I agree that if there were no American victims, then he cannot (and should not) be subjected to American justice. That’s why my first post started with the qualifier “If any of the victims are American.”
And I said wish for a good reason. You wish you could make this guy hurt, so much that you wish you could bring down the American concept justice upon him. All I said is that I don’t understand why.
I’m not sure “wish” is the right word but I do think that in general, people who engage in that sort of behavior should face capital punishment and I do think that Norway’s criminal justice system should be more severe. At the same time, I accept that Norway gets to decide how it will treat murderers in Norway just like the US (and its states) get to decide how they will treat its own criminals.
That’s fine, but IF he had killed an American, he would be our asshole. And we wouldn’t let him serve 21 years in a country club and then go home. We would kill him right back.
But, since he didn’t, have fun with him in 22 years walking the street with you after he is rehabilitated by watching flat screen TV and listening to library DVDs.
By the way, according to news reports, one of the victims – Tamta Liparteliani – was from Georgia (the former Soviet Republic).
What’s the worst that can happen. He gets out and kills a couple hundred people. No reason to change anything over that. Now if he does it while riding a unicycle… that’s something worth looking into.
I wonder if they will let him wear those goofy uniforms while in prison. Maybe he can get a note from a psychologist saying it will help in his rehabilitation.
My understanding is that Norwegian laws include a thirty-year sentence for crimes against humanity and sentences can be extended in five-year blocks. So he probably won’t be free in 21 years.
As long as they have a way to bypass their own laws.
I’m not sure what you mean by “bypass their own laws,” since both the five-year extension and the thirty-year sentence are part of existing law.
bypass their sense of justice then. How’s that.
In the name of fighting ignorance: We can’t extend the punishment in five-year block after the sentence has been passed -that would be a seriously unjust justice system. But someone can be sentenced to preventive detention, in order to protect the rest of the society, if a court determines there’s a serious risk of reoffending, and it’s a serious crime. More info: http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/index.php?id=433056
Regarding the 21 years versus 30 years punishment:
Maximum punishment for terrorism: 21 years (law in Norwegian: http://lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/all/tl-19020522-010-018.html )
Maximum punishment for crimes against humanity: 30 years (law in Norwegian: http://lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/all/tl-20050520-028-018.html §102 ),
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with flodnak and 2square4u.
As a Norwegian saying goes: Wish in one hand, spit in the other and see where you can find anything.
You’d never get your hands on him, 'cause no matter the crime, we don’t extradite people who risk the death penalty.
And besides, he won’t serve time in a country club. He’ll probably serve or - depending on the type of sentence, prison or preventive detention - be locked up for the protection of society in a high security prison like this one. And, for his own safety, probably without any contact with the other inmates. I’ve mentioned previously that there’s been several death threats against him, and one of the gangs in Oslo has put a price on his head.
Is this a “crime against humanity”? When I think of that term, I think of the holocaust, Rwanda, or ethnic cleansing in Serbia. To use that term for a single act of whatever magnitude would not fit with what I think of that term to mean.
I understand the opposition to the DP, but why wouldn’t Norway at least have such a thing as a life sentence (either with or without possibility of parole)? What is the rational opposition to that?
Thank you for the clarification. This BBC News article suggests three possible sentencing options; 21 years 30 years for crimes against humanity or preventative detention, which is a five-year sentence extensible indefinitely. As you said, an existing sentence cannot be extended by five years.
Nitpick: A sentence of up to 21 years, with a subsequent possibility of extensions up to five years at the time. Here’s the procedure:
1: A preventive detention sentence, usually in the range of 10-21 years.
2: After the allotted time, a new evaluation of whether the perpetrator is still assumed to be a danger to society, in which case the original sentence is prolonged by up to five years.
3: Goto 2.
Not Norway here, but I’d say a possible reason is that it presumes the convict is irredeemable and incorrigible and there’s no use in thinking of rehabilitation (even if adding the possiblility of parole does account for the event of rehabilitation); in the case of Life without Parole, that would be considered by many to be de-facto death on the slow plan - see how it’s often the alternative sentence in capital cases in the USA. Plus hey, it’s expensive to keep someone in prison for 21 years, you want to keep him in for 70? Now, since some people ARE a danger to society beyond one immediate act at one point in time, Norway has the option of protective detention, where after a 21 year term there’s then a quinquennial evaluation of continued danger.
BTW: Multi-hundred year consecutive sentences, as given in many US jurisdictions, are a way to manufacture a Lw/oP sentence out of multiple fixed-time sentences when you can’t make a Lw/oP charge stick or you don’t even have the option in the books (e.g. here where Murder-1 is fixed at 99 years with parole eligibility at 25 plus good conduct credit). But I say if the society wants whole-life imprisonment, then the legislature should statute it as such.
No he wouldn’t. He’s a Norwegian, and any actions he takes in Norway are primarily their concern, regardless of who he acts against. The only time it would be America’s concern would be if he did something that would be illegal in America but not Norway.
Not that anyone should ever be extradited to America, as you don’t have a justice system, you have a revenge system, and that is, or should be, incompatible with European human rights laws.
Why would anyone want a life without parole sentence? What possible use is it? There’s no incentive for the prisoner to rehabilitate, and they can never become a member of society. Note that an indefinite detention of a dangerous person is not the same thing - it’s not a punishment for a crime for one thing.
There are different theories of criminal justice: Rehabilitation; Specific Deterrence; General Deterrence; Incapacitation; and Retribution are the most well known.
The possible uses of life without parole are General Deterrence and Retribution. As to General Deterrence, it is an empirical question whether life without parole sentences deter people.
As to retribution, a lot of people feel that simply as a matter of justice a cold-blooded murderer should be made to suffer; that his victims will never enjoy another free day and therefore he should never enjoy another free day either.
It’s been empirically shown that likelihood of punishment is what deters potential criminals, not the nature of punishment.
Yes, they do. However, both European human rights law and the US constitution make it clear that a punishment solely designed to make the recipient suffer are wrong (in the US case, for a certain view of what “cruel and unusual punishment” means).
To put it bluntly, we shouldn’t attempt to make criminals suffer the way they made their victims suffer because we are better than them.