The Breivik-dilemma

It has been such a long time since the last (sober) post appeared on this blog, so I've decided to write something before starting to feel guilty. I had a really interesting story though it happened a month ago or so. I'll try to keep it fresh!

I got my first_ever_surfer via couchsurfing.org in november. A girl from Finland, erasmus in Budapest, interested in Eger, and writing a request- accepted of course!

We spent a great time together, but what I wanna talk about is a small discussion we had about the Breivik mass murder. Yeah maybe too tipical from me to come up with the topic but I definetely needed some insight in the topic from someone who is closer to the events. Trying to pretend as a journalist.

So I started my argument with the surprising fact that he can only get 20 years in Norway. That's the most, there is no life nor death sentence. I was ignorant enough to ask whether if he deserves more or not. Here is what she said:

"Why would he deserve it? If you want to give life sentence to somebody, it's worse than death sentence. You know he won't come out to the "world" again, you arent giving the opportunity to change, just lock him up until the rest of his life. Death sentence does the same without torturing the convict for decades."

I was shocked at her opinion, realizing I never-ever thought about it like this. Weakened, I went on:

"He was well-educated. He was talented in many things, he knew a lot of stuff about the world that surrounds. Still, he did what he did."

Guess what, clever answer came again:

"But that doesnt mean he was happy."

How simple, isnt it?

Good god, my argument was completely invalid, and I just had to realize she is totally true.

So? Do I have conclusion? Maybe. But do you? What does he deserve?