Killed 77 People, 21 Years in Prison

Forums › Off topic › Killed 77 People, 21 Years in Prison

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#108156 24-Aug-2012 22:24

How can such a light sentence be handed down? Sounds like they are more crazy than he is.

He would be young enough upon release to have another go!

1 | 2 | 3

5059 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#676612 24-Aug-2012 22:25

Each life is only worth a little over 3.5 years? What a disgraceful sentence.

No wonder the criminals don't care about consequences.

Buying a Tesla? Use my Tesla referral link and we both get discounts and credits.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#676616 24-Aug-2012 22:35

A bit more background would be good. In five years someone will find this thread and have no idea what is being discussed.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#676618 24-Aug-2012 22:42

networkn: How can such a light sentence be handed down? Sounds like they are more crazy than he is. He would be young enough upon release to have another go!

Not exactly. Norway has a law (similar to ours) that provides for continued detention after that time if he is still considered dangerous. He will be.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#676621 24-Aug-2012 22:44

How about adding some relevant context?

- 21 years is the maximum penalty in Norway
- "But officials can prevent his release indefinitely and are expected to do so if the anti-Muslim right-winger still poses a threat."

So instead of "How can such a light sentence be handed down?", I'd say "Maximum sentence handed down and there's still the likelihood of keeping him imprisoned indefinitely if he still poses a credible threat"

Of course - this is about Anders Breivik, the convicted mass killer from Norway.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

insane

3236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#676625 24-Aug-2012 22:53

They would have been better off handing him only a 1 year sentence, now someone has to wait 21 years minimum before they can go vigilante on him.

Guys like that need to spend their remainder of their days forced to help out the devastated families, not sure just wasting away in prison is a suitable sentence, or brings any justice. The West has become soft with all this human rights nonsense.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#676640 24-Aug-2012 23:57

I guess my concern is how can the maximum sentence reasonably be 21 years, just doesn't make any sense.

Blah blah extra detention, but how must those families feel!

zhuyan

177 posts

Master Geek

#676643 25-Aug-2012 00:15

The smiling face of the convicted murderer of 77 people after the sentence makes such a mockery of the entire judicial system in Norway, IMO.

How could the maximum of penalty for any criminal offences be limited to 21 years in the first place?

This is a victory for the convicted as this is what he knows he would get. He knows the consequences of his action and throughout the whole process he knows what he is doing and he is not regretting it at all.

Something is very wrong.

And what about the families of those 77 victims???

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

farcus

1554 posts

Uber Geek

#676661 25-Aug-2012 02:01

networkn: I guess my concern is how can the maximum sentence reasonably be 21 years, just doesn't make any sense.

Blah blah extra detention, but how must those families feel!

as someone else has already pointed out - he can be detained indefinitely beyond that 21 years if he is still considered dangerous.
Norway (like NZ and unlike the US) has a rehabilitative justice system.

Are you aware of the maximum sentence this crime would get in NZ?

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#676666 25-Aug-2012 02:52

What would a longer sentence achieve?

Would it keep a dangerous person in prison longer? No, as stated, the facility will exist to keep him in custody if he is still dangerous.

Would it deter people from doing the same? No, if somebody is going to go postal, they are going to go postal, consequences are not something they consider.

Would it be "more punishing"? I doubt it, Mr Breivik probably sees himself as a martyr anyway, he likely sees this as a sacrifice he makes for his cause.

Would it be "more rehabilitative"? No, in the perhaps unlikely event that Mr Breivik can be rehabilitated, why would an arbitrarily longer period (or shorter) be specified to do it.

Would it be "just recompense"? No, that would imply that there is some term of years which is a fair trade for the lives, or that lives could be bartered.

Would it be retributive? Arguably, but that's not what a modern justice system is about. If it was, they'd tie him up and have people stone him to death. Most societies have moved past eye-for-an-eye.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#676674 25-Aug-2012 07:40

Would you rather see the 21 years and the ability for ongoing (preventative ) detention, or something more along the American lines where the sentence would likely have been many hundreds of years?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#676712 25-Aug-2012 09:54

oxnsox: Would you rather see the 21 years and the ability for ongoing (preventative ) detention, or something more along the American lines where the sentence would likely have been many hundreds of years?

21 Years x 77 served consecutively seems very reasonable. Death Penalty also seems very reasonable (I am not a fan of it but some crimes....)

There is no rehabilitating this person.

No sane person kills 77 innocent people.

I have already acknowledged the extra detention he gets IF they deem him unsafe around other people, I just think it's a farce.

He needs to be locked away in a maximum security prison, starved of the attention he so obviously craves.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#676714 25-Aug-2012 09:59

farcus:
networkn: I guess my concern is how can the maximum sentence reasonably be 21 years, just doesn't make any sense.

Blah blah extra detention, but how must those families feel!

as someone else has already pointed out - he can be detained indefinitely beyond that 21 years if he is still considered dangerous.
Norway (like NZ and unlike the US) has a rehabilitative justice system.

Are you aware of the maximum sentence this crime would get in NZ?

I already acknowledged in the very post you quoted, that I understood detention/detainment afterwards, but it's still nonsense. At the end of the day, the punishment needs to fit the crime. This sentence is a crime in itself. The detainment is only IF they still consider him a risk to the community, and it must be judged fairly based on his state at the time of the assessment.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#676717 25-Aug-2012 10:01

networkn:
21 Years x 77 served consecutively seems very reasonable. Death Penalty also seems very reasonable (I am not a fan of it but some crimes....)
[snip]

No, a 1617 year sentence is absolutely not reasonable, by any stretch of the imagination.

The main problem here is you're trying to apply a set of rational, approved rules and guidelines to an act so far outside societal norms that there's no way for reasonable people to react which seems equitable.

You're right though, the best solution now is to chuck him somewhere and isolate the world from him. It's not like he's Hitler or someone where the world needs to learn a lesson and not forget - it's a one off nutjob. There's nothing to be gained from remembering or replaying what he did. Chuck him in a cell, forget about him for 21 years.

In 21 years, look back at the crime, rubber stamp another 10 years, repeat. (Yes, I'm assuming there's no chance of a genuine rehabilitation)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Asrafrate

276 posts

Ultimate Geek

#676719 25-Aug-2012 10:11

I don't think he'll ever be set free.

Look at what happened with Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (Moors murders.) Those two did appeal after appeal, claimed they'd been in jail for enough time. Claimed remorse and all sorts but the Brits never released them. Hindley is dead now, and I don't think Brady will ever see beyond the prison bars.

What this guy did, yeah, the chances of him being freed? Nah.

Zeb A.
Twitter: @asgard

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#676722 25-Aug-2012 10:23

Talkiet:
networkn:
21 Years x 77 served consecutively seems very reasonable. Death Penalty also seems very reasonable (I am not a fan of it but some crimes....)
[snip]

No, a 1617 year sentence is absolutely not reasonable, by any stretch of the imagination.

The main problem here is you're trying to apply a set of rational, approved rules and guidelines to an act so far outside societal norms that there's no way for reasonable people to react which seems equitable.

You're right though, the best solution now is to chuck him somewhere and isolate the world from him. It's not like he's Hitler or someone where the world needs to learn a lesson and not forget - it's a one off nutjob. There's nothing to be gained from remembering or replaying what he did. Chuck him in a cell, forget about him for 21 years.

In 21 years, look back at the crime, rubber stamp another 10 years, repeat. (Yes, I'm assuming there's no chance of a genuine rehabilitation)

Cheers - N

Why is it not reasonable? The families of those 77 people killed will be without their loved ones for considerably longer than that, if you worked it out consecutively. He won't live 1617 years so what difference does it make? Life (Meaning until death) without the possibility of parole would be equally suitable.

1 | 2 | 3