I don’t know what Norway has, but if by “punitive” you mean “retributive,” then I hope Norway doesn’t have that concept, and I wish we didn’t here.
Here’s what I found strange about the case. It was the prosecution which pushed for insanity and asked for Breivik to be put into psychiatric care rather than prison, while the defense argued that he was sane.
That headline’s a red herring, as one might expect from any Daily Mail story where there’s a potential “soft on crime” angle to exploit. The family member in question is nowhere quoted as expressing actual “anger” or “resentment” or “stress” at the sentencing. She said:
That statement clearly seems to accept the logic of re-evaluating his fitness for release at the end of the initial sentence.
So I remain unconvinced that there’s any significant public sentiment among Norwegians, including the victims’ families, that this sentencing is any kind of miscarriage of justice.
Outraged at what? A sociopathic murderer committed a heinous crime, was caught, convicted and sent to jail, and it’s confidently expected that he’ll be kept in jail the rest of his natural life, although the penal code requires that he be evaluated for his potential fitness for release periodically after the first couple of decades.
If that’s the sort of thing you get outraged about, what have you got left for an actual miscarriage of justice? This sounds less like genuine concern about a pinpointed problem with sentencing policy than like vindictive bloodlust balked of its prey.
Believe me, I could totally understand and sympathize if Norwegians, especially victims’ families, were out of their minds with rage at Breivik and were howling for the most severe and extreme penalties to be exacted from him. But since they seem to be handling this terrible and evil tragedy with rationality and dignity—and good for them, say I—then why should we spend our time trying to whip up superfluous outrage on their behalf? Bleah.
If you just want to be personally outraged about this irrespective of substantive public-policy reasons for it, of course, knock yourself out. But that sounds more like a Pit thread than a debate.
Of course it’s an argument. A legitimate one. The crux of your response has been “I have it on authority of the Internet that it’s not likely to ever happen”, which you’ve decided means “will never happen.” Yet, I’ve given you a very recent example where it actually has happened, in a country with stricter sentencing than Norway, and it outraged people pretty much everywhere except, Libya. Now you say it’s not an argument. If you and others keep going on about how it’s a moot point because he’ll never get out anyway and that you seem to agree he shouldn’t get out, then it’s most certainly a salient point that Norwegian law does provide for the potential of his release. That possibility should be more than relevant to someone who insists that he can’t nor shouldn’t get out.
As I understand it, Norwegian society as a whole considers itself partly to blame for Brevik’s crimes. They are (correct me if I am wrong) democratic socialists, and so their concept of the individual is different from what you see here in 'Merica. Hence the limited maximum sentence.
But I agree with Marley. I’ll fall off my chair if I get news that this guy got out of prison.
The point of the Norwegian sentencing limits is that murderers can eventually be freed if they are no longer a danger to society.
If, as has been often repeated here, the key to Breivik’s heinous crimes is that he is a permanently warped and evil sociopathic killer who can never be rehabilitated, then he will always continue to be a danger to society and hence he will never be approved to get out.
There are always far-fetched what-if scenarios in which any incarcerated prisoner could be freed, no matter how long his official sentence: what if there’s a prison break, what if there’s a successful appeal on grounds of mistrial, what if for some reason he’s granted clemency, what if he sneaks into the coffin of a dead prisoner before it’s thrown into the sea and manages to swim to safety, whatever.
The question is, is it realistic to suppose that Breivik will ever be released from prison? And according to all the information presented here about Norwegian criminal justice and the Breivik case, the answer is no.
So your objection to this situation is looking less and less like rational criticism and more and more like sheer frustration that the prescribed sentence just doesn’t look like a sufficiently badass beat-down of such a nasty criminal. The whole punishment scenario is just not Dirty Harry enough for you? Okay, but that’s your problem, not Norway’s.
Apparently, the Norwegians design their criminal justice system more for effectiveness in protecting society while rehabilitating redeemable individuals than for the indulgence of dramatic gestures to show how “tough on crime” they are. You personally may not approve of that, but it seems to be the way they like it.
To respond to the question in your thread title, I don’t really know why the fuck Norwegians adopt such a low-key and un-American approach to penal servitude, with no flamboyantly redundant forms of punishment like multi-century sentences or anything like that. (According to information received from a very gregarious and well-traveled roommate I once had, it might be because their dicks are bigger. But I don’t think she did anything like a scientific study of the subject.)
Absolutely. Provided you also drastically increased the rates at which criminals are caught.
If the punishment for theft was “only” that you have to hand over everything you stole, but you were caught 100% of the time - who would steal ? What would be the point ?
Please do not use statistics as part of an argument until you have internalized the fact that correlation does not imply causation.
I tend to agree with this opinion. If criminals stopped for a minute pondering that they might (in most cases : probably will) spend even only ten years behind bars, they would probably not commit it. That’s why I don’t believe in the deterrence effect of harsh sentence (including death sentence).
However, the older I get and the less lenient I feel, on the overall, if only because 10 or 20 years don’t seem nearly as long now as they appeared to be when I was much younger. If I don’t believe much in deterrence, I do believe in punishment. When you caused so much pain 21 years is absurdly lenient.
Also : when all is said and done, the most intellectually shocking part IMO is that the sentence can be arbitrarily extended for whatever duration, and that everybody actually expect that it will be extended until he dies. What makes sense in a maximum allowed sentence of 21 years if it can easily become a life sentence, especially when it’s considered a given that it will?
Finally : it was stated that he was unrepentant, and for that reason won’t ever be freed. What makes you be so sure that he won’t become repentant 10 years down the road? If he does and still isn’t freed because, say, people are still too outraged for it to be feasible, doesn’t it again totally defeat the purpose of the max 21 years sentence? If he does and he’s freed, as he should under this system, aren’t the complaint about the sentence being too lenient perfectly legitimate?
That’s indeed an original twist in what would otherwise be an usual scenario.
A (Norwegian) lawyer will correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe a defence lawyer can plead to something against the will of their client. E.g. your attorney can’t plead your innocence if you’re set on pleading guilty for example.
Maybe Breivik was adamant he not be handed over to the puzzle factory ? Maybe it was important to his self-image that his crime be judged like the one of a terminally rational person, even though it might lead to a harsher sentence ? Your guess is as good as mine.
I didn’t suggest she did. I asked if she or others would feel that way if he were ever released. Given the assurances I’ve read by people on this board and in the media that he won’t be released, it’s safe to say most are operating under that assumption. But what if he actually is released, which is a real possibility? How many in Norway and elsewhere will still be satisfied? I’m still waiting for those who think he should never get out to explain what the harm is in simply sentencing him that way now. The whole 21 year maximum wink-wink nudge-nudge approach makes no sense. If he should stay there forever, sentence him. If he should have a chance to get out, prepare for the rightful outrage if it happens. You don’t have to be a family member or countryman of the victims to be outraged or utterly baffled if this guy ever goes free.
[quote]
So I remain unconvinced that there’s any significant public sentiment among Norwegians, including the victims’ families, that this sentencing is any kind of miscarriage of justice. [\quote]
How significant does the sentiment have to be to simply codify what everyone is saying will happen anyway? The people of Scotland and the U.S. never imagined al-Megrahi would be released. You think Norwegians are so much more magnanimous than the rest of us that they would be content if Breivik got out?
Bloodlust? Hyperbole much. Bloodlust would be demanding he be drawn and quartered or worse. It’s hardly bloodlust to say “This guy should never, ever get out of prison. Let’s make it so he can’t.”
You want to suggest that this is Norway’s business alone and only their opinions matter, as if this debate must observe political boundaries. But, we hear all the time the disdain so many Europeans have for our penal code. Many, if not most, think we’re barbaric for executing prisoners. Only myopic, insular Americans dismiss those opinions out of hand simply because they don’t come from other Americans.
Fortunately for me, I’m not a Norwegian mass murderer or else I would spend the next 21 years playing computer games all day long (and act all unrepentant to make sure they wouldn’t interrupt my last campaign). 
This wouldn’t be the nicest hotel room I’ve ever been in, but frankly, it’s way, way nicer than any cell I’ve ever seen over here (Not that France is in any way a good reference for jailing conditions) including for people who are serving sentences for minor offenses or even haven’t yet been tried.
Quite honestly, if presented with this picture not knowing what it is, I would guess it’s in some college student’s dormitory. Never that it’s a cell housing hardened criminals.
I don’t necessarily think that cells should be as filthy as possible, but the picture doesn’t help much your argument IMO.
Dude, it’s all IKEA furniture. You know that bed creaks like a motherfucker and the chair will break down the minute he sits on it.
Then he’ll be given 30-page long exploded diagrams to fix it, and when he’s done there’ll be one screw left and he won’t know where it’s supposed to fit. Drive him mad it will. Madder.
This is an absurd standard. Since it is and always will be impossible to stop all or even most crime (until we get PreCogs) we require a more significant deterrent.
I’m well aware of correlation theory. I was responding to posters who were drawing wild comparisons between crime and punishment rates among countries all over the globe.
There are studies on both sides of the debate regarding prison sentences and their impact on recidivism. But, the reduction in the U.S. is largely attributable to the fact that the worst offenders are taken off the street permanently, making the threat of recidivism insignificant in many cases. So lengthening prison sentences has directly reduced crime. Of course, that leads to an enormous prison population… it’s own problem.
But, if length of sentence plays no part in crime rates, why give Breivik a minimum sentence at all? Why not start evaluating him the minute he walks through the prison door and release him as soon as your satisfied he’s been “rehabilitated”? What’s so magical about the ten year minimum incarceration? Here’s why: There would be no punishment. And nobody would find any justice in that. Even the most progressive people in Norway want some measure of punishment.
Er…what? How is your basic maths? He was sentenced to life, with 21 years before his first parole hearing. And if you think hes ever going to get parole, I got a bride to sell you.
The average male lifespan in Norway is 77 years, and increasing by 3 months every year. Do the maths.
After his initial sentence, 21 years in this case, there is a hearing to determine if there is still a chance he is a danger to society. Unless it is found that there isn’t he is incarcerated, and another hearing is set in 5 years. And repeat.
I am not sure it is. Prison time in Norway is aimed at teching the offender he is not an animal, but a human being. He spends every day with a strict schedule designed to make it easier to transit to life outside of prison and hold down a normal job.
This seems to be the opposite of the process that turns criminals in the US into hardened offenders.
Why do you think you would get to decide what to do with your time on your own in a Norwegain prison? You don’t. You spend every day doing what people tell you.
It absolutely looks like a dorm room. A pretty nice one. It has decorator drapes, for f**k’s sake.
I gather the charms will wear thin after a decade or so.
Such a primitive way of thinking, many of the people in your thread.
I want to make this entirely clear: The US prison system, as a whole, is far worse than what Brevik did.
Brevik is a bastard. But imagine that he were to stay in for only twenty one years for the sake of argument.
Is that fair “retribution” for his crimes? Of course not. But ulimately only idiots think retribution should be a goal of the justice system. The system isn’t there to make everything in life “fair”. The funniest bit of that view to my mind is the people who espouse it tend to be conservatives. Well fine you’re going on about “fairness” in terms of punishment but I don’t see you looking for “fairness” in terms of rewards for those who make society more pleasant (and don’t come back with claiming you do by supporting the free market as you could apply that serial killing if you want you know) - the reality is you have a primitive and moronic blood lust. I do understand that most people who think this way are good folk but the truth is it’s only because they have not actually thought their opinions through properly. If they did, they’d realise they were monsters.
Similarly you could argue that retribution should be given to give the vicitms, or the vitcims’ families, a sense of satisfaction. Sorry, but injuring people because it would be of benefit to other people is not something the state would be doing. Again, if you actually think about this and still disagree, you’re a monster.
So let’s get on to another part of the punishment. Deterrence. Firstly deterrence of others: well, assuming we disregard torture I honestly don’t think that any reasonable person would be deterred more by any sentence than a 21 year one. It is also ridiculous to think that there is any point in deterring Brevik himself - if let out he is certain to be being monitored for the rest of his life and he has amply deserved that.
Then there is protection of society; well frankly this is the only case whereby the inprisonment for more than 21 years could be justified. So let’s stop pretending and look at things again - the Norweigans are going to keep on looking at the sentence every few years and judging whether Brevik remains a danger to society. If they judge that he is, he ain’t getting out. So everything’s fine.
I believe I have demolished all your ridiculous ideas. Now how about stopping imprisoning half of all black men at some point, or whatever it is?