Unrestricted freedom becomes conceptually impossible. (...) It’s a radical liberal utopia that turns against itself.
Author: Leszek Kołakowski
22nd of June 2011: In front of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens
Stoltenberg, a bomb placed in a cargo van exploded. Eight people died in the
attack. Fifteen were injured.
The same
day at the AUF’s (Workers’ Youth League) summer camp, a man wearing a police
uniform opened fire upon a group of youth. In one and a half hours he killed 69
people and injured 155, of which 110 critically. The average age of his victims
was 19 years. The oldest was 51 years old, and the youngest –14. The shooter surrendered to the anti-terrorist
forces without resistance. His name is Andreas Behring Breivik. He is 32 years
old. He admitted to both attacks.
The world is in shock. Norway,
one of the safest countries in the world (GPI 2010 – 5th place, 2011 – 9th,
2012 – 18th) faced one of the biggest mass murders in Norway’s
history. The Media flooded society with letters, political statements and Breivik’s
diaries. For almost two weeks, the Norwegian killer’s face was ubiquitous. And
then the story slowly faded… the attention of the public turned to the riots in
London and the ongoing Arab Spring.
Breivik returned to the public
eye in April 2012, when his trial began. He was recognised as sane and not
regretful of his acts. On the 24th of August he was sentenced to 21 years in prison (minimum of 10 years)
with the possibility of indefinite extention. The only higher sentence in Norway is 30
years, for genocide.
Since
the day of the announcement of the court, I have been questioning the world I
live in. How is it possible that a person who killed 77 people is sanctioned
with only 21 years of imprisonment? And, to make it worse, he has been
recognised as completely sane; he did not express remorse in respect of the acts
committed (and even if he did, would it change anything?). Breivik will be 53
at the end of his sentence; unless it is extended (it can be extended for a
maximum of 5 years at a time). At this age, he will be fully capable of
committing other crimes, and free to carry on his terrorist activity (assuming
that through his sentence he will utilise the treadmill and computer which he
is allowed to have in his cell). [Update: After publishing this post on my blog
in Polish access to the computer has been
denied for Breivik. He is trying to get it back, claiming that it was a part of
deal with the Norwegian police].
The
case of Breivik is not the only one in which our society and legal system seem
to be too liberal. Almost every year I hear about a robber, thief or other kind
of criminal who was shot/badly injured because didn’t expect his victim to have
a gun (or to use it in self-defence). Unfortunately, in most European
countries, self-defence is very restricted. If someone attacks you with a
baseball bat, you are allowed to use similar weapon, but you are not allowed to
take out a gun (used in the family for hunting) and shoot him. In 2005, a
situation like that took place in Skórzewo , near Poznań, in Poland, where a
man shot one of the burglars. In 2010 in Germany, a retired man, whose passion
was hunting, was attacked in his house by 5 young men. After being badly beaten
and tied, he managed to release himself and shot one of the young guys while
they whey escaping with the stolen goods. He was been accused of murder with
the motive of nationalism, as all of the assaulters had been immigrants.
(Luckily after a long trial he was exonerated)
Don’t
get me wrong. I wouldn’t vote for public access to guns. But if someone
attacked me I shouldn’t have to hesitate with defence. It shouldn’t matter
whether I use a rail from a nearby fence, a broken glass bottle found on the
pavement or a knife from my kitchen. If the authorities have decided that it’s
legal for me to have a gun in my house, and someone tries to attack me, why
shouldn’t I use this gun to protect myself and my family?
Returning
to Breivik, I’m not a supporter of the death penalty, and I don’t think that
John Locke was right (A criminal who, having
renounced reason ... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath
committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be
destroyed as a lion or tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can
have no society nor security. (Second
Treatise of Civil Government, Ch. II, sec.
11). However, I’m a huge believer in the Latin saying Qui non laborat, non manducet, “which means the one who does not work shall not
eat” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10).
I think
that criminals sentenced to long-term/life imprisonments should earn their
living. It’s hard to find a sensible explanation as to why their access to
treadmills, computers and two hot meals a day should be funded by my taxes.
That’s why the idea of employing prisoners makes sense to me. I know that it
would also generate expenses (wards, security at the work place etc.) but it
seems that in the long term it would be cheaper.
I have seen
this in action in the USA (prisoners in bright orange uniforms repairing the
road and watched by several armed guards). I have also read somewhere that some
prisons started to use metal bracelets with GPS transmitters, which help to
locate prisoners in case of escape. In order to protect society from prisoners
who pose a threat, and manage to escape, bracelets connected with a taser (working
with a GPS transmitter) should be allowed. After a certain distance, a high
voltage impulse would be released. This would enable the use of prisoners for
building flood embankments, street cleaning, road works, or other manual
labour.
I understand that it sounds similar to the
Soviet GULAG system, but why should I agree on paying for
food for someone who took pleasure in rape and murder? Wouldn’t it be better to
use that money to improve the NHS or education systems?
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz