Video summary
The podcast examines a pivotal trial in Norway involving Anders Breivik, who committed what was then considered the worst mass murder in Norwegian history by shooting 60 children at an island summer camp. The discussion highlights the stark contrast between Norway's low crime rates and its lenient incarceration system compared to the United States; despite these generally safe conditions, Breivik emerged from a background marked by significant instability, including an unstable mother and early antisocial behavior noted as young as three or four years old. Even within this robust social welfare state where issues are often addressed with high visibility and support, such extreme violence occurred, leading to his sentencing under Norway's maximum penalty of 21 years in a secure facility that the speakers jokingly compare to a London hotel room due to its relative comfort compared to American prisons. A central tension explored is the debate over whether Breivik retains enough humanity to warrant continued societal inclusion or if he has crossed an absolute limit beyond which retribution and permanent containment are necessary. One perspective argues that every individual possesses inherent humanity regardless of their actions, suggesting that treating a person as sub-human damages our own moral standing. Conversely, another viewpoint posits that crimes like Breivik's represent such a profound breach of social contract—specifically the desire to murder children—that they exceed normality and abnormal crime alike. From this angle, allowing someone who has demonstrated an enduring "murder desire" inertia to re-enter society is seen as insufficient for public safety or moral vindication, raising questions about whether our response to harm should prioritize suffering over rehabilitation when faced with such heinous acts. The conversation delves deeper into the multifaceted purposes of punishment within a legal system, distinguishing between containment, retribution, and rehabilitation. While Norway's approach emphasizes these elements in balance, allowing for sentence extensions if an offender remains dangerous after their initial term expires, American perspectives often lean heavily toward retributive justice driven by public anger and a desire to signal the value of victims' lives. The speakers note that how society chooses to punish offenders serves as a social signal regarding the worth of those harmed; failing to impose severe punishment can feel like devaluing the children or parents involved, potentially triggering callous instincts within the observer rather than fostering empathy. Ultimately, the dialogue acknowledges there is no perfect solution to preventing harm, but it suggests that looking at different societal models helps identify what aspects we might be overemphasizing in our own approach. The speakers reflect on whether a system focused solely on how much an offender "deserves" to suffer ignores the potential for repair and the complexity of human nature. While acknowledging the visceral reaction parents would have if their children were harmed, they also question if indulging maximum retributive impulses corrupts society's culture by failing to recognize that even those who commit atrocities remain part of the collective humanity we must navigate with care.
Read the full video transcript
In my new book, I talk about this trial
that took place in Norway
when there was, you know, Norway has
so much less crime, so much less violent
crime than the United States does. They
incarcerate way fewer people. They
incarcerate them less in less harsh
institutions for much shorter periods of
time.
Um, and it's a very rare for them to
have like a mass shooting event.
And
but they did. They had this guy Anders
Breivik who um
shot, I think, 60 children on a um an
island. They were there for a summer
camp. It was the worst mass murder in
Norway's history.
Um, this is someone who has had like who
had terrible genetic and environmental
luck. He had um a very unstable mother.
And it also he was described as someone
who's antisocial from the time he was
three or four. Norway has this
incredible wrap-around social welfare
state and
um
so you can see the
>> High visibility. the notes from the
social worker being like, "This child is
aggressive and violent. The other kids
won't be aren't allowed to play with
them cuz he keeps torturing their pets
when he's five." So even in this in in
this environment where there's
incredible social resources, this person
still grew up and still grew up to be
violent.
I found the trial fascinating.
Um, because they ultimately
sentenced him to the maximum sentence in
Norway, which is 21 years. Doesn't seem
like a lot. It's what, like
four months per child? And they gave him
he's in the maximum security prison,
which um there was an Instagram meme
which is, "Is this a Norwegian prison or
a London hotel room?" And And can't tell
the difference between them. The only
thing that puts it away is the security
camera dome on the ceiling of the prison
room.
>> Mhm.
So, things that seem quite cushy for an
American system.
Um and in the trial you see the
reckoning of a society
where they are saying
this person did a horrible thing. We
have
our maximum retributive impulses towards
him. Of course we do. He murdered our
children.
>> Mhm.
And he is still one of us. And how will
it corrupt us and our culture to indulge
those maximum impulses. So, we want to
keep our society safe but we're
recognizing that he's still one of us.
He's still Norwegian. He's still part of
our society. And from an American
perspective, it was wild like reading
the this trial transcript because it was
a way of
feeling that retribution
but not leading entirely with it and
also recognizing
the inherent humanity of this person
who's part of their society. Do you
think somebody that shot 60 kids has
that much humanity? I think we all have
that humanity.
I mean, I think that's what it comes
down to it. I think that every single
person even when they do horrible things
it's still human. And and also that even
if they don't, that me treating them
like they don't does something to my
humanity.
That seems to be two different
arguments. Um one
>> they are. So, they're related. Yeah, of
course. Yeah. Um I'm trying to separate
them out. I mean, yeah.
I was going to try I was about to say
something before that my ability to flip
empathy into pleasure at a defect as
pain
pathway
is
defunct. I always seem to err on the
side of, "I'm so sorry for that person."
You know,
always always always.
You've managed to find
an example where not just one, but it
tends to be my threshold for it tends to
be a bit higher. So, I'm thinking about
this person that shot 60 kids.
The residual amount of humanity in that
person seems to be low for me in how I
would see them.
That to me seems to be the kind of thing
even if you were to say, "What does this
do for society outside of it?" That is
such a heinous crime that I'd say it it
it is so far beyond
even the normality of abnormal crime
that that should be a you don't get
to come out again. And that would be a
prosocial as far as I can see that would
be a prosocial thing to do. First off as
a, "Hey, we have a limit here in
Sweden." Norway. Norway. Here in Norway,
we have a limit. We may be very
loving and a fun accent like a
typewriter covered in foil kicked
downstairs, but
this person has gone beyond the limit.
Uh
therefore, other people shouldn't. So, I
guess um
Yeah, and I think
>> warning them warning them off. But, the
other one being like
the
that is such an an extreme crime. Yeah.
>> The likelihood of re even if
even if his desire to murder children
drops by one per year over the next six
decades, he still wants to murder a
child.
Like I that I'm aware that's not the way
that like a fall off the murder
[laughter] murder desire works.
>> this weird like like line graph in my
head.
>> Yeah, of course. But, it's like a
it's murder desire inertia or whatever
the [ __ ] But,
to me that seems weak. That seems wimpy
and I don't think I don't think that
that is a sufficient deterrent to others
and I also don't think it is a
sufficient amount of time to basically
quarantine this person. So, there's so
many different threads in your argument
and I I want to pull them apart because
I I think they're each interesting and
in some ways it's like you just touched
on what are why do we incarcerate
people? Like why do we have a criminal
legal system? Like what is the purpose
of it, right? And one is
just containment, just protecting the
other people from this person, right? Um
I do believe in Norway it's possible
that at the end of the sentence
he's judged to still be a risk to
others, then he could be that sentence
could be lengthened for the sake of
other people.
Um one is
um some sort of expression of
retribution. Like I don't care if you
could be better in the future. I don't
care if you kind of you're going to have
a you lost that privilege.
>> You've lost the privilege. I
you did something that's beyond the pale
and now I you deserve
you deserve to not live, you deserve to
suffer, you deserve like whatever that
is.
And then one of them is
rehabilitation. So,
given that someone has done this
is there some intervention by the state,
by other people that can prevent it from
happening again, repair essentially
repair this person and repair their
relationship to the community
um such as that they
don't commit any more violent crimes.
Um
and
we don't stick with what like we don't
have one lane like your answer combined
all of those things where you're like,
but
like what if he's still a danger and
also he did such a horrible thing, maybe
it doesn't matter if he's a danger. And
also,
if he if this is such a long root of
problem, how could he ever hope to
change?
>> Yep.
Um I'm really interested by the word
weak. Like, what is it it's weak by the
state? It's weak by the juror? Like,
what what is the is it reflects weak
social bonds? Like, what is what is
being weak where?
Like, that's an interesting
Uh
it is
insufficient
uh when
held up against You asked me earlier on,
this person stabbed one guy with a box
cutter.
>> Yeah, and you're like, 25 years. Yeah, I
gave him 20 years. Like, homeboy managed
to do it to 60 children.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> have you considered
the role of
120 parents
needing to feel vindicated?
>> Yeah. I mean, I think there's
this idea of vindication and also this
sense of um I I guess I should say like
I was very moved by this episode.
>> saying that you're defending the guy
just getting the doing the thing or
getting the 20 years.
>> And I do think it speaks to a very
different w-
way of thinking of the role and function
of punishment in a society because it is
so radically different from what we do
in the United States. But, I just want
to echo like, I'm a mother. I have three
kids. Like, if I were one of those
parents,
would I be able to coolly sit here and
talk to you about not letting the
retributive instinct lead? I'm not sure.
Like, the only time I've ever like
blacked out in anger was when someone
hurt one of my children. Like, I think
there's there's a really basic thing in
there. And I think the other thing that
you're getting at is
um
we signal the value of people
by how much we're willing to punish
others who've hurt them. Mhm. Mhm. So,
you know, when we say like one of the
one of the things that made that that
um
uh dem
denotes or it comes along with the
status of being an enslaved person in a
culture is that their masters get to
hurt them
and no one there's no punishment for
that, right? So,
so I I think one of the things you're
picking up on when you say like what
about those parents
>> Mhm. is
does it signal something about the value
of those children or the value of those
children to their parents, to their
society, to the collective
if someone is not punished for hurting
them.
Um a lot of times when we someone does
something outrageous, not and not even
outrageous as mass murder, we say
who do you think you are?
And I think that's saying who do you
think I am that you think you can get
away with treating me like this. So, we
assert the value of people.
>> Correct. That's part of the social
signal of punishment and I think that's
why it
rankles. It's and I I don't think there
is any
I don't think there's any response to
harm, especially harm at that level
where there isn't going to be some
remainder that feels unsatisfying.
Either it we're going to
Kill him. Kill him, burn him and kill
him. String him up and burn him and kill
him.
>> does that do to us, right? Like I think
that really I think
what does that
do to our
societies
again honoring of the inherent value of
every human if we are so easy for anyone
to say string him up.
You know, good riddance. Like I
there there is a really
the our response to our most antisocial
people can bring out the most callous
and and unemotional and
like um
antisocial instincts of ourselves. Where
you would never under any sort of other
circumstances be like, "Let them die."
But like in this case it comes so easily
to us. Um so again, I don't think
there's a I don't think there is a
perfect solution to the the problem of
harm, but I do think by looking to other
societies
we can begin to think
well, what are we overemphasizing in our
in our approach to this, which is very
um people deserve to suffer and our job
is just to figure out how much they
deserve to suffer. Before we continue,
I've been drinking AG1
every morning for as long as I can
remember now because it is the simplest
way I found to cover my bases and not
overthink nutrition, and that is why I
partnered with them. Just one scoop
gives you 75 vitamins, minerals,
probiotics, and whole food ingredients
in a single drink. Now, they've taken it
a step further with AG1 next gen, the
same one scoop, once-a-day ritual, but
this time backed by four clinical
trials. In those trials it was shown to
fill common nutrient gaps, improve key
nutrient levels in just 3 months, and
increase healthy gut bacteria by 10
times even in people who already eat
well. They've upgraded their formula
with better probiotics, more
bioavailable nutrients, and clinical
validation. Plus, it's still NSF
certified for sport, so you know that
the quality is legit. Right now, when
you first subscribe, you can get a free
bottle of D3K2 and AG1 welcome kit, plus
bonus AG1 travel packs, and for a
limited time US customers also get a
sample of AGZ and a bottle of omega-3s.
Just go to the link in the description
below or head to
drinkAG1.com/modernwisdom.
That's drinkAG1.com/
modernwisdom.
Thank you very much for tuning in. Ooh,
tasty morsel of a clip there for you.
Well, the full episode is available
right here.
Go on.
Press it.