Google translate of the paragraphs on the actual sentence (with minor modifications by me to weed out the most obvious Google Translate errors):
Basically, he was given the maximum penalty allowed by Norwegian laws at the time of the crime. According to our constitution, we can’t change the laws retroactively to give him a harder sentence.
Right now, there are the beginnings of a debate on extending the maximum penalty allowed in Norwegian law (30 years for crimes against humanity, 21 years for (mass) murder). We’ll see if this will lead to harsher penalties in the future.
On a lighter note, I can’t remember ever seeing a report gutted the way the first psychological assessment was treated in the verdict. The authors - who supposedly were well qualified persons - have not been available for interviews by the media since the verdict. I’d probably be willing to bet some money that it’ll take a while before they’re willing to give interviews…
The problem is that no punishment is a deterrent unless there’s a significant chance of getting caught.
You’ve seen all those movies where criminals are making plans with timetables, blueprints etc. None of that stuff is to make committing the crime easier or getting the lightest possible sentence. It’s all about avoiding of getting caught and only that. You can give mandatory death sentences to everybody who steals an apple and it won’t reduce apple thefts if there’s no threat of getting caught.
But ( like Kobal2 pointed in post # 107 ) if ‘punishment’ is just taking care of that criminal gains nothing, it’s enough if they are caught 100%.
So the answer is not harsher punishments, it’s getting crime clearance rate up. Sure, it probably never will reach 100%, but that’s not an excuse for not trying it.
I tried to find something on crime clearance rates by nation to make a comparisons with crime rates, but found nothing until I got bored. I think it would still make a very interesting study.
Yes, he should be locked away for the rest of his life, but it still is inhumane.
Actually, it’s only half the answer. The other half is reducing or eliminating the socio-cultural factors that *lead *to crime. I’m sure a portion of criminals of any stripe are what they are because of biological kinks but most of them are made, not born.
(Which is also why there’s hope they can be unmade)
The way I understand what you say is that, though a life sentence is compulsory, the judge will recommend a minimum duration and most of the time the culprit will be paroled at the end of this time.
So, in practice, there are sentences with a set duration in the UK. And this duration is mostly decided by the judge. Again, if I understand correctly, assuming an identical crime and punishment, a French jury will hand out a (max) 25 years sentence with the culprit being in fact paroled after, say, 15 years while a British judge will hand out a life sentence with a (min) recommendation of 15 years, and the culprit will also be out after those 15 years (albeit with a life sentence floating above his head).
And the difference between the child torturer and the bully killer in the UK will be that the first one will get a much longer min recommendation (how long can this min sentence be, by the way? Can the judge recommend 6 months? 99 years?)
The judge can recommend a “whole life order” in some cases. There are various starting points depending on the severity of the crime, age of the defendant and so on. After that, aggravating and mitigating factors are taken into account to determine the actual minimum term.
I can’t actually see anything that would prevent a judge from recommending 6 months, but I’d be very surprised to see it happen.
Thanks. I see the “whole life order” would apply to Breivik (“murder for political, religious or ideological cause”) and also to my child murderer (“murder of child involving abduction, sexual or sadistic motivation”) , while my bully murderer would get less than 15 years ( “provocation not amounting to a defence of provocation” mitigating circumstance) .
I also see that the judge recommendations are quite strictly framed, most common circumstances being listed along with the “appropriate” minimum recommendation, so limiting quite a lot his latitude (I suppose even more so since common law is heavily reliant on precedent)
It appears to me that since the culprit can’t be paroled before the end of the minimum term, and since this minimum term can be “whole life”, life without parole does exist in the UK. I didn’t know that. Am I correct?
It’s interesting to see that the British and French systems (apart from other differences) take opposite starting points when it comes to sentencing. In practice, in the UK, you’re sentenced to a minimum term of X years, and in France to a maximum term of X years. Surprisingly enough, the US system seems more French-like than British-like from this point of view. Is the system used in Canada, Australia, etc… similar to the British example?
(as for the 6 months recommendation, I mentioned above a French euthanasia case. It was by the mother, and the “victim” had previously written an heavily publicized and discussed open letter to the president, asking for the right to die. Though a professionnal judge might be less lenient than jurors in such a case, I guess it’s a possible circumstance : “belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy” coupled with “detailed consideration of the factors may result in a minimum term of any length”)
Actually, Breivik was sentenced under the old terrorism law. The new one, of 2009, increased the maximum sentence from 21 years to 30. Apparently, the law hasn’t come into force yet due to outdated computer systems in use by the police and court administration.
Breivik was not charged with crimes against humanity, which currently carries a maximum sentence of 30 years, the computer systems have been upgraded for that particular law.
I should hope not. I don’t mean any disrespect to Breivik’s victims nor do I intend to diminish the tragedy, but judging by the precedents I should expect crimes against humanity to involve more than “just” one individual chucking grenades or shooting into a crowd.
According to Wiki, the ICC defines such crimes as “particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”
Last time I checked, chucking fragmentation grenades at groups of civilians wasn’t official policy in Norway. That’d be overreaching on the part of the riot police in my humble opinion.
That fits with my understanding, yes (IANAL). Breivik could also be subject to a whole life order for “two or more victims involving specified aggravating features”, I would think.
Again, that’s my understanding. It’s unusual, but life without parole is possible. I’m sure I read somewhere recently that there are about 50 people in the UK to whom this applies, but don’t quote me. I’ll look for a cite for that.
I’ve no idea about the systems used in Canada or Australia, but in the British system murder is something of an outlier, in that a life sentence is mandatory. Other crimes are treated differently. The mandatory life sentence was a concession to MPs who supported the death penalty when it was abolished in the 1960s.
Just to be clear, though, it’s still the judge who decides on the sentence in British courts. If a jury was sympathetic to a defendant who was obviously technically guilty, their only option would be to refuse to convict.
Regarding the Life sentence being totally weird in the British context, indeed it is, and there is a commission looking at it now. It probably won’t last that much longer. The path towards civilized treatment of people continues.
Not that that path is likely to lead to too many on that list ever being let out. While I would actually in an ideal world have them really loving, yes, loving, confinement, it’s not fair on society to let them out to hurt people. Maybe in the future you could have a robot following them around to stop them doing damage and they could have some sembalance of freedom…
Regarding the robot, I had this idea of a “Psychopath Assistance Dog”. I mean, we have dogs to stop blind people walking in front of cars, dogs to make sure that deaf folks know that the phone is ringing, so why not have dogs to help lunatics avoid accidentally committing murder?
Yes, I understand that. What I meant was that a jury deciding on the sentence (France) might be more sympathetic in such a case than a professional judge doing the same (UK).
I notice on this list that one person (Michael Roberts) got a whole life sentence despite not being guilty of murder (multiple rapes of elderly women).
ETA : this articlementions that he was given four life sentences. So it seems that multiple life sentences are possible too in the UK.
Given how recently the sentence was given I wouldn’t be amazed if it was removed as wrong in principle, if not by our law lords then by the ECHR, perhaps using the same rationale as preventing the death sentence in the US for rapes - no incentive not to kill the victim.
But bear in mind his was a horrific case. He’s certainly not the kind of person who should be let into society if he’s anything like how he was. In terms of what happened to some of his victims he was basically a murderer, and they were not "one off"s by any means.