http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-murder-trial.html?hp
Norway has an effed up legal system. After murdering 77 people, the max sentence they could give the guy was 21 years. The defense argued that he was sane and should be convicted. The prosecution argued that he was mentally ill and should be hospitalized. To top it all off, the court let the guy give an hour long speech on the last day of the trial-
QuoteIn an hourlong, rambling warning about the evils of Norwegian multiculturalism, Mr. Breivik said: "I acted in the principle of necessity for my country, so I ask to be acquitted."
Makes me want to vomit.
And I thought the Canadian legal system was bad ! :-\
It kind of makes you...almost...think the guy has a point. Norway has become so weak, as evidenced by its impotent legal system, that it is simply doomed and will be destroyed from within.
Interesting point, JH. They certainly are acting as if they have their heads in the sand. A maximum sentence like that is a joke. I did hear on the news that after the time is served it could be extended if they think he's "still a danger."
Personally I don't know why they don't have a life sentence. Then again, lining him up a against a wall and buying a few bullets would be cheaper still, but I'm sure they're against the death penalty. Because, you know, it would be bad to get rid of bad people who have no prospect of redemption.
From what I've read of it, it seems unlikely that he'll serve more than the 21 years. He may not serve anytime depending on what happens at appeal:
QuoteUnder Norwegian law, if a defendant was psychotic at the time of his crime, he cannot be punished.
QuoteAlf Petter Hogberg, a professor of public and international law at Oslo University, said before the verdict that he thought an appeal would be made, with a hearing in the Norwegian Supreme Court likely as early as November. "If the judges decide he is sane, then I am sure the prosecutors will appeal. If there is a 5 percent doubt, then he should be considered insane. So they should appeal," he said.
That's right folks, if there's a 5 percent doubt then he should not be punished.
According to a commentator if he were declared insane the State could lock the killer up as long as they wanted. For his own good, of course... Also, it would piss him off to no end since he thinks he is a serious crusader.
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 24, 2012, 08:24:31 AM
According to a commentator if he were declared insane the State could lock the killer up as long as they wanted. For his own good, of course... Also, it would piss him off to no end since he thinks he is a serious crusader.
Put a bullet in his head and be done with him. I don't understand all the hoops they're jumping through.
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 24, 2012, 08:24:31 AM
According to a commentator if he were declared insane the State could lock the killer up as long as they wanted. For his own good, of course... Also, it would piss him off to no end since he thinks he is a serious crusader.
Okay that makes sense then, I guess. Still though, it's messed up when you can murder 77 people, be declared sane and only be sentenced to 21 years (I know it's potentially longer).
Quote from: LongBlade on August 24, 2012, 08:28:07 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 24, 2012, 08:24:31 AM
According to a commentator if he were declared insane the State could lock the killer up as long as they wanted. For his own good, of course... Also, it would piss him off to no end since he thinks he is a serious crusader.
Put a bullet in his head and be done with him. I don't understand all the hoops they're jumping through.
+1
this trial proves a different thing to me: Norway is a rather harmonic society with low criminality (64prisoners to 100'000 citizens, US= ca. 700plus)
there was no need so far to have a law adressing terror acts of this scale and it is very likely that this tragedy will start a discussion of what laws are needed.
what makes you believe that an unthinkable crime like this will not start a process in norwegian law?
Was Germany doomed because it did not kill it's Rote Armefraktion terrorists? Did the death penalty of McVeigh prevent other lunatics to do other terrorist acts?
i don't believe that lunatics like Breivik will be put off by a law article.
Norway isn't weak, it's a flourishing and incredible successfully nation. this crime will not change that.
Between 1970 and 2010, only 15 terrorist attacks occurred in Norway, according to the Global Terrorism Database, a project of the University of Maryland that has been recording terrorist attacks since 1970. By comparison, 2,347 acts of terrorism occurred in the United States during this period. (The GTD considers specific criteria when labeling an incident an act of terrorism. More information can be found here.)
Those 15 terror attacks over 40 years left one person dead and 13 wounded, according to the database, and paled in comparison to the destruction of Friday's attacks.
Quote from: Keunert on August 24, 2012, 11:54:09 AM
this trial proves a different thing to me: Norway is a rather harmonic society with low criminality (64prisoners to 100'000 citizens, US= ca. 700plus)
there was no need so far to have a law adressing terror acts of this scale and it is very likely that this tragedy will start a discussion of what laws are needed.
what makes you believe that an unthinkable crime like this will not start a process in norwegian law?
Was Germany doomed because it did not kill it's Rote Armefraktion terrorists? Did the death penalty of McVeigh prevent other lunatics to do other terrorist acts?
i don't believe that lunatics like Breivik will be put off by a law article.
Norway isn't weak, it's a flourishing and incredible successfully nation. this crime will not change that.
Between 1970 and 2010, only 15 terrorist attacks occurred in Norway, according to the Global Terrorism Database, a project of the University of Maryland that has been recording terrorist attacks since 1970. By comparison, 2,347 acts of terrorism occurred in the United States during this period. (The GTD considers specific criteria when labeling an incident an act of terrorism. More information can be found here.)
Those 15 terror attacks over 40 years left one person dead and 13 wounded, according to the database, and paled in comparison to the destruction of Friday's attacks.
<shrug>
To my mind it's a matter of economics and energy. Deterrence rarely shuts down the mentally ill or psychopatyically ideological.
I just figure it's easier to to shoot the guy and forget him than it is to put him in a prison to the tune of $60,000/year and then have to recycle his parole denial every year after 20. YMMV
^I agree with ya LB. There's also something to be said for a punishment commensurate to the crime. To my mind, murdering 77 people warrants a death sentence.
Agreed on that point, also.
Quote from: mirth on August 24, 2012, 12:35:58 PM
^I agree with ya LB. There's also something to be said for a punishment commensurate to the crime. To my mind, murdering 77 people warrants a death sentence.
Too bad we couldn't kill the bastard 77 times! >:(
One thing's for sure: If a killer is put to death, he damned sure isn't going to kill anyone else.
if you feel comfortable with the government being able to execute condemned criminals then i do understand your sentiment.
to live in a single small room for forty years alone and to die there alone isn't something i would easily chose over
a fast death by chemicals or electricity though.
over here the constitutions forbids it and i am very fine with it.
It's the fact that your taxes pay to keep the scum of the earth alive for the next 30 years.... As opposed to $2 for a bullet.
Wish Canada had the death penalty... Few choice people here should be dead rather living off my hard earned money..... >:(
Quote from: Barthheart on August 24, 2012, 05:42:01 PM
It's the fact that your taxes pay to keep the scum of the earth alive for the next 30 years.... As opposed to $2 for a bullet.
Wish Canada had the death penalty... Few choice people here should be dead rather living off my hard earned money..... >:(
Yeah, it's not for their sake that we do it - it's for ours. Frankly, what they want matters not a whit.
Breivik getting shot? no problem with that. or burn him a little and then salt him. according to wiki the capital crolime lawsuits in the us aren't much cheaper than life sentences. and revenge isn't part of a modern law as far as i know it.
but i guess a lot of capital crime investigations aren't that simple.
Quote from: Keunert on August 24, 2012, 06:03:12 PM
Breivik getting shot? no problem with that. or burn him a little and then salt him. according to wiki the capital crolime lawsuits in the us aren't much cheaper than life sentences.
It's my understanding that, at least in the US, much of that cost is tied up in repeated appeal processes.
we don't have the death penalty but we had several initiatives to reintroduce it again: once to kill drug dealers and the last one was to kill child molesters.
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 24, 2012, 08:24:31 AM
According to a commentator if he were declared insane the State could lock the killer up as long as they wanted. For his own good, of course... Also, it would piss him off to no end since he thinks he is a serious crusader.
It is the same way here in the States...at least in New York State. The Criminal Procedure Law has something called a "Not Responsible Plea," which essentially means, at the time you committed the crime, you were not responsible by reason of mental defect or disease. I have a client that I represent in a civil case, that was incarcerated in Riker's Island and being criminally prosecuted, as well. I was NOT his criminal defense attorney. What was his crime, you ask? He attacked his roommate and gouged the eyes out of the poor kid's skull...with his bare hands. My client was a diagnosed schizophrenic who was living in a community home under moderate supervision. He stopped taking his medications and decompensated. Anyway, the DA accepted a "Not Responsible" plea and the prosecution was dropped. My client was then committed to a State psychiatric facility, where he will be reassessed periodically to determine whether he represents a danger to himself and others...but lets be honest, the guy is probably never getting out.
^Holy shit.
Quote from: Gusington on August 24, 2012, 08:41:52 PM
^Holy shit.
?
"Holy shit" as in, "I'm surprised JH let the fucker live?" or "Holy shit" as in something else?
Quote from: LongBlade on August 24, 2012, 09:31:33 PM
"Holy shit" as in, "I'm surprised JH let the fucker live?" or "Holy shit" as in something else?
I actually feel very bad for the guy. I see him as a victim too. He never should have been placed in a situation where he was not under 24/7 supervision. I think the system let him and the victim down.
The discussion on the cost of the death penalty got me thinking I had heard there was an argument to be made that it is more expensive to try and execute someone than just locking them up for life. Turns out there is a website that seems pretty unbiased discussing just this facet.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
Turns out that the answer is not simple but a quick read on this I am inclined to think that it is more expensive based on the preponderance and methodology of the studies that come out with this conclusion
If you decided it was more expensive to execute someone under our current laws would that change your mind on the death penalty?
I think it would for me in the majority of cases apart from terrorism and treason. Of course I am not a victim either which I am sure would change the equation for me personally.
Con
If it's expensive, it's because we've made it so not because it has to be.