The sentence was handed down today for Anders Behring Breivik, the mass murderer of 77 men, women and children. The punishment? 21 years. 21 years. For 77 murders. That’s fewer than 3 months per murder. Americans have a general feeling that Europe is soft on crime, but 21 years?. This would seem to reinforce the stereotype in a major way. First Ireland releases the Lockerbie bomber to a hero’s welcome and now this. I realize Norwegian sentencing laws allow for more time to be added and that it’s “likely Breivik will spend the rest of his life in prison.” But, why is that only “likely?” Why not just give the guy a life sentence? In what universe should this guy ever draw breath outside of prison? Is the stereotype true? Please make sense of this for me.
To avoid this becoming more than an IMHO rant, here’s the debate: Assuming this sentence isn’t an outlier, what is the rationale for such an absurdly light sentence? Is there some bonafide research to indicate this is actually more effective in crime prevention than just locking guys like this up forever? Is it purely the sense that prison is for prevention with no goal of equal punishment? I’m not suggesting the death penalty (this need not turn this into that debate), but does this strike anyone else as going in the opposite direction to the extreme?
Yeah, those other countries are all the same anyway, and clearly they all ought to run their legal systems just like the United States, where he might have got a sensible sentence like 77 times life. Why, with a sensible 'Mercan sentencing policy, before long places like Norland could have just as high a proportion of their population in prison as America does!
They can extend the sentence by up to three years a time once it has run as I understand it if a prisoner is still deemed to pose a danger to the public. From talking to Norwegians it seems likely Breivik will never be released from prison.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The U.S. prison system isn’t grossly overcrowded because mass murderers get life sentences. It’s primarily because of myopic drug laws.
I’m guessing that there was no option to try him separately on multiple accounts in order to get a longer sentence? Or does that fly in the face of what appears to be a national sentiment toward rehabilitation and compassionate treatment of the convicted?
Well, had I to guess, trying to get a longer sentence would drag the process out, cost a lot more, and end with the same result - he gets declared dangerous and spends his life in jail regardless of the actual sentence.
Are you suggesing it would be uncompassionate to expect a man who murdered 77 men, women and children to spend the rest of his life in prison? Would it be uncompassionate to expect a man who murdered only one person to spend the rest of his life in prison?
He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. I don’t see the point in playing games with the numbers. The most he can do in prison is life, and if you assume he lives about 50 years in jail, that’s all of 8 months per murder.
Here’s an easy question for the hypothetical researcher- what’s the violent crime rate in Norway compared toa country that does dish out life- and death-sentences like candy. Say, oh, for instance, the United States.
Long prison sentences are a huge problem in our country (U.S.) I don’t think anyone would really object to this particular guy getting life in prison, but I do think we need to give more thought to what we’re trying to accomplish with our prison system. Expressing outrage is a slippery slope that we’ve slipped pretty far down. The concept of punishing someone *enough * is subject to a lot of subjective analysis. 21 years may not seem like much since people in this country can get that much for growing pot, but it’s quite a long time. I don’t know about you, but if you told me I had to spend the next 21 years of my life in a cell, I’d have to change a lot of my plans.