Anders Breivik declared sane

[Borachio]

Much depends on your definition of monarch.

 

[Angst]

These are the reasons why we have a death penalty

21 years? Why? I know they can just keep holding him, but still, why is there no actual life sentence?

I'm going to quote one of my friends' Facebook statuses, where he was quoting [Norwegian Name Missing]. Here:

"In the safest, most boring country, the worst lone gunman shooting happens. The worst in the world, in history. But it will not make our country worse. The safe, boring democracy will supply him with a defense lawyer as is his right. He will not get more than 21 years in prison as is the maximum extent of the law. Our democracy does not allow for enough punishment to satisfy my need for revenge, as is its intention. We will not become worse, we will be better. We lived in a land where this is possible, even easy. And we will keep living in a land where this is possible, even easy. We are open, we are free and we are together. We are vulnerable by choice. And we will keep on like that, that’s how we want to live. We will not be worse because of the worst. We must be good because of the best."

Understand that changing Norway to be more violent or strict as a legal system because of this incident makes Breivik right in that it was wrong for Norway to be open and welcoming. They do not wish for Breivik to prove a point anyhow by doing this.

And what do you know? The legal system of {max 21 years} actually works. So, yeah.

I think he's wrong about "the worst lone gunman" anything though, but that's not the point here.

 

[Snorrius]

He made not be insane, but he's clearly wrong in the head.

It very depends on what you call to be "insane". He is clearly thinks differently but it is hard to call "insane" one who has goal, planned it for several years and fulfilled the purpose. It is not that he have done it on the whim and he had reasons. If he is insane then all people are insane who have goals significantly different from usual birth - job - buy car and apartment - make children - die route.

Certainly he is not normative (I avoid "normal" because it has connotations with sanity) but he is sane in my opinion.

Trying to declare him insane is a form of psychological defense. Norwegian society should better understand 1) why it is possible to put policeman uniform and make what he did 2) why someone like him have not found other ways to channalize his otherness.

 

[Winston Hughes]

A guy who temporarily lost his mind due to extreme conditions (say he found his wife in bed with someone else) and killed on the heat of the moment sure deserves punishment, but he can be rehabilitated. A cynical mob enforcer who chose his way of life and had plenty of time to reflect on his actions but carried on anyway, certainly can't be rehabilitated.

With the gangsters, there is at least the prospect of their making a rational choice to abstain from violence, even if they never come to feel remorse for their past actions.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how you could ever really trust that the moment-of-madness killer wouldn't suffer another attack of violent insanity at some point in the future.

Personally, I'd probably throw away the key in both cases.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"We are vulnerable by choice. And we will keep on like that, that’s how we want to live. We will not be worse because of the worst. We must be good because of the best."

Beautiful

 

[Angst]

Yeah innit

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

As I said, Norway's a civilised country.

(Was replying to Dommy. Shoulda quoted; connection kept failing.)

Trying to declare him insane is a form of psychological defense.

I recall back in April, the business of whether he was 'sane' or 'insane' was painted rather curiously: he wanted to be declared sane since it would 'legitimize' his actions to fellow extremists. What Takhsis has pointed out earlier in the thread is that the sanity ruling is merely a determination of criminal responsibility, not a judgment on his psyche as a whole. He may not be the quintessential raving lunatic, but he has clearly demonstrated that he has something out of joint because he so meticulously rationalizes his terrorism. To quote Hamlet: "Though this be madness, yet there is a method in't."

But what I do agree with you on is that we shouldn't dismiss him as a fluke, or an isolated incident, or some other excuse not to treat the sort of thinking that empowered him as a serious social threat.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah innit

It certainly expresses what I feel about terrorism and criminality in general.

I'll give it tick.

 

[Takhisis]

(Was replying to Dommy. Shoulda quoted; connection kept failing.)

I know, I was actually reinforcing your point for Mr. Domination's sake.

I recall back in April, the business of whether he was 'sane' or 'insane' was painted rather curiously: he wanted to be declared sane since it would 'legitimize' his actions to fellow extremists. What Takhsis has pointed out earlier in the thread is that the sanity ruling is merely a determination of criminal responsibility, not a judgment on his psyche as a whole. He may not be the quintessential raving lunatic, but he has clearly demonstrated that he has something out of joint because he so meticulously rationalizes his terrorism. To quote Hamlet: "Though this be madness, yet there is a method in't."

Bolded for emphasis. Criminal responsibility. The law tries to be as non-axiological as possible, even though it can't be perfectly non-axiological.

Have you been reading Claus Roxin by any chance, Thorvald?

But what I do agree with you on is that we shouldn't dismiss him as a fluke, or an isolated incident, or some other excuse not to treat the sort of thinking that empowered him as a serious social threat.

And that's criminal policy, how to deal with crime. Hence why the sentence can be extended if necessary.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Have you been reading Claus Roxin by any chance, Thorvald?

No, but now that you mention it, I'll have to dig him up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's a civilised country.

I don't think countries that let murderers walk around free, even after 21 years are "Civilized."

I get that that could be read as an "Anti-Norway" type of post but I don't want it to read like that.

My personal preference is for there to be a death penalty, but even if you can't do that, at least keep them behind bars for life. The fact that you can kill 77 people and then get let out again to kill some more... I wouldn't feel very safe living in that country.

Each to his own I guess but that simply doesn't feel right to me. I simply don't get the logic behind this. Where is the "Second chance" for the 77 people he killed?

They will never get one.

Why should he?

There's a man who killed 77 people, and the man who did the killing has the better fate.

That's not justice. That's laughable to me.

He should have been hanged, but I'd even settle if he never got out. But 21 years? Why? So he can kill again?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

And I don't think countries with the death penalty are civilized.

We've been over this already: the sentence can be extended indefinitely. He's never getting out. I'm pretty sure America has similar review processes.

Justice is about more than retribution. Why do you insist on turning him into a martyr?

 

[Snorrius]

He should have been hanged, but I'd even settle if he never got out. But 21 years? Why? So he can kill again?

It is very doubtful he will do it again. He have completed his mission or the first step in his mission, I doubt it involve repeating it even if he have some kind of plan.

And 21 year is a very long time - he will probably be very different man after.

At the other side, personally I would also vote for a death penalty (not a much to stop him from killing again but as an appropriate retribution for what is done) but all countries are different - Norway is very feminine country, you should keep it in mind, they have a right to be kind.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And I don't think countries with the death penalty are civilized.

We've been over this already: the sentence can be extended indefinitely. He's never getting out. I'm pretty sure America has similar review processes.

Justice is about more than retribution. Why do you insist on turning him into a martyr?

Wait, I hear some people saying that the sentence is 21 years max, and others saying he'll never get out? Which is it?

It is very doubtful he will do it again. He have completed his mission or the first step in his mission, I doubt it involve repeating it even if he have some kind of plan.

And 21 year is a very long time - he will probably be very different man after.

At the other side, personally I would also vote for a death penalty (not a much to stop him from killing again but as an appropriate retribution for what is done) but all countries are different - Norway is very feminine country, you should keep it in mind, they have a right to be kind.

Perhaps, but then again, the prison population would probably keep him still being a bad person. And yes, justice demands if you kill 77 people you should not survive the experience.

 

[Borachio]

... I wouldn't feel very safe living in that country.


He should have been hanged, but I'd even settle if he never got out. But 21 years? Why? So he can kill again?

And just how safe do you feel walking the streets of NY? Or wherever in any US city.

Really, Norway must be the safest country in the world.

Let him rot in jail. And eventually, perhaps, come to regret what he has done.

21 years is just the nominal sentence. They'll never let him out, don't worry.

Wouldn't that be a greater punishment?

Where do you get this vindictive streak, GW?

"Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord. Eh?

 

[GhostWriter16]

"Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord

Justice as executed by the state is different than personal vengeance.

 

[Borachio]

Phooey!

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Wait, I hear some people saying that the sentence is 21 years max, and others saying he'll never get out? Which is it?

Sigh.

The maximum single sentence that can be delivered is 21 years' incarceration. Under the concept of forvaring ("containment"), this term can be extended indefinitely if the individual is deemed a continued danger to society. Odds are even if Breivik does reform himself, public sentiment will be so hostile that they'll keep him in for his own safety.

This was already addressed at the start of the thread.

Perhaps, but then again, the prison population would probably keep him still being a bad person.

Assuming, of course, they don't put him in solitary.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sigh.

The maximum single sentence that can be delivered is 21 years' incarceration. Under the concept of forvaring ("containment"), this term can be extended indefinitely if the individual is deemed a continued danger to society. Odds are even if Breivik does reform himself, public sentiment will be so hostile that they'll keep him in for his own safety.

This was already addressed at the start of the thread.


Assuming, of course, they don't put him in solitary.

OK, so in practical terms its a life sentence. OK. That's better.

As for solitary though, if a lifetime in solitary really more merciful than the death penalty?

 

[Defiant47]

Would you rather have a 21-year max sentence that can be extended indefinitely (Norway), or a life sentence that can be shortened by parole (US)?