Jump to content

Anders Breivik found sane and sentenced to maximum term of detention


Lord Toblerone

Recommended Posts

Meh, that guy fits firmly in my mind's caricaturized schema for French intellectuals. All they seem to do is spout outrageous political hogwash which were it to come to pass, would have them themselves guillotined in the first week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you tell that based solely on a quote defining what preventive detention is? Can you give an example of a crime other than "capital crime, or rape" where imprisonment for life is a possibility?

Well, here's the law as you quoted it:

§ 39c. When a time-limited penalty is not considered sufficient to protect the community, preventive detention can be imposed instead of a prison sentence if the conditions of paragraph 1 or 2 are met:

1. Offender found guilty of having committed or attempted to commit a serious violent crime, sexual offenses, detention, arson or other serious crime that violated someone else's life, health or freedom, or exposed these legal benefits of danger. In addition, it is believed to be an obvious danger that the offender will again commit such a crime. Risk assessment should be given to the commission of criminal offenses or attempt compared especially with offender behavior and social and personal functioning. Particular emphasis is placed on whether the offender has previously committed or attempted to commit a crime mentioned in the first sentence.

I don't think I'm stretching anything to say a definition like that isn't just limited only to 1) murder, and 2) rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing I really like about the catholic church. That is the fact that sometimes quiet, modest people who devote their lives to good deeds such as caring to the sick and dying, receive beatification or sanctification and thus will be remembered for centuries. Because – for me - the most annoying thing about Breivik and similar guys is that in the end they get what they want – to be famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's the law as you quoted it:

§ 39c. When a time-limited penalty is not considered sufficient to protect the community, preventive detention can be imposed instead of a prison sentence if the conditions of paragraph 1 or 2 are met:

1. Offender found guilty of having committed or attempted to commit a serious violent crime, sexual offenses, detention, arson or other serious crime that violated someone else's life, health or freedom, or exposed these legal benefits of danger. In addition, it is believed to be an obvious danger that the offender will again commit such a crime. Risk assessment should be given to the commission of criminal offenses or attempt compared especially with offender behavior and social and personal functioning. Particular emphasis is placed on whether the offender has previously committed or attempted to commit a crime mentioned in the first sentence.

I don't think I'm stretching anything to say a definition like that isn't just limited only to 1) murder, and 2) rape.

Did you read my previous post regarding the use of preventive detention?

Anyways, though the text suffers a little in translation, the main thing to keep in mind here is that the section is to be interpreted very strictly. In addition, all of the above mentioned crimes are regulated through specific statues. §39c needs to be read as a supplement to whichever main statute applies.

So commiting murder is not enough on its own to make §39c applicable as such a crime is regulated through §233, including particularly violent crimes. To quote §233 (2) -

"If the offender has acted with premeditation or has committed the homicide in order to facilitate or conceal another felony or to evade the penalty for such felony, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 years may be imposed. The same applies in cases of repeated offences and also when there are especially aggravating circumstances"

The crime then, would have to go beyond what can reasonably be said to be covered by the main section in order for §39c to applicable. And even if it does there still needs to be an "obvious danger that the offender will again commit such a crime". Not any crime, but a crime regulated by §233(2) specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...