Breivik sentenced to 21 years in jail.

I never implied that at all, that is only your assumption : (

I made it very clear earlier in this thread by saying:

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.

If [hypothetically] there was a vote for capital punishment tomorrow, i would vote against it for two very good reasons:

It would involve a barbaric and violent death [hanging, shooting, guillotine etc], may hurt someone doing that.

It would most probably be misused on far to many lesser crimes, and only on people who are not rich enough to afford the legal protection to get off scot-free.

The death penalty is not euthanasia.

No but it could be, that’s the point!

And it would work great on monsters like Brievik!

Debs

Thanks Debs

I think I am more confused now actually but others may be clearer!

Most if not all Capital Punishment in the US is of course not hanging/shooting/guillotine but lethal injection. In the end the outocme is the killing of another individual against their wishes.

Probably best I sign off now.

Bruce

I have gone back and forth on the topic of capital punishment for many years.

I think I am (like a lot of others) old testament at my core.  When I see someone commit a truly horrific crime like as what happened in Norway, my instincts kick in, and I want to see the bastard killed there and then.  An eye for an eye...end of.

But I finally settled on being against the death penalty in all cases.  There have been too many cases of wrongly accused and wrongly convicted people.  Juries are human beings, and they don't always get it right.  How many times has new DNA evidence allowed us to release someone who has been on death row for a couple of decades?  Even if it only happened once, I would maintain that capital punishment is still wrong -- it leaves no chance for new evidence to come to light, and to free someone who has been wrongly imprisoned. 

I now believe it is better for a dozen guilty men to walk free than for just one wrongly accused man to be imprisoned or executed.  While the former infuriates me, the latter makes me despair...because it can happen to anyone.  Anyone can be the victim of mistaken identity.  Anyone can be sentenced based on circumstantial evidence and/or eye witness accounts...even you or me.

Hook

We do have the controlled experiment of Capital punishment in America, where some states do and some don't but are otherwise demographically similar enough for us to conclude with reasonable conviction that Capital punishment simply does not work, whatever one's views on its rights or wrongs. The murder rate is higher in those states that have it (this is not universally true, but the extremes are quite marked - Louisiana has both Death Penalty and the USAs highest murder rate). For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6 per 100,000, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9.

Had execution been an option for Breivik, then is it a possibility he would have wanted it - in the belief that "martyrdom" would somehow enhance his cause?

As it is he will surely spend the rest of his life behind bars. That he will be better treated than he "deserves" is borne of it not being possible really to define what he 'deserves', and a testament to the extremely civilised nature of Norwegian society.

It is a shame that he did not turn the gun on himself (or perhaps that the police did not shoot him) that day. He might have vanished into history a little more easily. I cannot remember the name of the Dunblane murderer, but I can those of Mark Chapman, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley.

I do hope the Norwegian authorities can or do prevent the publication of anything he writes though (apparently he writes a lot). He should not be granted the satisfaction of having it read.

Well stated, Hook.  Like you I spent years trying to come to a sensible 

view of the death penalty, and certainly recognise that mistakes are made.

No one wants an innocent to be wrongly convicted...or terminated.

In a case like this particular one, the sentence of 21 years appears, on

the face of it, hugely unjust!  And if there is even a remote chance that

the guy could be set free some day in the distant future is just not right.

So...the OT mentality does surface.

I do have to say, looking at CNN, I am surprised to hear some in Norway

saying they are 'happy' with the verdict.  Don't think we would hear that here

in the UK.  I guess that says a great deal about the Norwegian people.

California Jim

It's all very dangerous ground - There is a chap in Scandanavia, can't remember his name I'm sorry, who confessed to many killings and is regarded as one of the biggest serial killers in their history. Turns out he was researching the previously unsolved deaths at the library and then 'confessing' to them. Perhaps George knows more.

I wish I could remember more detail and he may well have committed other serious crimes. But being absolutely sure of guilt in a case and the sanity of those convicted is not ever going to be easy.

And who decides how certain is certain? Where do you draw the line? It's perhaps only a short step then to personal retribution, vigilantism, lynch mobs, public executions. Heads on pikes perhaps? "Hanging/lethal injection/firing squad is too good for them, they need to suffer first"! Gladiators anyone?

Even other nations (or states perhaps) who do consider the death penalty a suitable punishment still have the convicted remaining in prison for years, decades often, taking up even more tax payers money with extended legal operations...So, I'm not convinced there is a sound economic argument.

Sentencing exists to satisfy 3 core needs. Retribution, detention and deterrent. Research I saw a long time ago (mid Eighties) showed most of the families of victims claim they would not feel better if the convicted was executed. They feel better if he is detained to prevent him doing it again and the the sentance should be so severe and long so as to act as a deterrent to others (whether it does is in itself debatable). That does make them feel a little better. A memorial e.g. charity fund, so their loved one 'did not die in vain' is also important. The death of the convicted is usually not.

As to buying British justice, I feel it is still a lot harder to do so than in most other nations. However, the rich will usually be more succesful at paying for quality than the poor in any field, be that legal advice, plumbing or HiFi. The strong do usually beat the weak. The right do not always beat the wrong. That's life.

He wont be getting out ever.

He is meant to be spending the 21 years in solitary for his own safety.

I will put money on some one inside getting to him in the not to distant  future.

He is to hated for them not to.

He may well top himself to cut out the middle man.

Stu.

Though the authorities will do everything posssible to prevent this.

It can still happen.

ATB from George

An hour ago I would not have know who you were talking about. But a short while ago I finished a touching obituary in this weeks Economist about Winnie Johnson who died on August 18th at age 78 having never located the remains of her son Keith lost to the Moors murderers in 1964. It had been her lifes work since his passing.

I have Norwegians friends and they are quite happy with their law system which allows for renewed sentences review. It's a wonderful liberal country with a highy educated level of politicisation.

The Uk on the other hand.....

KT

Tony

Presumably you remember Fred West and Harold Shipman though? Besides which, I'm not sure forgetting these people is necessarily a good thing - the court took time to record in detail what had been committed so people never forget.

I think the Norwegians have acted with maturity and restraint. It's the best possible outcome from a horrific situation. Let's hope we never see or hear from Brehvik again - our press tend to exploit these people, hence the ludicrous over familiarity of Brady and Hindley, and their now iconic photos. I'd be quite happy to never see Brehvik's gurning mug again.

Simon

Yes, Simon, Fred West and Harold Shipman both went through high profile trials, and that is why we can remember their names. That was precisely my point.

Yet where these murderers end up killing themselves, or getting killed by the authorities, during the massacres, they - or their names at least - seem to acquire less notoriety.

I very much doubt you'll get your wish never to see a picture of Breivik again, but I don't suppose you could name, still less visualise, the kids who perpetrated the Columbine massacre.

Breivik is scum as are all who subscribe to his way of "thinking".

If the sentencing system described has come up with the best outcome that can be acheived in the circumstance, ie 21 years, +5 ad infinitum, then so be it. As long as he never gets to see freedom ever again than that will have to do.

steve