The prosecution’s position was not that Breivik was clearly insane, but that, since the first psychiatric report had declared him to be legally insane, there was reasonable doubt. Their interpretation of the law was that if a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s sanity exists, he must be found insane and sentenced to treatment rather than imprisonment or custody.
The defense, meanwhile, was simply following Breivik’s own instructions. He wanted to be found sane because he regarded being considered insane as an insult to his cause.
The decision of the court was that the first psychiatric report was so inadequate that it did not cause reasonable doubt. Since that was the only evidence of insanity, there was no reason to consider the prosecution’s interpretation of the law.
Imprisonment is meant to serve three purposes, though how much weight is given to each one varies with jurisdiction. It is meant to keep the general public safe from criminals; to punish criminals; and to rehabilitate criminals to make them less likely to re-offend.
Restricting a prisoner’s freedom of movement is necessary for all three of these goals. Depriving a prisoner of all privacy, for instance, is only necessary for punishment.
Well, Plea bargains isn’t done in Norway, for starters. Although, there is a opening for a “discount” on the sentence if a defendant cooperates with the authorities, but this discount is not agreed upon before the trial,and is at the discretion of the courts, AFAIK.
In Norway it is not possible for a prosecutor to charge a less serious crime than might have been charged, or fewer counts of the crime, in exchange for a guilty plea in order to avoid a trial? Does a prosecutor have any discretion whatsoever?
The episode of PBS that that quiz is based on was made in 1998, so the stats for the crime stats go even further back than that (probably late 80s or so). Yeah back in the 80s those stats were probably true, but I seriously doubt people get those sentences in 2012.
AFAIK, no. The police collects evidence, including interrogating the suspect, and hands the evidence over to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor decides - on the basis of available evidence - what the suspect should be charged with, and the court decides on guilt and the penalty (if proven guilty).
If you’ve cooperated with the police, you usually get some kind of discount on the verdict. But that’s all up to the judge.
21 years is in the current law. Are You suggesting that laws should be changed after the fact and give harsher sentences than laws allowed while crime was committed? How about giving a sentence for doing something that wasn’t even illegal while it was done?
Well, if he escapes, I’d rather see him rehabilitated.
In here ( Finland ) most homicides are made in the heat of the moment, You can’t prevent those with harsher punishments. Also here the killers often turn themselves in calling the cops while they still have the body on their feet.
On the other hand if the killer knows he’s going to get a life sentence, he’s going to kill all witnesses and all cops who try to arrest him and all other people who just get in the way. You know ‘they can hang Me only once!’
And punishment in never a deterrent, criminals don’t believe they will be caught, that’s exactly why they commit those crimes in the first place.
[QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE]
What’s the difference between punishment and revenge?
If you have a cite where an authority guarantees he’ll never get out of prison, I’d love to see it.
[QUOTE]
No cites. The Norwegian law doesn’t include life sentence! ( Someone really should pit Victor Charlie for not getting this. )
You think they haven’t learnt anything from Lockerbie?
IIRC, Breivik repeatedly said that being found insane would be unbearably humiliating and worse than death.
So based on that it sounds like a good sentence or what, Victor Charlie?
This thread kinda disgusts me … not the posts, they’re surprisingly civil and instructive for the most part, but tone of the OP. If the Norwegian people are happy with Brevik’s sentence, case closed as far as I’m concerned. Do we Americans want to see Brevik beaten and buttraped in prison, so we can get a chance to snicker at it, as has happened in other threads? I could give a shit about Brevik, he has used up his right to breathe AFAIC, but my sense of civic self-respect demands responsible and humane treatment of prisoners in the US, a sense that gets violated regularly by our current prison system. Exporting it to a humane and sensible place like Norway would be a sad thing indeed. American conditions, y’know.
I suppose it’s possible that some people feel like that, but I haven’t seen anyone writing or saying anything like it here. Unless you’re referring to the minority who share Breivik’s hatred of immigration, religious freedom, feminism, and/or democracy, and say that the Norwegian majority are to blame because we don’t want that kind of society.
I’m not sure if the Norwegian term “sosialdemokrati” is the same as what you describe as “democratic socialists”. Our politicial system is a representative democracy, and our economic system is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, like most of Europe and North America (although with more socialism than most of the others). It would surprise me if our “concept of individual” is significantly different from what it is in US.
No, I was just curious. In the UK a life sentence for murder is compulsory in any circumstances. Now a life sentence here usually means around 10-15 years in prison in MOST circumstances (and the full range can be 0 years to life means life) but it’s still a life sentence - I was wondering if there were determinate sentences in France, e.g. 10 years and you’re out.
“Human rights” as understood by some extreme liberals can be at times frustrating. While I doubt this lunatic will ever be able to roam the streets freely again, I am incensed that he will spend the rest of his days in a relatively luxuriant prison apartment while his young victims are six feet under the ground, never to see the light of day again.
Would you feel better if he was locked up in a damp dungeon, tortured every day and butt-raped every night? What difference would it make, except for giving you the opportunity to snicker at another person’s suffering?
I believe I’ve said this before, but Breivik is our lunatic asshole, and we’ll deal with him according to our own laws, thankyouverymuch.
I was reading the reactions of the families of the victims in the paper this morning and they aren’t satisfied with the current arrangement either. I think it’s well known that Norwegian prisons are too soft and I do believe it is a miscarriage of justice to cater to violent criminals in a such a manner. Prison should serve as a deterrent, and shouldn’t be a retirement home for the vile and immoral.
I do find it odd that Norwegians brag that they don’t have a life sentence. While technically true it seems a bit disingenuous since they have other legal means to keep someone incarcerated for the rest of their life.
Ah but there’s the rub. Releasing someone who you are pretty certain will kill again is hardly the most humane of decisions either, is it? At least to the putative victim.
Apparently the Norwegian “retirement homes for the vile and immoral” (jesus christ, man) deter crime pretty well, second offences in particular - people who know first hand just how “soft” Norwegian prisons are and should, by your logic, be all too happy to go back in.
When “grrr tough on crime!” dehumanizing methods can boast the same results, come back and talk about shoulds.
You were reading the reactions of the persons who were quoted in your newspaper this morning and they weren’t satisfied with the current arrangement.
You won’t find any such consensus referred in Norwegian newspapers, because there isn’t any consensus on the question. Some of the victims’ families think he should have been punished harder, others are quite satisfied with the maximum sentence current Norwegian law can dish out.
News at eleven: Newspapers aren’t objective in their reporting. Also at eleven: The Pope is Catholic.