These are debate issues.
You’re right, I didn’t check the forum. Apologies.
Wouldn’t double jeopardy apply if he has already been tried and sentenced for the crime in Norway?
I believe this would fall under the “separate sovereign” rule, i.e. double jeopardy doesn’t apply to prosecutions by separate sovereigns.
By the way, I know that Portugal too has a maximal sentence of 30 years ( I know this because France had to promise not to apply a life sentence for a serial killer to be extradited from Portugal).
There could be numerous countries with such apparently “short” sentences. Short in particular when you consider that in Norway and Portugal too there are probably reduced sentences for good behaviour, eligibility for parole, etc…So I suspect a 21/30 years sentence probably often ends up being 10/15 years.
As I’ve mentioned before, that’s a moot point. Norway will not extradite a criminal risking the death penalty. No matter the crime, no matter the country that demands extradition.
The best known example - at least among Norwegians - of that is a certain Kurdish Iraqi citizen, Najumuddin Faraj Ahmad AKA Mullah Krekar who is suspected to be a member of a recognized terrorist organization, Ansar al-Islam. Because of the risk of a death sentence, he’s still at large in Norway.
With good behavior, you’ll usually qualify for trial release after some 2/3 of the original prison sentence here. If you get a preventive detention sentence, that principle won’t apply. If you get a preventive detention sentence you have to qualify for release, since preventive detention isn’t a punishment, it’s society protecting its citizens against dangerous criminals.
No, Article 7 S1(a) of the Norway-US bilateral extradition treaty precludes an extradition in this case.
This whole diversion is masturbatory nonsense. American courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e. the practical means to enforce a law over a specific geographical area) in any meaningful sense, no matter what they claim to the contrary.
The definition of crime against humanity in the Norwegian law is widespread or systematic attacks against a civilan population and then a list of specific crimes that apply.
While the terrorism definition includes specific crimes comitted with the purpose:
a) to disrupt important functions for the society, including government (and a list of other functions)
b) create serious fear in a population
c) unlawfully try to force government to some action or inaction of serious impact
(Quick-and-dirty translations by me.)
To me, the terrorism definition seems spot on for Breivik’s crimes, and crime against humanity doesn’t seem to fit. But I don’t have any kind of law background, and I’ve seen both of these laws mentioned in the news coverage.
I’ve seen it too, but not where the idea came from. Was it the police/prosecutor that suggested the possibility of charging him under the crimes against humanity law, or was it some expert who was speculating for the media?
I managed to dig up the treaty and I concede that it does seem to have its own double jeopardy rule, assuming that the word “offense” is read broadly. So yes, a hypothetical extradition would probably be out.
It does seem that people have been prosecuted under 18 USC 2332.
In today’s Aftenposten: A picture of the type of cell where Breivik is being held at Ila. At the moment, he is held in complete isolation, apparently in a separate area of the prison away from other inmates. He has no access to media, but according to the article, he has borrowed two books from the prison library. He spends 23 hours a day in the cell, being allowed one hour outside for exercise.
I would guess that “cushy” isn’t the first word that comes to mind… if it makes anyone feel any better.
He is supposed to be held in isolation for four weeks. However, as mentioned upthread, he is likely in danger of being killed if other inmates come near him. I’m not really sure what they’ll do about the security issues. Surely, he can’t be kept isolated for ever? Or can he?
A nice bed, a desk with a window view. Not exactly a dungeon.
The hell? You’re complaining because a fellow human being has a bed?
Of course he does.
<sarcasm>
He deserves the best the US justice system in places like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib can provide, like waterboarding, sensory deprivation and constant humiliation. Preferably mixed in with a little old-fashioned medieval torture and some drawing and quartering. Because he, and only he, decides who qualifies for universal human rights
</sarcasm>
It’s not supposed to be a dungeon, it’s supposed to be a prison. That is, a place where criminals are kept for a period of time, safe from harming others or being harmed by others, and rehabilitated for when (not if) they are released back into society.
Is there no 7th wave at Halden? 
I am wondering if the revenge/rehab ratio says something significant about a culture. Maybe the way we treat our criminals says a lot about how we see ourselves.
It’s just as I imagined it would be. Except for the plaid drapes.
You know, it’s very easy to talk about human rights, or no cruel and unusual punishments when it comes to non-violent offenders, or even run of the mill criminals, but the true test of these values is when you are faced with an Anders Brevik. If you hold true to those ideals, they apply to every person, no matter what kind of monster we think he is. Otherwise, we are nothing but animals ourselves, and no less depraved than the worst of our criminals.