Norway Attack

[The Sir]

Will Wilkinson on the American outrage over Norway's justice system

 

That's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 

Comparing Norway's level of civil peace and order to ours is just moronic. Norway is a relatively homogenous country of four million people. The United States is an international melting pot of 300 million. Obviously, Norway's going to have less crime (even by ratios), but that doesn't mean they're doing something awesomely right. It means they're a comparatively tiny country where most of the people are similar and hence less prone to social conflict.

 

As for the rest of the commentary, there are four goals to the criminal justice system: deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution and incapacitation.

 

I'm not a big fan of rehabilitation, to be honest. Sure, give drug users some therapy while in jail, and lesser sex offenders some sex therapy or whatever. I have no problem with some extra, therapeutic means to fix degenerates of this sort and make them more suited to re-enter society. That's fine. But even in these cases, there must also be a deterrent factor. This shouldn't be a fun process. These people should leave feeling maybe a bit smarter and more capable of fighting the temptations they face, and they should also be thinking, "wow, that sucked so much, I'd really hate to go back". Whether it's a fine or jail time or picking up trash on the side of the highway, it should make you not want to return. And then, the next time you're tempted to commit another crime, you'll remember your experiences and your fear of re-living that will outweigh the benefits of committing that particular crime.

 

Anders Breivik, Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, these guys were (or in Breivik's case, are) incapable of being rehabilitated. Nor do they deserve it. Their crimes, amongst the crimes of many other lesser known monsters, are so heinous that they lost the right to be fixed and given a second chance. The only solution to such villains is complete incapacitation. I don't care if Anders Breivik could get out of prison in twenty years and be a normal person. He murdered dozens of innocent people and as such, he never deserves to see the light of day again. This is retribution and it's incapacitation. The only way to be absolutely sure that no one dies at Breivik's hands ever again is to put him away forever. Or execute him. And hopefully, making an example out of Breivik would have a deterrent effect on the next would-be killer. But if he gets twenty years in some nice "humane" facility, where's the deterrent effect? There isn't one. There's nothing to make other potential offenders say, "damn, I'd hate to end up like him".

 

I have no interest whatsoever in being nice to murderers, rapists and thieves. You deserve a fair and speedy trial, and if the evidence shows that you are guilty, you deserve to spend a very long time in prison. You won't be tortured, you will receive the food, hygiene and medical care you need to survive in a generally healthy manner, and other than that, you will have very limited freedoms. You won't spend your days watching TV or going online. You will spend it doing hard labor, and you will spend your nights in your cell with a bed and a toilet. That is all you deserve, and if Mr. Wilkinson thinks that's horribly cruel and that inmates somehow deserve more, then tough s***.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bumping this thread to throw out a discussion topic. I'm curious what people think about this...

 

I just saw an article on CNN, quoting federal law enforcement people who are more and more concerned with "lone wolf" type attacks, similar to the shooting in Norway. My first gut reaction was, well, this isn't Norway, and a main reason it was so bad there is that it took 90 minutes for armed law enforcement to get onto that island. Similar problem occurred with the shootings in Mumbai a while back - the Indian police force was not trained or equipped for that sort of thing, and it took hours for the military to assemble and react. Here in the US, that shouldn't be an issue - 95% of law enforcement officers here are armed, and they are found in significant numbers even in relatively rural areas.

 

But then, a thought occurred to me. I just got back from a backpacking trip - we had a group of 8 people out in a lonesome wilderness in New Mexico. Didn't see another soul for days. Now, there are other backcountry areas in national parks, forests, etc., that may have hundreds of people in the backcountry at any given time.

 

What if some person or group just hiked in, and started shooting at people as they went, like this guy in Norway did? There are very few armed USFS or NPS or BLM Rangers anymore, and also very few of them are backcountry types anymore. Used to be, most Rangers spent most of their time in-country. Now most work out of offices or at campgrounds/trailheads/park offices. This gunman could wander around freely, pretty easily. Not only that, but in those remote areas (anything, say, a few miles' hard hike in), there is no easy way to signal for help. Cell phones likely won't get service, most people don't carry radios (and in the US, there is no reliable monitoring of mountain radio GMRS frequencies anyway), and a PLB would only get you rescue personnel, and that would take hours or days. Even when/if authorities found out about it, it would take hours at least to get armed personnel into those areas.

 

So in reality, you actually could have a Norway-like attack here.

 

And how do you address that? You could have more Rangers working the backcountry, instead of doing administrative work in offices. You could arm more of them, and train more of them as LER's. But where does that money come from? You could set up a system where GMRS radio frequencies, at least one certain emergency band, was monitored regularly - but again, that take infrastructure, manpower and money. Is this a risk that is even worth addressing?

 

In reality, this scenario will probably never be addressed unless it happens. But I am curious how people would feel about trying to prevent it, if it is even worth it.

 

[Balta1701]

How many people did you run into while on trail? And what are the odds that none of them had sat phones?

[NorthSideSox72]

How many people did you run into while on trail? And what are the odds that none of them had sat phones?

In this case - in one of the least visited wilderness areas in the west - we saw zero other people. On other hikes we've done, in say National Parks like Olympic or Yosemite, we see lots of people, even days into the wild.

 

Sat phones? Virtually no one carries those in the lower 48. I have never seen anyone carry one. They cost a fortune to rent, weigh a ton, and by the way also aren't always reliable depending on the terrain.

 

Most backcountry folks carry GPS now. A small number, like us, carry GMRS 2-way radios with a theoretical range of 36 miles (under ideal circumstances - but really its closer to 10 in highly broken terrain). No one monitors GMRS though, not reliably.

 

[Balta1701]

The point of the first question is there...you saw no one. For a person to be on a rampage in an area where he's not likely to be caught, he's not going to find many people.

 

If a person were to go on a rampage in a moderately populated area, or in a hiking area within a park, etc., that's the only place he's going to find targets. But, the more targets, the more likely someone has a sat phone. Or the more likely someone has cell reception. Or, the more likely it is that the person told someone their hiking plan and when they don't get back, rangers go out looking for them.

 

After there was an accident (not involving me), every one of our weekend groups who went out in no-cell-reception zones always had a sat phone with.

[Balta1701]

If you really wanted to go on a rampage killing people and didn't care who you killed, you still go after groups that aren't likely to report the crimes. people who are already committing crimes and have little to no family or friends. Prostitutes, illegal immigrants, etc.

 

Edit: No, I have not spent much time thinking about this.

[NorthSideSox72]

The point of the first question is there...you saw no one. For a person to be on a rampage in an area where he's not likely to be caught, he's not going to find many people.

 

If a person were to go on a rampage in a moderately populated area, or in a hiking area within a park, etc., that's the only place he's going to find targets. But, the more targets, the more likely someone has a sat phone. Or the more likely someone has cell reception. Or, the more likely it is that the person told someone their hiking plan and when they don't get back, rangers go out looking for them.

 

After there was an accident (not involving me), every one of our weekend groups who went out in no-cell-reception zones always had a sat phone with.

Oh I don't doubt that help would eventually arrive. But it would be a long time, that is my point. I've literally never ran into a person in the backcountry (and you always end up talking with people you see, when you don't see many people) who carries a sat phone, and cell reception is a question mark (many people also specifically don't carry them because they want to be, you know, in the woods). But even if, after the shooting starts, someone manages to raise help via some sort of phone (which is a big if), it will likely be hours before help arrives. That's always been the nature of medical emergencies out there anyway, but this is different. It isn't someone with a broken leg, or a snake bite. This is people being shot, and they won't last hours.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

concealed carry!

[NorthSideSox72]

concealed carry!

Most of the states that have these large expanses of wilderness already allow for that. But most people still don't carry out there, for a variety of reasons. I've had people in our groups carry, on occasion, but it is rare. Furthermore, in some of those areas (particularly national parks), firearms are specifically prohibited.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Most of the states that have these large expanses of wilderness already allow for that. But most people still don't carry out there, for a variety of reasons. I've had people in our groups carry, on occasion, but it is rare. Furthermore, in some of those areas (particularly national parks), firearms are specifically prohibited.

 

If this random crime is a concern, then change the law. I just don't see this as being a viable crime though. Seems to me these wacko's would want to hit a lot of people in a public place. Not an occasional hiker or two out in the middle of nowhere.

[Balta1701]

If this random crime is a concern, then change the law. I just don't see this as being a viable crime though. Seems to me these wacko's would want to hit a lot of people in a public place. Not an occasional hiker or two out in the middle of nowhere.

There's also much less of a political statement involved if its a slow evolving event.

[StrangeSox]

Most of the states that have these large expanses of wilderness already allow for that. But most people still don't carry out there, for a variety of reasons. I've had people in our groups carry, on occasion, but it is rare. Furthermore, in some of those areas (particularly national parks), firearms are specifically prohibited.

 

Didn't the restriction on firearms in national parks get lifted a few years back?

[Balta1701]

Didn't the restriction on firearms in national parks get lifted a few years back?

It got stuck into the Credit Card reform act passed in 2009. Don't ask me how.

[southsider2k5]

How many people did you run into while on trail? And what are the odds that none of them had sat phones?

 

Or their own guns...

[Balta1701]

Or their own guns...

If you're in Bear country, this is very possible also.

[NorthSideSox72]

Or their own guns...

More guns than sat phones, but few of either.

 

We only did one trip I can remember where we decided specifically to go armed. We were the maiden group to do the official anchor leg of the Continental Divide Trail, at the southern end (previous to that, the official route just followed roads). We hiked 75 miles in the bootheel of NM, from the Mexican border, up through a couple mountain ranges, all the way to I-10. It was extremely remote and rugged (as locations in the lower 48 go), and quite frankly, we were concerned about bandits of various kinds in that remote border area.