It’s an outlier. Being sentenced to the harshest punishment allowed by law is a rarity.
It there some bonafide research that locking him up forever in the manner Norwegian law allows is actually less effective than an immediate lifetime without parole sentence?
What’s, objectively speaking, the equal punishment for mass murder? Or for a single murder even? In Norwegian law we’ve decided to limit the punishment to 21 years. That’s one third of an above average adult lifespan. Menaces like Breivik, who, at the time of sentencing, are assumed to be a continuing menace to society, are instead sentenced to preventative detention, which can be extended for five years at a time indefinitely.
I can’t speak for everyone, but no, I can imagine far more lenient systems. It surprises me that you can’t.
My personal estimate is that there is no sentence that would have deterred him, so what’s the point of going for a ludicrously long sentence like 80 time life, which seems to be popular in the US?
Nobody’s talking about treating him like an animal. We’re talking about keeping him for life in the same conditions that he’d be kept for any shorter period. If you think that’s “treating him like an animal” then nobody should be sent to prison. Crime rates can only be affected by those who aren’t incarcerated. That’s basic common sense. Whether a criminal deserves parole or not is distinct from what might happen if he gets out. If we kept all violent prisoners in locke-up forever, I can assure you violent crime rates would be exceedingly low. But, we know that not everyone deserves that, so we attempt to rehabilitate. If we decide a mass murderer doesn’t deserve to get out at all, rehabilitation doesn’t matter because crime rates won’t somehow go up by him staying in prison.
I don’t see the humanity in sentencing for life without any possibility of rehabilitation. That doesn’t mean nobody should ever be sentenced to prison for limited time spans.
No, you’d just have a LOT more murders of potential witnesses. And in general, this sort of effect is precisely why countries with stupidly-high sentencing tend to hive high crime rates.
The judicial system and the mindset towards criminals and their rehabilitation is part of the cultural conditions that set the US and Norway apart. It’d be kind of hard to run a prison system where some of the prisoners, those thought redeemable, were to be treated humanely, while being inhumane to the irredeemable. Norway has chosen treating all of them humanely.
Norway didn’t build him a customized resort-style cell, he’s staying at a Norwegian prison cell under the same conditions as anyone who was dangerously violent and also at risk from other prisoners.
So how many years in captivity do you *feel *a single murder oughta be worth ? What precise sentencing length accomplishes true justice, vindicates the families or the victims ?
[QUOTE=Victor Charlie]
Who’s talking about torture? Life without a laptop computer or private exercise space is torture?
[/QUOTE]
Life in a sharply confined space without any meaningful social contact is torture. News at 11.
I’d suggest you go even a month without talking to anyone or with any entertainment whatsoever to ascertain that fact. But of course, even that empirical experiment would be majorly flawed. You’d know it’d only last one month/as long as you can hold on without gasping for breath. Prison lasts as long as *they *think you deserve.
[QUOTE=Max Torque]
he’s incapable of meaningful rehabilitation
[/QUOTE]
Is he now ? And you’re saying this based on lengthy conversations with the man, I’m sure ?
[QUOTE=Victor Charlie]
If we kept all violent prisoners in locke-up forever, I can assure you violent crime rates would be exceedingly low.
[/QUOTE]
The idea that the threat of prison/death penalty deters crime in any significant way is thoroughly misinformed if only for one very simple and intuitive reason: if you think you’re going to get caught, you don’t commit a crime. It’s not like there’s some “20 years vs. $20 million” probablities/risk assessment going on. Or, in the case of people like Breivik, you think that the result is worth the sure death/captivity.
That means murderers are even LESS likely to get life sentences in Norway, which is actually my point.
[QUOTE}It there some bonafide research that locking him up forever in the manner Norwegian law allows is actually less effective than an immediate lifetime without parole sentence?[/QUOTE]
Again, it’s assumed he’ll be in prison forever. Why not make that a guarantee so the thousands of surviving family members don’t ever have to think about his incarceration being re-evaluated every five years? Is there really no consideration paid to them? What if someday he’s dying of cancer? Will he be released like the Lockerbie bomber? Apparently, that would be the compassionate thing to do.
There certainly is no equal. The best you can do is until they’re dead. Shouldn’t you at least do that? Why does a murderer get one-third of his life taken? How do you arrive at that number? If it’s meant to be a quantitative amount, why not give him at least the number of years he took from his victim, or as close to it as you can get? Kill a five year old, get 58 years. Kill two five year-olds, get 116 years or life, whichever comes first. Or, is that uncompassionate?
Yes, detention “can” be extended. Why should there be any question? Are you so averse to simply punishing the man that you will only consider sentences that do no more than assuring he won’t do it again?
Of course I can, but only if we enter the realm of the completely absurd. In most of the world, any possibility of release for someone who murdered 77 people is nonsense. A quick search shows that Norway has the most lenient maximum sentencing in the world. Life imprisonment - Wikipedia
I guess the punishment maybe makes the victims families feel that “justice” has been served. Breivik will not be released until deemed that he is not a danger to the public, which I can assure you will be a hell of a lot longer than 21 years.
If Charles got out the first thing he would do is find someone new to manipulate and there would be lots of options. Even while in prison he has fans.
There are a few posts in this thread along the same vein and you seem to be ignoring posts from residents who explain that just because the language is different he will not get out. 21 years is the maximum number they can assign but in reality he’ll be evaluated and returned to prison after each one, just like Charles Manson is after each of his parole hearings.
He’s essentially in prison until he dies so he can’t get anymore, society will be protected from him, I agree with you on rehabilitation, I think he’s a lost cause and on your last point the numbers certainly seem to disagree.
I made my check a simple one - countries with the top 10 crime rates
United States Death
United Kingdom Life
Germany Life
France 30yrs
Russia Death
Japan Death
South Africa Life
Canada Life
Italy Life
India Death
and then amended it to the top 10 murder rates
Honduras Life
El Salvador Death (maybe they seem to be back and forth)
Cote d’Ivoire Life
Jamaica Death
Venezuela N/D
Belize Death
Guatemala Death
St. Kitts and Nevis Death
Zambia Death
Uganda Death
And included the maximum penalty for murder in all 10 (no crossover, neat) N/D means no death penalty but my admittedly quick search was not able to uncover the actual penalty.
I also looked at the lowest murder rates:
Monaco Life
Palau N/D
Hong Kong N/D
Singapore Death
Iceland N/D
Japan Death
French Polynesia N/D
Brunei Death
Bahrain Death
Norway 21yrs
Based on this I would conclude that sentences have little to no impact to the crime rate. Tough sentences don’t seem to increase or decrease the rate of crime.
You cannot punish someone who is as sure of his own righteousness as Breivik is. Anything you do to him only proves, in his mind, that he is a martyr to a righteous cause.
All we can do in this case is keep ourselves safe, and not let him damage us any more than we have to.
That’s only the beginning of what sets the U.S. and Norway apart. The U.S. has countless more issues that contribute to crime rates. If we adopted Norway’s penal code, crime rates in this country would skyrocket immediately. There’s no telling how long it would take before that standard of rehabilitation would yield results, if ever. The U.S. tried a more lenient, rehabilitative effort in the '70s, and our crime rate was never higher. We face profound challenges that Norway simply doesn’t. Comparing the criminal environment between the two countries is apples and lawn furniture.
I’m still waiting to hear how keeping murderers locked up for life is inhumane. They’d be serving their time in the same prisons and under the same conditions as those who are set for release.
Yes, worth something. If, in fact, a longer sentence would give the victims’ families some sense of satisfaction. Personally, I’m skeptical that it would help.
That’s completely wrong. The crime rate in the U.S. has dropped consistently and dramatically since we returned to tougher sentencing after a more lenient approach in the '70s failed miserably. Why? It makes no sense to compare Honduras to Japan because the reason for criminal behavior from one country to the next is completely different.
If your family was brutally murdered, what would give YOU more satisfaction? A longer prison sentence or a shorter one as long as they tried to “rehabilitate” the offender? Would you prefer life without parole or 21 years where we’ll re-evalute every five years and he probably won’t get out but there are no guarantees?