Psst… Might want to look up “recidivism.”
Could all you guys talking about some Norwegian dude please stop hijacking the thread? I don’t think we’ve quite resolved how many people get offed in Kill Bill yet. Kthxbai.
I’m all for the humane treatment of criminals. This man is not just some criminal though, he is a monster. The moment you willingly murder dozens of children in cold blood is the moment you give up your rights as a human being. Some people don’t deserve to live, Breivik’s one of them. The United States may not be in the best of places right now but I’m glad I live in a country where justice can still be served.
No you aren’t.
and guess what, when authoritarian forms of punishment were used, crime persisted. Lifespans were far shorter, regardless of whether gout or murderers got to one. One aspect of of the social program of enlightened countries that have among the lowest crime rates and highest quality of life in the world is humane treatment of prisoners. While it’s impossible to establish causation, I linked evidence to that effect earlier.
21 years for extinguishing 77 lives? Man, if I had an agenda and wanted a forum where I could air my whackadoodle rantings to the world, I know where I’d head.
Yes, and welcome!
I still believe this reflects a difference in societies. In Scandinavia one could pay the wereguild after murdering someone, and in the USA one could be hanged for stealing a horse.
21 years in the first instance. At that point, the court will review his case. If he is found to still be a danger to society, he can be held for 5-10 additional years of custody. At the end of that time, the court can review his case again, and if he is still a danger to society, 5-10 more years. And so on. It may be easier to think of it as a life sentence with a mandatory parole hearing after 21 years.
No judge is going to want to be the one who sets a mass murderer free.
I don’t see him leaving prison in any other way but a pine box.
I’m pretty glad - and quite proud - that I live in a country where we don’t grade human rights according to some more or less arbitrary standard.
We don’t treat Breivik correctly for his sake, and personally I couldn’t care less about his personal problems. We treat Breivik correctly and according to human standards for our own sake. If we start grading humans and assigning different rights to live, we are on our way to becoming the same kind of monster he is. If we allow for that, we’ve gone from a fundamental difference to a difference in where we are on the same scale. Our treatment of the worst offenders is where we really show whether we really mean “decent and fair treatment of all, according to the rules”, or if that’s just lipservice. Just as the litmus test of freedom of speech is whether we are willing to defend that right also for the opinions we disagree most with.
I don’t believe at all that he’ll get a regular prison sentence, which is a maximum of 21 years here. To qualify for a prison sentence, there has to be a reasonable chance for rehabilitation. His own statements during the trial show perfectly well that rehabilitation ain’t too high on the probability scale. Most bets are on either a declaration that he’s criminally insane involuntary commitment to a closed mental hospital, or he’ll be sentenced to preventive detention. Both of those sentences allow for an indefinite period behind locked doors, because legally they’re not regarded as punishments. Those sentences are our society’s tools for protection against persons who are too dangerous to let out on the streets.
And if he ever is rehabilitated to the level of qualification for release, he’ll also realize fully what he’s done. Somehow I hope for that, because I can hardly think of a worse punishment for any human than realizing fully that you’ve taken 77 lives for no good reason at all. I don’t think a mentally sound and competent person could easily live with that knowledge.
Thanks, flodnak!
Just let’s be clear on the terms here. Preventive detention ≠ prison. Prison is a punishment with an aim for rehabilitation, preventive detention is “only” society protecting itself against those who can’t be let out on the streets. The procedure you’re describing only applies to preventive detention
Here, though, we totally agree.
Yeah, but I bet it’ll be a finely crafted Norwegian pine box with a beautiful glossy finish and pillowy-soft upholstery. Coddlers.
How can you kill 77 people in self-defense?
Practice, practice, practice!
Bleh, they always claim that they’re at some sort of grand war against “them” and that they were compelled to act. McVeigh/Nichols, Rudolph, Kaczynski, we got plenty of these types and the other countries have them too… and those here in the USA were not much deterred by our “tough” approach to crime and punishment from making their point, were they?
BTW, some of this handwringing about *“OMG! Just 21 Years and adequate quarters!” * reminds me of the question of how can you have morality w/o fear of a Hell. It’s not the prospect of death or of a lifetime in a bare concrete cubicle eating pink slime that dissuades most non-nutjob people from terrorist murder, it’s that most non-nutjob people just don’t consider it an option on the table. And the nutjobs will wear their death-row or supermax address as a badge of “honor”.
Lifetime removal from society ***is ***a useful tool to avoid recidivism by the incorrigible, but as per the reports from Norway, that can be achieved in this case by just restricting him for as long as it’s determined he’s still a threat to himself and others. Is anyone realistically concerned Charlie Manson or his surviving disciples will one day be let loose by the parole board?
They are better at rehab than the US prisons, although I think this guy is crazy and can’t be rehabilitated. Like the man said, no judge is going to let this guy out.
Yes. If the death sentence was an option, and Breivik was given it, he would go to his grave certain that he was dying a martyr’s death. Because in his mind, you see, he did what he did for the love of his people. And if they put him to death because they didn’t understand or appreciate that he had to do these awful things for their sake? That’s a messiah complex waiting to happen…
Thank you for the clarification. So would he have faced the exact same punishment had he killed just one child instead of 77? I’m trying to understand why he’s not facing 21 years x 77 victims, as a matter of principle, if not simply to guarantee that he will remain incarcerated for the remainder of his life.
I mean, I can totally get the criticism of the US’s criminal justice system and the notion that punishing brutality with more brutality is senseless. But do you also concede the criticism that 21 years for murdering 77 people is horrifically light?
Breivik reminds me of our notorious nutjob, Charles Manson. Manson carried out executions upon innocent people, and when caught, remained defiant and unapologetic. He narrowly escaped the death penalty, and has sat in prison for 40 years. Just last week, he declined to attend his latest mandatory parole hearing. Sadly, the victim’s families were not so lucky:
“For four decades, Debra Tate has traveled to whatever rural California prison has held the notorious cult leader and his band of murderous followers for hearings she said are too numerous to count.”
So, while I appreciate your justice system’s willingness to forgive and rehabilitate, at some point even the most forgiving person would agree that, in rare instances, rehabilitation and release is simply not a realistic option. As you admit, no judge is ever going to release this guy from jail. So why go through the pretense? Why not just outright face 21 years x 77 victims, to guarantee that he’ll remain in bars. At the very least, you can spare the Debra Tate’s of the world the need to attend parole hearings every 5-10 years.
As far as I’m aware, he didn’t carry out any of the executions, he merely commanded them.
He wouldn’t suffer under it for long if they put him to death.
Though I do agree that he shouldn’t be put to death.
I have long advocated, though, that prisoners sentenced to very long prison terms should have an option of assisted suicide instead. Not that I expect he, or most prisoners for that matter, would choose that option.