Breivik sentenced to 21 years in jail.

Agree. 21 years is ridiculous.

I heard on the radio that 21 years is the maximum sentence but if he is still thought to be a threat to society it  can be extended indefinitely. 

Steve

Dear Debs, and others interested,

The headline looks terrible. But the Norges Love [Norwegian Law] is not quite so simple as the headline suggests.

Of course if the man shows all the signs of being no risk in future then the merciful and liberal law applies, but if he continues to be a risk to the public at large the sentence can be extended indefinitely. 

In other words if he repents, then mercy will be shown. If not then we may reasonably assume that he will never be released.

As it goes, I am glad that he was not found insane. With that possibly verdict he might be considered not responsible for his actions. As it is he is found fully responsible. He is an evil man of the Nazi ilk. And this considered, and serious ruling is entirely both humane and in keeping with the Norwegian tradition, however much that might upset those who are themselves of a more blood-thirsty mentality.

Every country will have a different response to such a situation, and I for one, being half Norwegian, am glad that experience of Nazi occupation has not led to a coarsening of Norwegian sensibilities.

ATB from George

PS: Steve you beat me to it. But thanks for the post!

It's Catch 22 though isn't it?

Realistically you've got to be nuts to do that. But to so methodically plan it out and show no remorse at all, it's felt that he can't be nuts. But no-one of 'right mind' could consider such a thing, surely. But nuts or not, no-one could feel he should not be punished severely. Cut his balls off.

The question is rather whether one can avoid responsibility for one's actions by claiming madness. 

Not even this monster actually claimed he was mad.

Was the Nuremberg Row [of Nazi criminals] peopled by madmen, or totally vile and evil, but responsible individuals? Due process within the law was followed, and that is correct. They were responsible and dealt with within the context of the laws that applied at the time.

To my mind the Norwegian court has found a verdict that is a model of serious and purposeful resolve within the context of the law. It is not a political ruling that will gain quick acceptance by most outside Norway, or even perhaps a quite large proportion within the country. The judiciary is not paid to make populist rulings, but ones that are far more significant than ones than temporarily media-hyped public opinion may demand before moving onto the next "issue."

The due process of law is one of the prime indicators of a civilised society. Law in a democratic society is arrived at in a much more considered way than the latest media-hyped [let's leave out the facts that don't fit the story - gutter/boulevard press] approach to such issues.

There is a reason crime is low in Norway compared to almost every nation on earth. I salute the bravery in this and many other instances. Even if no law can prevent every instance of terror, and malice.

ATB from George

This person is a ruthless monster. He won't change his spots.

It's unlikelt he will ever be released, and quite rightly so.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

You have the situation exactly right.

Brady and Hindley are still in prison today, and I am sure that Norway and Britain are still very close on this.

ATB from George

Erm, hope Hindley isn't still in prison. Would be a bit smelly...

And I believe Ian Brady is in Ashworth hospital, being insane. He's not in prison. But I could be wrong.

You know what I meant! Not at large ...

ATB from George

PS: The Norwegian monster may even end his days incarcerated in hospital as his actions do dawn on him ... and drive him mad ...

Myra Hindley died about 10 years ago

Long enough for me to forget. I don't tend to follow obits!

ATB from George

Brady was originally in the prison system but was moved into a secure hospital in the mid 1980s. As I understand it he wants to go back into the prison system as that would make his efforts to starve himself to death easier (some sort of legal quirk). Interestingly, he doesn't want to come out of prison at all (unlike Hindley, who most certainly did). Brady knows full well that he can influence events and wield power from inside - he has information that police and victims' families want, and as long as he keeps it to himself, he is on top.

I suspect the same is true of Breivik. He wanted to go to jail (as opposed to a mental institution, which would have been the case had he been declared insane) - there he can continue to exert an influence on the truly loopy end of the right-wing spectrum. I would imagine that to a man like Breivik, whether or not he spends 21 or 1,000 years in jail is largely irrelevant - a matter of inconvenience and a source of frustration to him. Most of us on here would be horrified by the prospect of 21 years inside, but Breivik is different from us.

He will never be freed, I'll stake my house on it.

Life imprisonment.Its democratic too.

Breivik sentenced to life in prison!

Breivik got the highest sentence the Norwegian legal system has to offer by law wich is 21 years.

This means that he will sit for 21 years straight and after that period of time his sentence will be reviewed and prolonged by another 5 years.

After that 5 years it will be reviewed again and he will sit for another 5 more years..

So basically after every 5 years he will get 5 more years again and again

for the rest of his life.

This is the way that they had to go about it since they don´t

have life sentence in Norway.

I am sorry that the newspapers and the world press got it all wrong.

21 years still  sounds totally wrong.  It is an insult to those

Who were murdered and to those who must live with their

undeniable loss.  Humanity should not even be an issue.

The man is not humane and he has soiled an entire country.

Norway ought to review its laws and add a subtext for mass

murderers.

Even tthe possibility that at some time in the future he might not

be considered a risk is absurd.  Even if he repents, leniency

would be absurd.  77 mostly young lives terminated!  Say no more!

California Jim

Dear George,

i've carefully read everything you say, and have tried to see things from your point of view [but i can't get my head up my bottom] and fail to agree about much of your opinion sorry to say ; )

The question is not whether he is sane or insane but rather; criminally sane or criminally insane which should for reasons of practicality make little difference in the outcome - the public need protection.

Especially in a case of such a severe crime where no doubt exists of who is the guilty party, the individual is either a very bad dog or a very mad one, the public need protection and there is no earthly point or reason to keep them alive, far more civilized and humane to put the thing to rest with a dose of euthanasia.

It was very wrong for the prosecution to try label him a schizophrenic, most people who suffer this mental condition never harm anyone, and to try call Breivik schizophrenic is an insult to all the decent human beings who are unfortunate to suffer this condition. But it goes to show how ignorant these highly paid so called legal professional idiots are. The chief prosecutor actually walked over to Breivik before the proceedings began, and shook his hand smiling, “i’m going to make a lot of money out of you” he must have thought, “Thank you very much”.

I used to think British justice was the best justice money could buy until I saw this Norwegian farcical court literally bow down to this monster, given him far too much dignity, respect, the right to use nazi salutes in court, given him ever thing he wanted; a platform to preach his evil philosophy, and the verdict that has given him a 3 room suite with his own television, computer, gymnasium, and protection from angry people who may not share his fascist outlook in life. No wonder Breivik was smirking so much at the end.

Heck, he really should have been wearing a medical smock and strait jacket all ready to leave court for the termination block.

Makes me wonder if the Norwegian legal profession have any fears of right-wing reprisals directly on themselves or on their family or property where they drive home to in the Mercedes Benz.

But one thing for sure, Breivik is now the new idol for thousands of extreme right wing-nuts who will worship his ‘triumph‘, and many of these will be looking at the rewards he has had bestowed upon him so now have kudos to follow suit with more horror. The pathetic inaction effect and damp squib verdict of this Norwegian court is highly likely to have caused many more deaths to come in the near future.

[But i do hope i'm wrong!].

I feel very sorry for the good Norwegian tax paying people who have to pay for Breivik’s internment, it will cost them a tidy fortune too, but most of all I feel a huge sympathy for the bereaved and heart-broken who the courts have so shamelessly betrayed.

Debs

Bleh...unpleasant

One point to make appears to be that the Norwegian system, and by extension the Norwegian population have existed until now with a legal system that has a 21 year maximum limit. That is their choice, and they appear not to have felt a desire to change this in spite of this appaling event.

The mature and balanced response of the people of Norway (at least as it appears to outsiders) is something I have admired.

I don't think he will be released in 21 years. I don't think any 'punishment' fits his crime. The point of his incarceration is to protect others.

Debs

Sorry, not for the fiirst time I disagree vehemently with almost all of your post. Specifically:

a) To use the word 'euthanasia' in this context is totally wrong and I find it offensive. What you would be advocating would be (state-sponsored) murder. Be clear about that. Euthanasia is 'mercy-killing' at the request of the individual to alleviate their sufferring. I would argue the death sentence can never been 'civilized' or 'humane' (your words). I think it is barbaric and repugnant.

b) As for your comments re schizophremia, I respect your intention that using this label might confer the wrong impression to the millions of well treated and entirely peaceful schizophrenics but from what I read the possibility of that diagnosis appeared a reasonable one to at least be considered. Mental health diagnoses are rarely incontrovertible. Mad or bad? Not an easy question. Mad enough to lack capacity is a bigger one, see below.

c) The issue is NOT if he is criminally sane or criminally insane. The FIRST question is his sanity, in other words if he could be considered responsible at the time of the crimes or not. Patients suffering severe delusional/psychotic illness are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished for them. If the answer had been that he was not responsible then he would not now be a criminal, plain and simple. He would be incarcerated as a ptient for his and others protection. However the Court decided he was responsible, so the conviction is a criminal one in his case. I would offer you the example of a woman who suffers a severe post-natal psychosis and comes to believe her newborn baby is an agent of the devil and kills it (not a terribly rare occurrence sadly). She is not a criminal, she is ill.

d) Breivik appears to have been respected in Court. That is his right, that is the principle of a justice system. The Court did not bow down to him but it gave him the equivalent right of any citizen to a fair trial. Would you have preferred him to be flayed and paraded naked through the streets? I find it odd that you state you do not consider him mentally ill yet advocate he appear in Court in a strait-jacket. On what basis would you restrain him like this? Just because you find him abhorrent?

Justice has been done, and been seen to be done correctly. I would think that was important for the society and the victims too.

I genuinely don't understand how the Court has 'betrayed' the victims by following the normal correct procedures that apply to any defendant..

The best response to Breivik was summed up by a bereaved mother I heard interviewed yesterday. She said that everything was finished now, and when asked why she was not more angry or screaming at this man she said that in her view the worst that can happen to Breivik is for him to be ignored and forgotten. That will now happen I think. He is not martyred but put away, out of sight and mind.

Bruce

Don't know what this is meant to mean.

Debs...agree with the emotive sense of much of what you say.

 So much for liberal minded reasoned justice!  

I am sure the evil murderer (I don't even want to use his name),

Is well pleased with his little, exceedingly well planned project.

Justice would be him residing at the bottom of a dark hole

living in his own filth...on a daily basis!

California Jim

Dear Debs,

I don't mind being disagreed with. I am glad that we are free to be able to discuss such things, and then disagree.

All the best from George

Bruce,

Euthanasia simply means gentle-death, it’s a non violent way of despatching someone to the other-world.

Two years ago my beloved elderly cat [suffering renal failure] passed away using euthanasia at the vets, nothing barbaric or repugnant about that at all, just a peaceful end.

I believe it’s far more civilized and humane to despatch Breivik that way than waste huge amounts of tax payers money in his meaningless existence in the pent house suite prison [modelled on Hitlers bunker by the look of it], gosh he’s going to feel well at home there.

Perhaps a bullet in his head, could use one of Breivik’s, he had loads of rounds left over, that would cost less than euthanasia so you’ve got me thinking, but no I don’t believe in violent kinds of execution or being ‘

flayed and paraded naked through the streets’ (your words). Euthanasia would be factually very civilized and humane in his case so I disagree entirely with your very strange and odd opinion.

And what's all that about a mother and her baby? Don't you know the difference between that and a mass murderer who goes out to kill 77 people one day, don't you think the reasoning may be very different?

I will never believe in keeping mass murderers for life in some kind of human zoo, far better, easier and cost effective to execute them, end of.

Debs

Easier and more cost effective. I don't think that at this level, ease or economics are a serious part of the consideration.

ATB from George

Debs

Euthanasia definition.  'the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering of that individual'. That is not the same as the origin of the word from the greek meaning 'a good death'. The death penalty is not euthanasia.

I was referring to your proposal of the death penalty (state murder) as barbaric and repugnant to me, not euthanasia. I think that is clear in my post.

Once again if you read my post you will be clear why I used the example given; to explain the concept of legal responsibility in the case of mental illness. I was pointing out that in any situation where somebody is found to be mentally lacking responsibility they are not a criminal, independent of the action they commit. I deliberately used an example you would find a natural sympathy for to illustrate the dilemma. Obviously this does not apply to Breivik, but it might have done if the psychiatrists had found differently.

I am more than happy to respect your views as being different to mine, and debate them, but please take the time to read my posts carefully if you are going to respond!

You consider killing a criminal the right thing to do for reasons of being 'better, easier and more cost effective'. Your words. Are you genuinely happy with a world where we kill prisoners for reasons of economy and simplicity?

Bruce

Absolutely correct, George

the millionaire judges and other legal professions are all making money from it,  they don’t have to pay for it, the poor pay the most in taxes

Debs

Dear Debs,

By an accident of birth I am half Norwegian, and have watched this whole saga with more than a little interest. That does not give my words any greater authority. But at least I have read round the subject and discussed this with Norwegian residents ...

Norway is not a poor country nowadays though of course there are unfortunately a tiny minority there in Norway who actually are poor.

But Norway has a tax regime the penalises the rich far more than the poor. My late Norwegian grandfather was paying tax at one time at the rate of [I believe, though my memory may have failed me - it was a long time ago] of 98 pro cent. No wonder there are tax exiles from Norrway! You cannot judge a foreign country as being exactly conforming to British cultural expectations. Even the normal conservatives in Norway are pretty much pale blue beside our own Tories.

ATB from George