NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. I chose this as
the article on the death penalty of the week, as on this date, 22 July 2011, is
the 2011 Norway attacks.
PAGE
TITLE:
http://m.smh.com.au/
ARTICLE
TITLE:
Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue
DATE: Tuesday 9 August
2011
AUTHOR: Ted Lapkin
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Ted
Lapkin has worked as a ministerial advisor to the federal Coalition and as
communications director to a senior member of the Republican leadership in the
US Congress. His writing has been published by leading newspapers in both
Australia and the United States, including The Los Angeles Times, The
Australian, The Herald Sun, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The
Australian Financial Review. Ted also featured as a commentator on ABC
Lateline, ABC Radio National and SBS.
 |
| Ted Lapkin |
 |
|
Salute: For the second day in a row, killer Breivik
clenched his his fist in front of him as he entered the Oslo courtroom (SOURCE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130881/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norway-killer-boasts-spectacular-attack-Europe-WWII.html)
|
You
can already mark it down on your calendars: July 22, 2032, is the day that
Norway's terrorist mass murderer Anders Breivik will get out of jail - free.
As
of that date, the perpetrator of the Oslo bombing and the Utoeya Island
shooting spree will have a new lease on life. The people he blew up and gunned
down have not been so lucky.
Breivik's
21-year prison sentence - the maximum allowable under Norwegian law - works out
to about 3.2 months for each one of his 77 victims. Sorry, but that's simply
not good enough. It falls abysmally short of the moral mark.
There
are some crimes so incontestably heinous that they cast their perpetrators
irretrievably beyond the pale of civilisation. The murder of a child and the
deliberate mass killing of the innocent exemplify a moral class of acts for
which contrition is irrelevant and repentance impossible.
It
is my view that those who so profoundly succumb to barbarism do not warrant the
privileges and protections of enlightened society, and that the commission of
such abominations triggers the forfeiture of any right to continued life.
Even
if Breivik were consigned to a prison cell for life, to my mind his punishment
would remain grossly inadequate. Here's a man who methodically hunted down and
slaughtered scores of helpless children.
There
is only one penalty severe and well deserved enough to match the obscenity that
was his crime. Anders Breivik should pay for his actions with his life.
None
of the stock arguments against capital punishment is relevant to the Breivik
case. There's no question mark hanging over his culpability in this matter; no
possibility of a conviction in error. Breivik's haughty claims of
responsibility for the Oslo/Utoeya murders are confirmed by overwhelming proof
linking him to the crime.
Nor
does the incipient insanity defence under preparation by his lawyer stand up to
scrutiny. There's more than enough method in evidence to nullify claims of
madness.
Breivik
was lucid enough to spend many painstaking months manufacturing the bomb that
exploded in Oslo's government quarter. He was sufficiently coherent to use eBay
for the purchase of equipment required to tip his bullets with poison.
And
then there's Breivik's rambling 1500-page manifesto of holy war, where he
justifies the deliberate slaughter of the innocent. There can be no serious
doubt the Oslo/Utoeya massacres were executed with deliberate purpose and
demonstrable premeditation.
So
if Breivik's guilt is beyond dispute and his sanity is not in serious question,
we're returned to the moral question of retributive justice. Does a prison term
- even for the entirety of life - constitute adequate punishment for such
monstrous wickedness?
My
own response to that question is a definitive no. And my negative resolve is
strengthened by news of the palatial conditions that await Breivik behind bars.
Last
year, Time
magazine published an article entitled ''Norway builds the world's most humane
prison.'' If Breivik is sent to Halden Prison, south of Oslo, he'll enjoy
''amenities like a sound studio, jogging trails and a freestanding two-bedroom
house where inmates can host their families during overnight visits''.
Among
the prison staff ''there's plenty of enthusiasm for transforming lives'',
reports Time's
William Lee Adams. But even the most radical metamorphosis within Breivik's
psyche will not compensate for the havoc he wrought and the lives he destroyed.
It
offends my sense of moral equilibrium that Breivik might while away the hours
making musical recordings as the 77 families of his victims are crushed by the
indelible burden of grief.
But
even if he were consigned to the most brutal of Third World prisons rather than
a five-star Norwegian jail, the essential issue would still not be addressed.
The question is not one of vengeance, but one of justice. And society should be
entitled to make a moral declaration that some acts constitute such
unadulterated evil that they warrant the ultimate penalty.
Capital
punishment also provides finality to the families of those who have been
murdered. It prevents them from being twice victimised - once by the original
crime and a second time by the sight of their loved ones' murderer walking
free.
In
Australia, the death-penalty option might have spared us the ad nauseam
bush-lawyer appeals of Ivan Milat and his latest antic - a hunger strike to
acquire a PlayStation for his cell.
The
debate over capital punishment in Australia will surely be rekindled when
Hoddle Street mass murderer Julian Knight becomes eligible for parole in 2014.
Call me quixotic, but I think that occasion would be the perfect opportunity to
revisit the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment