Yes, I apologize. I should have looked at wiki or used a clearer word choice. What I meant is that in Norway, like the Rest of Europe, private citizens do not commonly own guns. In theory by law with a license, people in Germany can also own guns, either for hunting or because they belong to a sports club; but there is a different culture, and as a result, private guns are not widespread, which results in less crimes committed with guns.
Why would there be a home invasion? This isn’t the wild west or Mad Max with roving gangs armed to the teeth.
I don’t know about Sweden, but you won’t get a license for a handgun for hunting in Norway. Ever. Handgun hunting isn’t legal. However, if you’re above 21, have been an active member of a pistol shooting club for at least 6 months and have a clean record, it’s not at all difficult to get a license for a sporting handgun. Including classics like the 1911/2011, Glock or other “service” type pistols.
I still disagree. Hunting or sporting guns are very common among private citizens, especially in rural areas.
Drive around Norway outside the major roads, and you’ll probably see more roadsigns to “Skytebane” (eng. “Shooting range”) than churches. But guns for self-defense are less common than hen’s teeth.
ETA:
Almost. We’ve had a few instances where East European gangsters invade the home of elderly people living far away from everybody else, but otherwise, home invasions are practically unheard of.
Who has tried to draw such a conclusion?
Saying that prison probably has some deterrent value is not the same thing as saying it’s the only reason / factor in whether people commit crimes.
Two things. First, at the moment, he is being held awaiting trial. He has not yet had his day in court, which means that under the law he is still presumed innocent. Yes, I know he has confessed. Yes, I agree his crimes are unusually hideous. Nevertheless. The law is still the law. He is being held, not punished, at this time.
Second, assuming he is found guilty - and at this time I can’t imagine any other outcome - he will be punished as every other prisoner is punished: by losing his personal freedoms. He will be treated under the law as equal to everyone else. Since Norway has abolished Count-of-Monte-Cristo type prisons, they cannot be recreated for one man. And if they were, what purpose would it serve? It wouldn’t do his victims one bit of good, but it would make him more important than he is, because it would damage our democracy and its rule of law, even just a little.
“A nation of laws and not of men” - that’s John Adams, I believe. The same John Adams who agreed to represent the soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, not because he didn’t believe they were guilty as sin, but because he believed every man had the same rights under the law (in this case the right to an attorney), and that if they didn’t apply to people accused of horrible crimes, then in time it wouldn’t apply at all. The laws have to apply to Breivik, too, or what are they worth?
Quite.
I have been thoroughly impressed by the statements made by Breivik’s defense attorney, Geir Lippestad. This is exactly the reason that he took upon himself to defend the worst killer in Norway since 1945.
I sincerely believe that the only way not to lose to the terrorist’s sick, twisted ideas is to uphold the humane standards of a civilized society, and both the public reactions in Norway and the - so far - humane treatment of someone who has turned into a monster, even from a lawyer who despises his actions, give me hope for the future.
If any of the victims are American, then perhaps he can be sent here to be prosecuted and put to death once his 21 years are up. I imagine something similar would apply if any of the victims are citizens of other countries outside of Scandinavia.
Yeah, perhaps he can be shot into the sun with a giant trebuchet, too. The crime occurred in Norway. Why the hell would any court in the US or outside of Norway have jurisdiction?
Believe it or not, the US has a statute prohibiting terrorist murders of Americans abroad.
18 U.S.C. 2332:
Unless I am misreading it, this statute would seem to apply if any of the victims was an American.
It can apply all it wants. The chances of Norway recognizing that American courts have any sort of jurisdiction over an act that took place in Norway and extraditing him once he’s finished a jail sentence prescribed by the Norwegian courts to face American justice is nil.
Well that’s a different issue. You seemed to be disputing that American courts would have jurisdiction over the guy.
As far as the odds of extradition go, I would say it depends on who the victims are. So far it doesn’t seem he killed any Americans, let alone prominent Americans. But if he did kill any prominent Americans, I would say there is a decent chance the USA would lean on Norway to extradite him.
Especially if the whole point was to give Breivik the death penalty. Norway - and the rest of Western Europe - will not extradict a prisoner if he or she might receive the death penalty.
But really, why is this an issue? He committed a crime in Norway. He will be tried in Norway, and if he is found guilty, he will be sentenced and serve his sentence in Norway.
Well some people have a problem with the fact that such a heinous criminal will receive such a mild punishment. Some people believe that heinous criminals should be made to suffer. As I recall, this is known as the “retribution” theory of criminal justice.
A civilized society never rules by death threats and terror. As flodnak says, we don’t extradite criminals who risk the death penalty. So just forget that idea.
ETA: IMO, the best punishment is to let him grow old behind bars while realizing that he has wasted his life on a sick ideology and seeing our society move in the opposite direction of what he wanted to achieve
I disagree, but this is pretty clearly a debate question.
You mean, like whether the Utøya victims can be compared to the Hitler Youth?
Yes.
Q: Who do you have to kill to get a decent cup of coffee in Norway?
A: Pretty much anybody.
Rehabilitation is not a foreign concept in western prisons but the level taken in Norway is substantially higher in areas that are somewhat confusing. Learning a trade or psychological counseling would make sense but learning to ride a unicycle and personal trainers seem like a waste of money. Frankly, the prisoners are living a lifestyle that is better than mine. I can’t afford a personal trainer or cable TV or unicycle lessons and I don’t see how that would help getting a job and blending back into society which is what the prisoners need. But if the prisoners can learn how to turn graffiti into a million dollar venture then more power to them.
But see, since this was a crime committed by a Norwegian, against Norwegians, on Norwegian soil, it’s a little hard to see why the amount of suffering caused to the accused in this case is of so much interest to people who aren’t Norwegian that they wish they could declare jurisdiction over the case and set aside the decision of the judiciary of a sovreign nation.
In other words, he’s our asshole and we’ll take care of him in our way and according to our laws. Thank you for your concern.
Well, it does give some people a great opportunity to show how hard-assed they are, sitting safely in their little basement in front of a keyboard