By John Edward Xavier
In previous posts in this blog, I made reference to the basic criminality of Breivik's mass murders. Those two posts on this blog and so many other links are available for this historic case that, rather than do linking, I leave it to readers to pursue such as the New York Times and others. I think it also bears repeating that several Saami were among the victims, although that is not why this blog has followed the Breivik case, which has a world-wide resonance. The world-wide resonance arises not only from Breivik's murderous criminality, but from his absolutely staggering ignorance and hatred that underlay the mass murders.
Breivik, to be brief, demonstrated in court the basic nature of his manifestos: a true series of rants, often in erratic or cut-and-paste sequences. Breivik has further exposed his complete failure to understand historical realities, including cultural, racial and ethnic exchanges of pre-modern times, and similar realities of the modern world. He rejected any kind of co-existence of cultures, races, religions, or even of the male and female sexes. Women were, by Breivik, way out of line in their increased roles. Ignorance, hatred and sociopathic dedication were among his guiding thoughts. He nominated himself to be the executioner, not even the arbitrator, of those he hated. And those he hated numbered very nearly everyone.
Now to the heart of the recent court verdict. In simplest terms Breivik is nothing but a mass murderer. He has now received the court-imposed sentence of ten to twenty-one years in prison. Yet two main points persist in this disheartening case.
Free Publicity for Breivik
The first point, that Breivik can be considered as anything more than a criminal is demoralizing. It is demoralizing in the sense that, as Breivik had made certain claims to defending ethnic or cultural values, the debate has switched in the media to his areas of concern. That the courts even permitted such nonsense as Breivik's social theories to be entered as evidence in a defense statement demonstrates the unprepared status of Norwegian law for such cases as mass murder. This seems to be particularly true in the category of racist or other hate-crime actions.
The trial, to be blunt, gave Breivik a platform to argue his "case" when there indeed was no case to be made for his ideas. The only worthy case was to establishing the facts of his actions, or possibly about his sanity. Norwegian law apparently falls short on the crucial process of establishing the facts. The facts are that he committed mass murder, in his own terrorist fashion. Breivik even so stated. Sanity is another matter, and seems to present the same problems, no matter what the legal system, or where the system may be applied.
Those facts of his killings, once determined, should have meant that his wild, cruel, and easily refuted theories of race and culture would have no place in the trial. Nonetheless, those theories of Breivik were given a central place in the trial, and furthermore, those theories received free, widespread, and repeated publicity of a worldwide nature. This sort of legal circus undercuts respect for society and the law, and cannot be taken seriously as a defense tactic in trial, if the court system hopes to maintain respectability. Breivik got his guilty verdict, yes; but he received untold publicity, paid for by the citizens of Norway. And the court system does not gain from the broadcast of Breivik's hate-filled screeds.
An Inadequate Sentence
The second point that persists in this demoralizing case is that of absurdly short sentences for heinous crimes. A democratic and progressive society is bound to not only rehabilitate and punish criminals, but also to protect society. If longer sentences are not on the negotiating table in the Storting, other options are available. I hope that, for example, the Norwegian law will change in this regard: such a mass murderer should be allowed to be placed on separate trial for each and every murder victim.
A separate trial approach would allow the prosecutors to use three or four trials to put the murderer away for 84 years. And finally, what kind of charges are forthcoming to deal with the apparently secondary issue of blowing up a government building? Should not such a crime demand a separate trial and its own sentence of ten years or more, especially since the building was in use, occupied by people at the time, and blowing it up resulted in human casualties? In short, the Norwegian system of law may be efficient and provide hope for rehabilitation for many criminals, but the system falls far short for the kind of mass production terrorist criminality exemplified by Breivik's wrongdoing.
Concluding Points
To conclude, there are some technical and administrative adjustments that must come out of this case. Oslo is a huge city, and other cities in Norway are large as well. With all the public wealth, it is not too much to demand a professional police response in the form of a type of SWAT team. Such a team must be equipped with helicopters, given the vast numbers of islands in Norway.
And, frankly, that anyone could consider such a professional police team to be undemocratic or unneeded should now be refuted by pointing to this case. The team could be cross-trained to work with emergency and rescue teams for non-criminal situations, thus improving the flexibility and efficiency of search-and rescue for other disasters than mass murder.
May such a case as that of Breivik never again rear its ugly head of hatred in Norway, or anywhere else. But if there is such a case again in Norway, surely the penalties must be greater to protect society from the release of the criminal. Further, the courtroom defense cannot be "I didn't like their type, so I had to shoot them and blow up a government building to protect my way of life."
A modern, democratic society can and should organize to protect against such a cold-blooded and yet sane murderer as Breivik. Such a society can also remind itself, with periodic memorials and anniversaries, of the horrors and the ways in which the people rose to the challenge of affirming their democracy.
Yet: how democratic for the murder victims was it that the police of Oslo were pitifully unable to respond to the crime, lacking basic helicopters and response equipment? And yet, once more: how democratic is it to allow a hate-filled screed to be admitted as legal defense, and thus receive free publicity? Well, 'nuff said.
