That’s not all. According to NPR, he’ll be serving his sentence in a “spacious” one-man cell with a private exercise room and his own laptop computer.
mhm. They don’t need long sentences in Norway because they treat prisoners like human beings and actually focus strongly on rehabilitation.
Prisons should *not *function in a punitive sense, they should be for protecting society in the future.
Good. If only US prisons could claim such humane conditions.
That’s the assumption, but there’s no guarantee. Everything I’ve read says it’s “likely.” But what if he repents? What if he does everything he needs to do to be considered rehabilitated? Why is there no sentencing provision that absolutely guarantees someone like this will never get out?
He’s never getting out of prison. I understand that the law doesn’t guarantee it, which is why the news reports say “likely,” but it is never going to happen. Seriously, imagine being that parole board: he murdered 77 people in a meticulously plotted attack. The court declared that he is sane. What is he going to say that would convince you he’s not a danger anymore? Would you take him at his word if he says he’s sorry?
There is no point at which the math starts to look sane on this guy, by the way. If he lived in jail for 200 years, that’s 2.6 years per murder. 2.6 years!
(Double-post)
There’s not doubt the crime rate in Norway is lower. But I seriously doubt it’s because they’re relatively lenient on murderers. Using that logic, crime would go up if all murderers stayed in prison forever.
Murder really isn’t additive like that - he’s being locked up for being a mass-murderer, but I doubt the Norwegians are looking at it as a price-per-pound kind of deal.
You really think there isn’t any relationship between being the kind of society that focuses on rehabilitation not punishment, and being the kind of society that has less violent crime? You have the relationship backwards, which leads to your ridiculous end-point.
Obviously there’s a maximum amount this guy can spend per murder… which would be life. But why not guarantee it’s at least that? If there’s no doubt he’ll be there for life, why not just codify that into law? Why have a 21 year maximum penalty to begin with? In Norway’s eyes, are their truly no crimes where someone immediately gets life without having to bother adding more time at the end? What if he only killed 10 people and was immediately repentant? Does that not still deserve an iron-clad life sentence? If you consider Lockerbie, that guy killed a lot more than 77 and he got out. So that degree of absurdity is not beyond Europe in general.
That’s already been explained to some extent. It sounds like they don’t feel that way, and it doesn’t bother or outrage me.
Different reason, though. He got a compassionate release because he was dying of cancer. That exists in the U.S., too. The Scottist authorities may have been deceived there, but he didn’t get out because his sentence was up.
There’s no correlation between keeping murderers in jail forever and higher crime rates. If every murderer in Norway, Europe or the world were kept in prison for life, the violent crime rate would not go up. Rehabilitation is for criminals who should have a reasonable expectation of getting out. It comes down to whether or not we think it’s uncompassionate to keep murderers in jail for life. I think, in most circumstances, that’s the least they should get, assuming the prisons don’t engage in cruelty or unusual punishment. I’m waiting for an argument to suggest that’s expecting too much.
I don’t have a problem with 21 years maximum punishment and unlimited potential incapacitation. I don’t think there is going to be much greater deterrence after 21 years. How many people would commit a crime for 20 years but not risk it for 50?
Anyway, I’m not sure jail is even the right place. Anyone who does something that extreme cannot be mentally sound. And most definitely has a tortured interior life far worse than any prison could deliver.
Why is there even the possibility that they could’ve been deceived? Would it really have been uncompassionate to make him stay in prison, cancer or no? Have we really taken the concept of compassion to the absurd extreme where it’s considered too harsh for a man who killed 250 people to suffer his cancer behind bars instead of as a hero in his homeland?
That’s what the trial was about. The prosecution said he was insane and should be hospitalized, the defense said he was sane.
For minor crimes and non-violent offenses, I’m all for rehabilitation. Someone who did what Breivik did can be fed slowly into a wood chipper feet first, for all I care. Some acts are sufficiently heinous that the actor should forfeit the opportunity to be rehabilitated.
Or, indeed, he could simply have lived longer than anyone expected. But yes, his release was standard enough in the circumstances.
Norway’s system is different, but it looks perfectly capable of keeping him in jail for the rest of his life. You realize that Charles Manson comes up for parole every few years, we don’t seem to worry about him getting out.
I’m not defending Charles Manson, but he’s a choirboy compared to Breivik. Manson never actually killed anyone himself.
Does anyone know what the procedure is for imposing an extended sentence? Is there a hearing before the court? An opportunity for appeal?
If our own government were to have the power to extend prisoners’ sentences indefinitely based upon a danger-to-society standard, I think many of us would find that unsettling and open to abuse.
That’s the case with some sex offenders and people seem to be ok with it.