Anders Breivik found guilty, gets 21 years

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,716
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
He was found to be sane, to be fully culpable of 77 acts of murder, and he declared in the course of the trial, "I stand by what I have done and I would still do it again." He received the MOST SEVERE PUNISHMENT possible under Norwegian law: 21 years in prison. Breivik is 33 years old. As long as he presents no threat of further violence, he may walk free at age 54. I do not support the death penalty, but for a crime like this anything less than imprisonment for life seems to me an insane leniency.

Norway jails sane Breivik for maximum term | Reuters
 

tbrguy

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Posts
1,123
Media
18
Likes
133
Points
183
Location
The North of England
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, but under the Norwegian legal system, he has no automatic right to be freed after the 21 years, it will be up to the court.

He has the right to apply for parole after ten years, and every five years thereafter.

The chance of him ever being released is remote.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
My understanding is that after a sentence is served, an offender can be kept in jail for additional 5 year periods if he is still considered to be dangerous and there is no limit to the number of times he can be re-incarcerated.

This is much like Canada's "dangerous offender designation" which is applied during sentencing and amounts to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. This how we throw away the key for people like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,716
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
My understanding is that after a sentence is served, an offender can be kept in jail for additional 5 year periods if he is still considered to be dangerous and there is no limit to the number of times he can be re-incarcerated.

This is much like Canada's "dangerous offender designation" which is applied during sentencing and amounts to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. This how we throw away the key for people like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson.
Assuming that this practice is not abused, Breivik's imprisonment can be continued beyond the 21-year mark only if he is found to present a threat. His punishment is finished in 21 years and cannot be extended. If, 21 years from now, he says, "I did the right thing in killing those people and have no regrets about it, but I will refrain from acts of violence hereafter," and the judges find his statement credible, then they will have to let him free.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Assuming that this practice is not abused, Breivik's imprisonment can be continued beyond the 21-year mark only if he is found to present a threat. His punishment is finished in 21 years and cannot be extended. If, 21 years from now, he says, "I did the right thing in killing those people and have no regrets about it, but I will refrain from acts of violence hereafter," and the judges find his statement credible, then they will have to let him free.
If he said, "I did the right thing and have no regrets", I doubt that many people would believe the part about refraining from future acts of violence. He's gone for life.

I agree that technically, his punishment is 21 years and it is too short for what he did. But society will be protected for as long as it is necessary. I don't know much about their system, but Norway has some of the lowest rates of incarceration and recidivism in the world, so perhaps they are doing something right in their justice system. Could it be that spending less money on punishment and more on rehabilitation produces better results? I think it is a common sense approach to limit sentences and thereby motivate the system to affect changes in behavior, yet have a safety in place to keep the truly dangerous locked up.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
As Vince has pointed out, the Norwegian system has very low incarceration and recidivism. Most nations could learn from it.

The reason for keeping Breivik in prison is to keep society safe - and I think this is pretty much the only reason. Retribution is not ever an acceptable reason for incarceration in most British and European systems of justice. Deterrence is increasingly problematic as a concept as the growing view is that we must not use people in this way. Rehabilitation may be a benefit which comes from sending someone to prison, though I'm not quite sure how this works in the Breivik case.

The usual expectation of people convicted of murder (in the UK and I gather in Norway) is that the time will come when they are not judged a risk to society and are released, with safeguards in place. The safeguards are becoming more sophisticated. For example tagging is possible, so that someone can be monitored 24/7, along with curfew and restrictions on places that can be visited. In 21 years' time a Norwegian court will look at the Breivik case and, if they feel the public can be kept safe with whatever technology then exists, they may well release him. I don't accept that he is inevitably behind bars for life.

The crime is of a magnitude where punishment is not possible. The key concept is safety.

What makes me uneasy is the finding that Breivik is sane. Somehow it would be a lot easier to consider him insane than to grapple with the idea of a sane person deciding to do such evil things.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As Vince has pointed out, the Norwegian system has very low incarceration and recidivism. Most nations could learn from it.

The reason for keeping Breivik in prison is to keep society safe - and I think this is pretty much the only reason. Retribution is not ever an acceptable reason for incarceration in most British and European systems of justice. Deterrence is increasingly problematic as a concept as the growing view is that we must not use people in this way. Rehabilitation may be a benefit which comes from sending someone to prison, though I'm not quite sure how this works in the Breivik case.

The usual expectation of people convicted of murder (in the UK and I gather in Norway) is that the time will come when they are not judged a risk to society and are released, with safeguards in place. The safeguards are becoming more sophisticated. For example tagging is possible, so that someone can be monitored 24/7, along with curfew and restrictions on places that can be visited. In 21 years' time a Norwegian court will look at the Breivik case and, if they feel the public can be kept safe with whatever technology then exists, they may well release him. I don't accept that he is inevitably behind bars for life.

The crime is of a magnitude where punishment is not possible. The key concept is safety.

What makes me uneasy is the finding that Breivik is sane. Somehow it would be a lot easier to consider him insane than to grapple with the idea of a sane person deciding to do such evil things.
in europe it isnt so rare... netherlands, austria, swiss, denmark and germany - for example

but the concept isnt safety, its re-socielition. not a technology to keep the public safe, but a way to make him an akzeptable member of the society again. - i doubt that it is possible in his case. by this he will stay for ever in prison(he could get out, as soon as he is old and not able to move mutch)


sure it would be easier to declare him insane and punish him by this even more. but also you would show the system of justice ad absurdum, to consider someone is insane, cause it fits better.
 
Last edited:
7

798686

Guest
He was found to be sane, to be fully culpable of 77 acts of murder, and he declared in the course of the trial, "I stand by what I have done and I would still do it again." He received the MOST SEVERE PUNISHMENT possible under Norwegian law: 21 years in prison. Breivik is 33 years old. As long as he presents no threat of further violence, he may walk free at age 54. I do not support the death penalty, but for a crime like this anything less than imprisonment for life seems to me an insane leniency.

Norway jails sane Breivik for maximum term | Reuters
I agree. He also 'apologised' for not killing more people. I do support capital punishment in the most extreme cases, and this is one of them. It did no-one any good having Hindley and Brady around for decades (not least themselves), and I think it's the same in this case.

There's always the option of lengthening the sentence at a later date, if he's still seen as a threat - tbh, I think it's the same as the Moors Murderers case, public opinion would be such that they (and he) could never be released.
 
7

798686

Guest
If he said, "I did the right thing and have no regrets", I doubt that many people would believe the part about refraining from future acts of violence. He's gone for life.
I think another reason why he could never be released, is the threat to him on the outside. Again, public opinion is so strong (and rightly so) that he'd be in permanent danger of revenge attacks should he be let out. I guess the Bulger killers were released in the UK (under new identities), but they were kids when the murder took place, and people aren't really aware of what they look like now. I think most people in the western hemisphere would know what Breivik looks like, so I'm not sure a new identity would work (and I'm not sure he'd accept one, in any case).

I do agree with rehabilitation rather than punishment, usually. But I also think the sentence should fit the crime - that would mean not exaggerating sentences for the sake of deterrence, but it would also mean that in cases such as this, the 'punishment' would be much more severe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think life imprisonment is ever an applicable penalty. The goal of any criminal justice system should be reforming criminals into productive citizens anything less is barbarism.
 

karlaz

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
861
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
573
Location
Italy
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A norwegian acquaintance of mine told me that they have to keep him isolated or his prison fellows might kill him.
Should he be freed in 21 years time, then I hope there will be somebody waiting for him to come out and return a part of what he's done.
Also, it is not right that Norway pays for his extra long holiday behind bars. They should present the family with the bill, a bit like in China, where they send the family an invoice of the bullet used for the execution.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A norwegian acquaintance of mine told me that they have to keep him isolated or his prison fellows might kill him.
Should he be freed in 21 years time, then I hope there will be somebody waiting for him to come out and return a part of what he's done.
Also, it is not right that Norway pays for his extra long holiday behind bars. They should present the family with the bill, a bit like in China, where they send the family an invoice of the bullet used for the execution.

So, what you're saying is they should punish his family for actions he committed?
 

sizehungry

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Posts
1,308
Media
0
Likes
1,332
Points
198
Location
Sydney (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
77 victims , 21 years in prison . Hmmm, that's 3. 6666667 years per victim , and then there is the question of the pain and suffering of loved ones , the effect upon those who had to deal with the aftermath , etc,etc. . I really find it hard to get my head around this sentence. I would get more time than 3.6 years ,if i ripped of the taxation office for a few lousy grand . Don't know about the States , but here in Australia , the judiciary are as weak as piss . Our poor ,bloody police work their guts out , trying to take these violent maggots off the streets ,only to see them walk out of court , having received a " limp dick" judgement from some gutless magistrate.
The Moderating team found some content of this post to be in violation of the present rules regarding content that is unacceptable; "Illegal Actions"

Partial content of the post has been removed and we request that all members read the rules and follow them in the future.

Members found to be continuing in the same manner after the posting of this warning, will be subject to further actions and sanctions up to and including reviewing your continued participation at LPSG.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sizehungry

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Posts
1,308
Media
0
Likes
1,332
Points
198
Location
Sydney (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Thank you Calboner , you are absolutely correct. Actually , if i divide the sentence 77 times , i arrive at the even more horrifying figure of 0.272727.years per victim. What ever the figures though , his punishment seems totally inadequate to me.
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,729
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Don't worry about it being 27 yrs, I guarantee you someone will murder the bastard in prison if he is not guarded 24/7.
I am absolutely wo equivocation against the death penalty but would be willing to turn my head in the case of this sick fuck.

HH
 

B_Evie

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Posts
346
Media
0
Likes
37
Points
63
Location
Southern Girl
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I'm sad and frustrated that it is pardonable for him by you all that he committed 77 murders and you think he has a right to live. He can never be "reformed." He's a mass murderer.

I fully support the death penalty because of people just like him. Murderers like to kill and will do so whenever and however they can. I do not see any benefit to society to allow this one to continue to breathe.

I'm sure that I'll be considered barbaric for my viewpoint on this. FYI - I've never killed anyone. Killing innocent people is barbaric.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm sad and frustrated that it is pardonable for him by you all that he committed 77 murders and you think he has a right to live. He can never be "reformed." He's a mass murderer.

I fully support the death penalty because of people just like him. Murderers like to kill and will do so whenever and however they can. I do not see any benefit to society to allow this one to continue to breathe.

I'm sure that I'll be considered barbaric for my viewpoint on this. FYI - I've never killed anyone. Killing innocent people is barbaric.

The death penalty - judicial murder - brutalises the society that inflicts it and hurts everyone who lives in that society. It is a slippery slope, as once it exists it can be applied to less and less serious crimes, and applied when there is some level of doubt. The view of the international community is that it is a line that society must not cross, ever, for no reason at all, no excuse.

The benefit for letting this man lives is that we - in this case Norwegian society - demonstrates that it knows murder is wrong and does not itself murder. That is the strength of Norwegian society. Only around a dozen nations are actively using judicial murder and (with one exception, the USA) they are pretty disgusting nations. All other nations accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those that ignore it believe they are too big to sanction (USA, China) or too far outside the international community to care (N Korea, Sudan).