns aren’t easily within reach if someone in the gun owner’s home is dangerously drunk or irrationally furious. (In case anyone’s interested: Statistics on causes of death: Causes of death (terminated in Statistics Norway) - SSB )
The closest thing to a private bathroom at my college was shared with only 3 other guys in the suite it was living in. Only the RAs assigned to suite or apartment style dorms had private bathrooms. They were also the only people who didn’t have a roommate.
Only in your very own example, it’s not fear of prisons that’s motivating you, but the whole system in itself. If your local prison is run by Sheriff Arpaio, but your cops are Keystone Cops, the likelihood of being caught is nil, so you are not deterred. If egging your neighbours house is not illegal in your state, or if the judges are lenient towards “pranks” and give you 30$ fine, then prison is not a deterrent.
So the whole system of competent and well-supplied police, a good, swift and just court system, reasonable laws covering all aspects of crime, and prisons work together. Looking only at one point and assuming it’s the reason for the lower crime rate is drawing a false conclusion.