Norway Killer Sentenced

[mirth]

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-

In 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.

[MIGMaster]

And I thought the Canadian legal system was bad !  :-\

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[mirth]

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:

Under Norwegian law, if a defendant was psychotic at the time of his crime, he cannot be punished.

Alf 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.

[Staggerwing]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[mirth]

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).

[mirth]

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

[Keunert]

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.

[LongBlade]

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

[mirth]

^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.

[LongBlade]

Agreed on that point, also.

[MIGMaster]

^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! >:(

[Greybriar]

One thing's for sure: If a killer is put to death, he damned sure isn't going to kill anyone else.