I don’t know if it is the whiskey talking (I doubt it, it probably just lowered my inhibitions) but I really admire you Scandanavians. So enlightened and humane. Keep the guy segregated so he can never hurt anyone again, but don’t give into the baser desires for destruction. Your society functions pretty well (murder in general is far less common there than in a lot of other places).
Judging from his egomanical statements, I suspect the greatest punishment he could be given is to be told that he is not special and is just an average prisoner.
Definitely. A life sentence is never compulsory here, and is only possible for some crimes. For instance :
-Aggravated murder : max sentence is life with 30 years without parole
-1st degree murder (assassinat) : max sentence is life
-2nd degree murder (meurtre) without aggravating circumstances : max sentence is 30 years
-Deliberate violence resulting in death without intent to kill (not sure what would be the common law equivalent, if there’s any) : max sentence is 15 years.
Typically, sentences are lower than the maximum, and there’s no lower limit (1 year suspended sentence in a high-profile euthanasia case that was technically a first degree murder)
Is this the case in Norway? Do you know he isn’t in ‘max security’ prison. I honestly don’t know.
Even if they’d chance the law, it wouldn’t apply to Breivik… as is the case in most places. Also: THEY DON’T WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW!
Why? Your “points” are so insubstantial that they don’t even need a full sentence to be refuted. Whether dressed up with verbiage or not.
Assuming there was intent to at least cause significant harm this would still be murder I believe, under the common law.
Thanks (and yes, there must be an intent to cause harm). By the way :
If a life sentence is compulsory in all murder cases, and since there are vast differences from one murder to another (say, torturing to death a 5 year old, killing a violent bully you had every reason to hate in the heat of the moment or, hyphotetically, killing 77 people on a rampage), how are those differences handled? Who gets to decide that this life-sentenced murderer will be freed earlier than that one, and on what basis is the decision made?
For instance, let’s assume that the guy who killed the bully doesn’t behave in prison, while the kid torturer is a model prisonner. What will happen?
I believe that’s what’s called manslaughter in US law. Or US cop dramas at least :o. Although manslaughter is not necessarily deliberate - just like we have “homicide involontaire”, they have involuntary manslaughter on the books I believe.
Isn’t it obvious ? Because it calls into question the ethicality and humanity of the justice systems of people who have been culturally molded into thinking of criminals as “others”, animals lower than pond scum wot deserve to spend their days in pound me in the arse prison.
Even more so when the humane alternative appears to be getting better results on the whole.
^This.
And AFAIK, this is also a quite common sentiment among Norwegians. Perhaps particularly among the more vocal representatives of the youngsters who were at Utøya and experienced the horror firsthand.
ETA: Breivik performed his atrocities to inspire hate. At least, that’s what he claimed himself. Do we want to react the way he wanted us to react?
“Make the cell feel like a grave” isn’t a possibility in Norway either. The prison system in Norway doesn’t allow treating criminals the way they treat us, sufficiently many of our politicians and voters feel that’s the way it should stay for it to stay that way. Your view of ethics and morals obviously differs from this, but unless you realize that doesn’t make your viewpoint more correct, all you really deserve as a reply is one liners.
I’ve got a question for AdanTheSomali:
Why are you so occupied with our judiciary system? Do you think that you’re competent to say which parts of our system are necessary for our low recidivism rate and which parts we can change without turning it onto something totally different? If you are, you’re much smarter than our whole system including quite a few pretty darned smart high-level specialists. Myself, I just know that our system works better than quite a few of the alternatives, like the US system
Nowadays a recommendation is made by the judge at the sentencing, and that is the minimum that the prisoner must remain in prison. Afterwards it’s basically up to the parole board, but like in the US where that’s all politicised by loonies, over here NOW if the prisoner has behaved properly and done things right then they’ll be let free. However, they are on life licence and can be recalled to prison at any time for the remainder of their life if they commit further crimes.
That was not allways the case. Initially the judge would make a recommendation but it would not be in open court - he would write a letter to the Home Secretary who would always decide whether and when to release the prisoner. Fortunately the ECHR decided this was totally unacceptable.
Far more info here: Life imprisonment in England and Wales - Wikipedia
Realistically the kid torturer is very unlikely to be released from prison; certainly if more than one kid were involved he won’t be. No matter how nice he is there. The guy who killed the bully… well actually the reality is you have to behave VERY badly in prison here for it to be held much against you. Or so I’m led to believe from the info I have at hand. I may be prison a week on Tuesday though so if I am I’ll report back once I’m out with how that works!
I think everyone should just STFU about Norway’s criminal justice system unless their own system results in lower violent crime and recidivism rates.
Eh, I’m cool with it. I think prison terms in the USA are too long anyway.
Oh, I thought the implication was that someone was going to shank him after the gangrape. Foreigners have a silly idea of justice.
I dunno why, but I think a Norwegian gang rape would be a very polite, um, incident. 
Does anyone have a cite to an English translation of the Breivik verdict? Not a news summary; I’ve seen plenty of those. What I’m looking for is the full text of the court’s ruling. (I’m especially interested in its development of the sanity issue.) I tried several internet searches and came up dry. Thanks.
Scandinavians are very capable of being “impolite” to people they don’t like.
Ask any Muslims who’ve spent time in Norway, Sweden, or Denmark.
You don’t have to be Muslim, or even brown-skinned. Coming from the neighboring town or looking the wrong way at a guy’s girlfriend may be more than enough to land you in - um - “impolite” trouble. Especially on a late Friday night.
We’ve got our fair share of obnoxious, aggressive rednecks even here.
This is the entire verdict in Norwegian, with some anonymization. Unless someone sits down and translates it I think your best bet is muddling through it with google translate:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Her-er-hele-dommen-mot-Anders-Behring-Breivik-6973988.html