The people quoted in the news stories about the Breivik sentence seem satisfied to me. That’s entirely a question of culture and expectation. EDIT: Your insistence that he might get out of prison is detracting from your argument, not adding to it. He’s never going to get out.
Who determines that he’s a sufficiently “different person”? Rehabilitation doesn’t involve removing the offender’s brain and replacing it. Every day, thousands of supposedly rehabilitated people go on to commit more crimes. Why even bother taking that chance with someone who it can hardly be suggested deserves it? When did reasonable punishment become such anathema that even mass murderers don’t deserve it?
Who makes any kind of parole determination?
They’ve quoted the hundreds of immediate relatives of the victims for their reaction?
That’s an assumption you continue to make. It’s most likely true, but still no guarantee. If it was, why not just, you know, guarantee it. Why even practice the re-evalutation charade every five years if the only potential is stressing surviving family members? You yourself rationalized the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Will Breivik receive the same release if he gets cancer?
Which is why it’s more than reasonable to consider parole only for those who have some claim to deserving it. I don’t know exactly where the line is between those who do and don’t deserve parole consideration, but Breivik is so far beyond that line he couldn’t spot it with the Hubble telescope.
Did I say they had? No. I said the people who were quoted were satisfied from what I could tell. You’re the one assuming more people would be satisfied with a harsher sentence.
Right, and all I have to base it is commentary and analysis on their legal system, and that’s hardly a match for “?!!” but I will keep trying anyway.
There’s no reason they couldn’t, but they apparently like the way their system is set up. They could change it, but they don’t seem inclined to do so. Perhaps they trust the government to make these determinations and don’t see the point in rewriting the rules to prevent the release of people who aren’t getting out anyway.
I didn’t rationalize anything. I explained the reason he was released because that reason had nothing to do with the terms of Breivik sentence that outage you so.
Given the fact that he shot a bunch of people while perfectly healthy I have trouble believing anyone would let him out if he were ambulatory and had nothing to lose, but I wouldn’t know.
It’s all in the original sentence. If you’re sentenced to jail, there’s no extension. If you’re sentenced to preventive detention, the sentence can be extended indefinitely, up to 5 years at the time.
Using your argument, then, we may as well give murderers one year. Or six months. Or six days. And as I mentioned, crime rates in the U.S. have significantly dropped, and continue to drop, since we’ve returned to harsher punishment. Your statement is simply dead wrong.
Personally, 21 years of 210 years wouldn’t make that much of a difference if my maimily was brutally murdered.
That’s still somewhat (ETA: roughly seven times) above ours. US homicide rate is 4.2/100,000 inhabitants per year, the Norwegian homicide rate is 0.6. Cite.
Your point was?
I didn’t realize there was a revocable death penalty now.
Not now, but in 1988…
Then why are you even trying?
I don’t think keeping murderers locked up for life is inhumane. I think the American prison system as a whole is inhumane. The 21 year maximum on regular prison sentences is a part of an overall system we in Norway are happy with in general.
Now if you actually want to discuss problematic sentencing of murderers in Norway you should pick a case that’s less of an outlier, and has sentencing not involving protective containment. Like the Baneheia Case.
Victor Charlie, I’m puzzled as to why you’re so upset about this. You seem to be about the only one in this thread who’s distressed by the 21-year maximum for sentencing under the Norwegian penal system.
It’s been explained to you that
a) the 21-year maximum sentence doesn’t mean that Breivik must be released after 21 years, and in fact it’s highly unlikely that he’ll ever be released at all;
b) the low legal limit on sentencing is not producing high crime rates in Norway, which in fact has very low crime rates;
c) the sentencing policy and its accompanying requirements for periodic re-evaluation and re-incarceration are not provoking any noticeable resentment or stress among Norwegian citizens, including the families of Breivik’s victims; and
d) the low sentencing maximum is favored because of its advantages in dealing with ordinary and/or rehabilitatable criminals, and the fact that it doesn’t prevent vicious outlier psychopaths like Breivik from being dealt with effectively.
In short, Victor Charlie, do you have any substantive objection to the Norwegian sentencing policy, rather than slightly modified reiterations of “OMG that sentence just seems way too short to me!!”?
If you’re merely having a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that a nation of 5 million people can be morally satisfied and psychologically content with a criminal justice system where maximum sentences are measured in decades rather than lifetimes, my advice is simply to quit thinking about it and stay out of Norway.
I made the fairly reasonable suggestion that many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of family members of the victims would prefer a harsher sentence. But, maybe I’m way out in left field on that. I’ll even step to the ledge and suggest that, if given the option, they’d prefer an ironclad guarantee of life in prison versus the “21 years then re-evalute every five years” scenario. You responded with an apparent attempt at refutation that included “people quoted in the news stories.” If it wasn’t intended as a counter to my statement I’m not sure why you posted it.
If you have a cite where an authority guarantees he’ll never get out of prison, I’d love to see it. All I’ve seen is he’ll “likely spend his life in prison”, or variations thereof.
The correlation I made between the two is quite simple: al-Megrahi was a murderous monster who nobody ever thought would get out of prison. In fact, I remember the same rationale given when he was sentenced. Outraged family members, mostly Americans I’m guessing, wanted his head on a stick. “Don’t worry”, they were assured, “it’s not like he’ll ever get out of prison. That would be crazy! Why would we ever let him out of prison?”
Right, he won’t get out if he’s ambulatory. Got it. But what if he isn’t? What if he’s in the same supposed condition as al-Megrahi? Is Norway as compassionate as Scotland? If they are, it nullifies your insistence that he’ll never get out. The point is, anything short of a guarantee is no guarantee.
Dunno. But certainly, if you’re the one suggesting it, then it’s up to you to substantiate it. For purposes of argument, you don’t get to assume it’s true just because it seems to you fairly reasonable.
In other words: Cite?
Why does that matter? I’m sure lots of victims of car theft would want to castrate the guy who did it, but that doesn’t mean we should go by what they say.
Here’s what you actually said:
You didn’t say anything about “many.” You just said they’d get some sense of satisfaction if he got a harsher sentence. You don’t know what would satisfy them or what they prefer, so you have no basis for commenting on their preferences and bringing up their feelings as a justification for your opinion is a little tacky, I think. My intiial point was that you don’t know what they want.
For some reason your response to my comment that you don’t know what they want (expectations and wants being relative) is to double down and say you do know what they want. Ok then. You still have no basis for the claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence even though you’ve said it twice.
If you’ve read this thread or the one in MPSIMS you’ve seen people explain how the system works in Norway. Since he was sentenced to 21 years I think you’ll continue treating it as a probably (?!!) regardless. [You confirm this further down in your post.]
And I’m saying they’re different cases and your comparison is pointless. Al-Megrahi was given a life sentence, which is what you say Breivik should officially have. Even though he received a life sentence, he was given compassionate release when he was terminally ill. That kind of thing can happen in the U.S., too. Susan Atkins (Manson family) was in prison for life and requested a compassionate release after she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and had a leg amputated. The state of California said no, and I guess that showed her. Breivik’s sentence tops out at 21 years but will end up being a life sentence. The fact that Al-Megrahi got out of prison for a reason different from your theoretical reason Breivik could get ouf of prison has no bearing on the situation. Even if Breivik did get a life sentence, he could still ask for a compassionate release in some circumstances.
I can’t say I’m personally distressed, but there are a whole lot of people who are. This message board is not exactly a microcosm of society.
http://storify.com/sellingsen/twitter-international-criticism-and-confusion-over
Here’s an actual family member:
To which I’ve responded several times with an as yet unanswered question: If he’ll never get out, why not just sentence him to life? Are there really no crimes in Norway that mean an automatic, no-questions-asked life sentence? Anything that leaves even the possibility of release seems a grave injustice to his victims.
[/quote]
That’s immaterial. I’ve never suggested otherwise.
I’ve given at least one example above. You think she’s the only one? Will the resentment or stress become more noticeable if he’s ever released? When al Meghri was released, a whole lot of people, Scots included, who were satisfied with the verdict were suddenly not-so-satisfied. Maybe Norway wouldn’t release him even if he was terminally ill, but I have yet to see anyone here make that argument. You can say all you want that it’ll never happen, but clearly Norwegian law has room to do it.
That and a life sentence are not mutally exclusive. Please tell me why there’s a reason you can’t have both.
I’ve given it. Several times. The notion that there’s any chance this guy can get out is utterly preposterous. I’ve also asked if Norway has no legal concept at all of punitive sentencing. Nobody’s yet answered.
So those in virtually the rest of the world shouldn’t concern themselves with the Norwegians? Okay. But, what if a non-Norwegian is murdered there? Can we then be baffled, or dare I say it, outraged?
“But it could happen!!?!!??!” isn’t actually an argument. If you’re interested in how the system works and why it’s set up this way, that’s worth pursuing because as a non-Norwegian I can’t explain it, although people have explained some details already. Going on and on about the outrage of how the biggest mass murderer in the history of the country could possibly be released after only 3 months in jail per shooting victim and why doesn’t anybody see this is crazy what’s wrong with Norway is not very productive. It’s mostly just shouting.