92 Dead - 21 Years Max

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230
92 Dead - 21 Years Max

Is 21 years in prison a reasonable punishment for killing 92... possibly as many as 98 people?

The Norwegian man accused of launching twin terror attacks in Oslo and at a nearby summer camp for teenagers that left at least 92 dead has "admitted responsibility," his lawyer told Norway's NRK television network Saturday.

Police labeled the attacks as acts of terrorism punishable by up to 21 years in prison according to Norwegian law, the Wall Street Journal reported. Norway does not have the death penalty.

Police said 85 people, many of them teenagers, were killed in the Friday afternoon shooting at a summer camp for the youth wing of the ruling Labor Party, on the island of Utoya.

The rampage followed a bombing 90 minutes earlier that ripped through government offices in the Norwegian capital and killed at least seven people.

Local media have identified the suspect as 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, although his attorney, Geir Lippestad, had asked police not to confirm his name.

Lippestad Saturday told Norway's NRK television network that his client had "admitted responsibility" for Friday's attacks.

Full story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/23/norwegian-terror-suspect-has-admitted-responsibility-for-attacks-lawyer-says/#ixzz1T0Zv9SK9

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

I think Fox News got it wrong. Obviously that's just a charge to add onto murder. He will never be out of jail, which is acceptable.

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Yeah, the way I have read it on the BBC news page is that 21 years is the maxhe can get for terrorist actions. That doesn't mean 21 years is all he can get period. Apparently he has admitted to terrorism but not guilty of murder.

I'll have to wait until he is found guilty in a court of law and given a sentence before getting up in arms over the injustice of Norwegian law. You would think News organizations would do the same.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"blather" wrote:

I think Fox News got it wrong. Obviously that's just a charge to add onto murder. He will never be out of jail, which is acceptable.

Agreed. I feel like Fox is trying to somehow condemn Norway's judicial system in the wake of an national/worldwide tragedy. Poor form, Fox! Shame on you.

celticbandgeek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/14/10
Posts: 950

As much as I really wanted to prove this wrong (as I also think that Fox is taking advantage of an opportunity to bash a socialist country), it does appear that the maximum sentence for any crime in the Norwegian penal system is 21 years...in a very cushy jail system. Apparently it can then be extended on special appeal for 5 years at a time. I found a few articles on it...here's one:

http://www.canada.com/news/Norway+suspect+could+jailed+beyond+sentence+Prosecutor/5151993/story.html

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

Norway's mass killer faces a maximum jail term of just 21 years. Astonishingly, that is the longest sentence available to judges in Norway's benevolent justice system.

In England and Wales, repeat killers can be told they will die behind bars with a 'whole life' tariff, and killers who use a knife or gun face minimum terms of 25 and 30 years.

But in Norway, few killers serve more than 14 years.

Even those given the maximum term can be released after two-thirds of their sentence, and many are given unsupervised weekend parole after just one third.

Only in exceptional cases, if officials consider a prisoner is still highly dangerous, will sentences be extended for additional five-year blocks.

Norway’s incarceration rates – the number of people jailed per head of population – are among the lowest in Europe. Some 66 are behind bars for every 100,000 citizens, less than half the figure for the UK.

The age of criminal responsibility is 15, compared with ten in England and Wales.

Lack of jail spaces means some offenders can wait weeks or even months before being locked up.

Many spend this time at home, often in the heart of the communities where they committed their crimes.In one notorious case, two boys who killed a five-year-old girl were back at school within two weeks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018378/Norways-worst-mass-killer-21-years-jail-most.html#ixzz1T5edd6pM

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

They have a very different system then we do. Why do we assume that ours is better? Norway looks at incarceration more like rehabilitation then we do. They have one of the most human jails in the world. How do you know that they wouldn't be able to do a better job rehabilitating this man in 21 years then we would by just keeping him locked up. Plus,the sentence is 21 years at sentencing, but they are allowed to add on 5 each time if they feel that the prisoner should not be set free. I don't see anything wrong with that.

What I do see wrong is the US's conciet that our way is the best way and any other way is inferiour and appaulling. And as far as the Dailymail, well isn't that a UK tabloid? I don't think one can expect much from them.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"culturedmom" wrote:

What I do see wrong is the US's conciet that our way is the best way and any other way is inferiour and appaulling. And as far as the Dailymail, well isn't that a UK tabloid? I don't think one can expect much from them.

Sorry I don't see it as wrong to think our way is the best way. After all this guy was allowed to roam around killing children for 90 minutes before anyone with a gun could get there to stop him. Maybe this is a wake up call that maybe at least their police should be able to carry guns.

As for the source, the information was in multiple places, that article just summarized it better than the others. If the information is incorrect, maybe you should show me another source that says something different before attacking the source. That was the 3rd article posted stating the same information, but I guess it is still a conspiracy by Fox.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm very content to let Norwegians self determine their own laws and policies. Norway is not a dictatorship, their people have say in their laws and processes, their own people are the ones who suffered in this tragedy, who are we (with our diabolic incarceration rates/murder rates/violent crime rates) to try to tell any other nation how they ought to do things?

IMO it is exceedingly arrogant to take one Nations national tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to nah nah na na naaaaaa them, especially from a nation with statistics on crime and recidivism like we have!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm very content to let Norwegians self determine their own laws and policies. Norway is not a dictatorship, their people have say in their laws and processes, their own people are the ones who suffered in this tragedy, who are we (with our diabolic incarceration rates/murder rates/violent crime rates) to try to tell any other nation how they ought to do things?

IMO it is exceedingly arrogant to take one Nations national tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to nah nah na na naaaaaa them, especially from a nation with statistics on crime and recidivism like we have!

I wasn't aware that we were telling them what to do. I thought we were debating.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought that you saying that our way was better than Norway's way/they should be like us, and you saying that this should be a "wake up call" to allow their police to carry guns was inferring that you felt that you or any other citizen of a country other than Norway deserved input into how they governed or policed their citizens. I apologize.

If you would like to discuss the stuff I said (re crime rates and whatnot) how our way is proven to be better than Norway's way, I do think that it could make for an interesting debate. I don't know a whole lot about Norway, but am sure google could teach me enough to debate it Smile That said, I don't think that you have yet to enter an actual debate opinion on the OP, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say you are debating. You just posted articles and stated that Norwegian police should carry guns, I haven't noticed a post about the debate topic, yet.

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Sorry I don't see it as wrong to think our way is the best way. After all this guy was allowed to roam around killing children for 90 minutes before anyone with a gun could get there to stop him. Maybe this is a wake up call that maybe at least their police should be able to carry guns.

As for the source, the information was in multiple places, that article just summarized it better than the others. If the information is incorrect, maybe you should show me another source that says something different before attacking the source. That was the 3rd article posted stating the same information, but I guess it is still a conspiracy by Fox.

Wow. You're right. 90 minutes is ridiculous. That would never happen here. The Virginia Tech gunman just roamed around campus for, oh, 2 1/2 hours before he committed suicide. :roll:

I'm just not sure what your debate point is really. You mention the fact that it took 90 mins for "anyone witha gun" to stop him. So is this about gun laws? Or is this about who's judicial system is better, US vs. Norway?

Your question was whether 21 years is enough and the articles you posted insinuate that Norways penal system is too lax. Honestly, to answer the question and make a judgment they would first have to 1. actually try and convict him and 2. sentence him. And even then I couldn't say. Look at our recidivism rates, we aren't doing that great either.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I believe the original debate question is:

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Is 21 years in prison a reasonable punishment for killing 92... possibly as many as 98 people?

To that question, ITA with this:

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm very content to let Norwegians self determine their own laws and policies. Norway is not a dictatorship, their people have say in their laws and processes, their own people are the ones who suffered in this tragedy, who are we (with our diabolic incarceration rates/murder rates/violent crime rates) to try to tell any other nation how they ought to do things?

IMO it is exceedingly arrogant to take one Nations national tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to nah nah na na naaaaaa them, especially from a nation with statistics on crime and recidivism like we have!

Do I think that it would be "fair" in our current criminal justice system, like if this happened in the US? No, of course not, but I also think that our system focuses far more on punishment than rehabilitation. Perhaps this is not the case in Norway, but either way I am content to let the Norwegians deal with it as they see fit, since they are also the victims of this tragedy.

If you want to debate the benefits of a more Norwegian style criminal justice system as compared to our own, I think that would be an interesting evolution from the original debate question.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

Sorry I don't think it is possible to rehabilitate someone who spends 90 minutes walking around shooting children. In ANY justice system. So I don't feel any qualms about judging someone else's system by saying this will be a ridiculous sentence even if they extend it, which it sounds like is a very difficult process and rarely happens. So ya if that makes me elitist or whatever saying their system stinks so be it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Sorry I don't see it as wrong to think our way is the best way. After all this guy was allowed to roam around killing children for 90 minutes before anyone with a gun could get there to stop him. Maybe this is a wake up call that maybe at least their police should be able to carry guns.

As for the source, the information was in multiple places, that article just summarized it better than the others. If the information is incorrect, maybe you should show me another source that says something different before attacking the source. That was the 3rd article posted stating the same information, but I guess it is still a conspiracy by Fox.

But this shooting took place on an island, and he wasn't exactly 'allowed' to roam around. He was apprehended by police just a couple minutes after they got there, and the police were dispatched from Oslo as soon as they received the first report of shooting. Guns in the hands of the police wouldn't have changed the outcome. Dozens of children had already been executed. Maybe this guy chose the island camp in part (other than the Labour Party connection) because of its remote location and inability for police to arrive at the scene within a few minutes. That's hardly the fault of the Norwegian justice system.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

That's hardly the fault of the Norwegian justice system.

It will be their fault if they let him out in 21 years so he can do it again. At only 53 years old that would be pretty likely.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Well, I think that judging the entire system based on what may or not happen to this person once they are tried and sentenced, AND what may or may not happen 21 years from now is silly. Imagine if those in Norway were to judge the entire legal and justice system in the United States solely based upon our release of the 20 something Casey Anthony? It would be ridiculous of them.

Again, if you look at the statistics on crime and recidivism in Norway it is hard to argue that their system "stinks" as you believe.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Well, I think that judging the entire system based on what may or not happen to this person once they are tried and sentenced, AND what may or may not happen 21 years from now is silly. Imagine if those in Norway were to judge the entire legal and justice system in the United States solely based upon our release of the 20 something Casey Anthony? It would be ridiculous of them.

Again, if you look at the statistics on crime and recidivism in Norway it is hard to argue that their system "stinks" as you believe.

Why would that be ridiculous of them? It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they said that our justice system stinks because she got away with murder because I would agree with them.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

So if you think that our Justice system stinks, and you think Norway's stinks, whose do you like? North Korea? Wink

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It will be their fault if they let him out in 21 years so he can do it again. At only 53 years old that would be pretty likely.

As others have pointed out, it's highly unlikely that he's going to get out in 21 years, or perhaps even ever. The Norwegian system is focused on rehabilitation, rather than simply punishment as ours is, and they seem to have a pretty good track record. Also, 21 years is a minimum sentence, it can be extended for 5 years at a time after that, if the experts determine that he's not been rehabilitated. I think that's great. I hate that criminals here -- criminals who have not been rehabilitated at all, and who often get worse while in prison, and for whom we provide absolutely no support or network or therapy when they are released -- get released just because the clock has ticked long enough. :evil:

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Anyone who reads even a snippit of his manifesto will quickly realize this guy's going nowhere after 21 years. This isn't your 'average' murder, for lack of a better term; this guy believes he's doing the world a favour by attempting to plunge Europe into a revolution of ethnic and religious cleansing, and those people and children were a necessary sacrifice in his mind. Despite a 21-year term, like a couple PPs have said there's the ability of the courts (or parole board or whatever panel gets to decide) to impose another term, then another, and so on. Plus I'm pretty sure the Labour Party is going to do whatever it can to ensure this guy stays behind bars.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

I would criticize their justice system and say the sentences in general should be longer if there was any sort of proof that this was actually effective. I don't think such proof exists, and I think their violent crime rates overall don't warrant me criticizing how they choose to run things. Its not like our own system in the US stands out as highly effective compared to theirs or anything.

I think they will be well equipped to deal with this individual how they see fit. As of right now, i don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: 01/01/06
Posts: 262

"KimPossible" wrote:

I would criticize their justice system and say the sentences in general should be longer if there was any sort of proof that this was actually effective. I don't think such proof exists, and I think their violent crime rates overall don't warrant me criticizing how they choose to run things. Its not like our own system in the US stands out as highly effective compared to theirs or anything.

I think they will be well equipped to deal with this individual how they see fit. As of right now, i don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

When I visited Australia, the people I met there bragged about how no one broke the driving laws because the punishment was so high.

I think it's true that in general people are less likely to commit a crime when the punishment is truly a deterrent due to its very nature.

I definitely think 21 years is too short for this murderer. Even 21 + 5 + 5 + 5....is too short!

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"runningmom" wrote:

When I visited Australia, the people I met there bragged about how no one broke the driving laws because the punishment was so high.

I think it's true that in general people are less likely to commit a crime when the punishment is truly a deterrent due to its very nature.

I definitely think 21 years is too short for this murderer. Even 21 + 5 + 5 + 5....is too short!

I don't think you can compare speeding to murder....particularly mass murder.

The motivations, the consequences in general, the balls it takes to actually kill someone vs. speeding...the mental screwed up-ness it takes to kill people vs. speeding.

Totally different things

I think it would be a big error for any individual..or any country to think the same types of deterrents work for entirely different crimes done in entirely different mindsets.

ETA: and statistics tell a little more than a group of individual expressing their right to brag about what they think. US per capita murder rates are higher than they are in Norway....so at best, i think actual evidence is inconclusive.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

My answer to the original question is absolutely not. If you kill that many people (IMO if you kill just one person) you should rot in jail for life without the possiblity of parole... period.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 hours ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"KimPossible" wrote:

I don't think you can compare speeding to murder....particularly mass murder.

The motivations, the consequences in general, the balls it takes to actually kill someone vs. speeding...the mental screwed up-ness it takes to kill people vs. speeding.

Totally different things

I think it would be a big error for any individual..or any country to think the same types of deterrents work for entirely different crimes done in entirely different mindsets.

ETA: and statistics tell a little more than a group of individual expressing their right to brag about what they think. US per capita murder rates are higher than they are in Norway....so at best, i think actual evidence is inconclusive.

Totally agree. Lots of perfectly sane, kind, loving people speed. Murderers, especially the kind who do things like the crime we're talking about, are not sane, kind, or loving. It's not really comparable, and I also don't consider the anecdotal "brag" to be a good indication either. Interesting, yes, but evidential, no.