Anders Breivik found sane and sentenced to maximum term of detention

[Lord Toblerone]

Which is 21 years in Norway. And may well effectively be a life term, as no-one is going to want to release this guy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0824/breaking7.html

What this makes me think about is high-profile crimes and prison sentences. As in, are high-profile murderers kept in prison for political reasons because nobody wants to be the one who released the infamous killer?

In the particular case of Breivik, a crime like this is always going to be high profile and he probably deserves life imprisonment.

But in general?

Here in Ireland there was the case of Malcolm Macarthur, an oddball who through a bizarre series of events ended up being arrested for murder at the home of the Attorney General.

30 years later I believe he's still imprisoned, though now in an open prison and he gets out on day release:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/malcolm-macarthur-takes-one-more-step-to-freedom-after-29-years-2944557.html

There doesn't seem to be that much value to society in keeping him imprisoned at this point, he's not likely to be a harm to anyone, it's been a long time.

And then there's Larry Murphy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Murphy_(Irish_criminal)

When this man was released there was a large media furore that I personally was angered by as I regarded it as hysterical scaremongering.

[deleted01]

While I don't doubt that politics do come into play, this man was found guilty of killing 77 people. A maximum detention sentence is the least he deserves, to attempt to bring justice to the families of all of the victims. Locking him up indefinitely in a psychiatric hospital wouldn't have done anyone any good, seeing as he was deemed sane. He was given the maximum sentence available, and I think that's fair in the circumstances.

[Alisa]

We've had some fairly high profile cases in the UK of people, usually prolific murderers, fighting to be realsed. I have no doub the media reaction (and the public's) has a large part in why they never got released. But generally the types of criminal that we're talking about are people who probably should never be released in my opinion (Myra Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe etc.).

But then there's Maxine Carr and the media didn't stop her getting out (although she's not technically a murderer).

[Lord O' Bones]

I still want this motherfucker executed and I'm not even a fan of the death penalty.

[Antonius Pius]

Belgium is currently wrangling with the Michelle Martin case, wife and accomplice of child-rapist and -killer Marc Dutroux. She has served the minimum required sentence and is elibible for parole. Nobody in Belgium wants her out of jail, but apparently the courts have no reason to refuse her request for parole. She is to retire to a nunnery (I kid you not), which has already agreed to receive her.

[Antonius Pius]

I still want this motherfucker executed and I'm not even a fan of the death penalty.

Same here. This guy is so fucking nuts, and what he did so evil, it's hard to find any kind of fitting punishment. He should be deleted.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I realize that the normal person knows that this guy is crazy even though he's apparently totally sane, so I have to wonder if Breivik is really so deluded that he thinks the court declaring him legally sane is going to prove anything to anyone.

[Zoë Sumra]

Same here. This guy is so fucking nuts, and what he did so evil, it's hard to find any kind of fitting punishment. He should be deleted.

I realize that the normal person knows that this guy is crazy even though he's apparently totally sane, so I have to wonder if Breivik is really so deluded that he thinks the court declaring him legally sane is going to prove anything to anyone.

The court found, following a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, that he was sane at the time of his actions. It doesn't matter whether you or I think he's nuts - he doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity.

Now, we can argue all day about whether 21 years is a stiff enough sentence for mass murder by a sane man. It's Norwegian law that that is the maximum sentence, and our arguments are academic. (Personally, I think not stiff enough, but I'm not Norwegian and I have no vote in their next election, so.)

But he was declared sane. Dissenting medical opinions are out there, but the one that prevailed found no insanity.

I wonder why this is so frightening. Because we've all met white supremacists who talk some of the same talk? Because we want to think that only a diseased brain could come up with that shit?

Sanity does not mean agreeing with the prevailing social consensus. In Breivik's case he disagreed with it enough to kill an awful lot of people. That doesn't make him a madman.

[Lord Toblerone]

While I don't doubt that politics do come into play, this man was found guilty of killing 77 people. A maximum detention sentence is the least he deserves, to attempt to bring justice to the families of all of the victims. Locking him up indefinitely in a psychiatric hospital wouldn't have done anyone any good, seeing as he was deemed sane. He was given the maximum sentence available, and I think that's fair in the circumstances.

Absolutely. Given the scale of his crimes, I don't think any other sentence was possible.

I still want this motherfucker executed and I'm not even a fan of the death penalty.

I think he'd love being martyred for his cause. That's one reason to keep him alive.

The court found, following a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, that he was sane at the time of his actions. It doesn't matter whether you or I think he's nuts - he doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity.

Now, we can argue all day about whether 21 years is a stiff enough sentence for mass murder by a sane man. It's Norwegian law that that is the maximum sentence, and our arguments are academic. (Personally, I think not stiff enough, but I'm not Norwegian and I have no vote in their next election, so.)

But he was declared sane. Dissenting medical opinions are out there, but the one that prevailed found no insanity.

I wonder why this is so frightening. Because we've all met white supremacists who talk some of the same talk? Because we want to think that only a diseased brain could come up with that shit?

Sanity does not mean agreeing with the prevailing social consensus. In Breivik's case he disagreed with it enough to kill an awful lot of people. That doesn't make him a madman.

We want to believe that there has to be something wrong with anyone who would do something like this. And indeed, I think compared to the average person, there is "something wrong" with Breivik.

But there's a difference between that and not being responsible for his actions by reason of insanity. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Gebert]

Regarding the 21 year sentence: While that is the formal maximum time for him to be imprisoned, he can (and probably will) be kept behind bars longer if he is deemed a danger to society. Just thought I'd put that out here.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Regarding the 21 year sentence: While that is the formal maximum time for him to be imprisoned, he can (and probably will) be kept behind bars longer if he is deemed a danger to society. Just thought I'd put that out here.

So Norwegian law permits a sane person to be held beyond their maximium sentence just because someone determines that he is still a danger?

[Lord Toblerone]

So Norwegian law permits a sane person to be held beyond their maximium sentence just because someone determines that he is still a danger?

Is that unreasonable?

[Hereward]

I'd have thought so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is that unreasonable?

Yes, although it depend on what process Norway has in place to make that determination. I prefer a system where the maximum sentence imposed by courts are higher, but there is discretion to release the person sooner. My concern is that someone commits a crime that is punishable only by, say, a year, but then is kept in prison much longer because of some determination that he/she is a danger. At that point, the sentence itself seems pretty meaningless, and what really matters is whatever is decided long after the fact by people empowered to imprison you indefinitely regardless of the actual crime committed.

But what I would really think is nuts is a system that automatically releases at age 54 an unrepentent mass murderer who was motivated by an ideology that is unlikely to change in prison.

[kungtotte]

As far as I understand it there's a review-board type deal that determines whether or not he gets to be released at the end of the sentence or if he gets 're-upped'.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As far as I understand it there's a review-board type deal that determines whether or not he gets to be released at the end of the sentence or if he gets 're-upped'.

Is that applicable to all crimes, or just murders? If it is part of the process for only murders, that makes sense. It essentially amounts to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

[Lord Toblerone]

Yes, although it depend on what process Norway has in place to make that determination. I prefer a system where the maximum sentence imposed by courts are higher, but there is discretion to release the person sooner. My concern is that someone commits a crime that is punishable only by, say, a year, but then is kept in prison much longer because of some determination that he/she is a danger. At that point, the sentence itself seems pretty meaningless, and what really matters is whatever is decided long after the fact by people empowered to imprison you indefinitely regardless of the actual crime committed.

But what I would really think is nuts is a system that automatically releases at age 54 an unrepentent mass murderer who was motivated by an ideology that is unlikely to change in prison.

So, if he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a review after 25 years, you'd be happier?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, if he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a review after 25 years, you'd be happier?

Yeah. Again, the issue that concerns me is that you could have someone convicted of something relatively minor, get a short sentence, but then be held essentially forever because of a determination than he/she is "dangerous". That seem trending kind of close to Minority Report, and the imprisonment of people because you think they may commit a crime in the future.

But that concern doesn't exist if the Norwegian system limits this to murder, because then, an underlying crime sufficiently severe to justify a much worse punishment has actually been committed already. Functionally, a 21 year sentence with the possibility of being held for longer if you are deemed still dangerous is really no different from life in prison with the possibility of parole after 21 years.

[The Iceman of the North]

But that concern doesn't exist if the Norwegian system limits this to murder, because then, an underlying crime sufficiently severe to justify a much worse punishment has actually been committed already. Functionally, a 21 year sentence with the possibility of being held for longer if you are deemed still dangerous is really no different from life in prison with the possibility of parole after 21 years.

This is not limited to murders. Under Norwegian law you can be sentenced to conditioned or unconditioned, community service, prison, psychiatric treatment, or as in this case preventive detention.

Preventive detention means that if a judge deems a prisoner still to be a danger to society, the prison term will be extended for 5 years. In theory, this can go on for the rest of his life. When the judge considers whether to extend the term or not, the original judgement is the primary grounds for the decision. In this case the ruling reads (paraphrasing): "it's in our view no reason to assume that once the maximum sentence is served, that he will not be a threat to the society". Thus just based on the ruling, it's highly unlikely that he'll ever be released.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is not limited to murders. Under Norwegian law you can be sentenced to conditioned or unconditioned, community service, prison, psychiatric treatment, or as in this case preventive detention.

Preventive detention means that if a judge deems a prisoner still to be a danger to society, the prison term will be extended for 5 years. In theory, this can go on for the rest of his life. When the judge considers whether to extend the term or not, the original judgement is the primary grounds for the decision. In this case the ruling reads (paraphrasing): "it's in our view no reason to assume that once the maximum sentence is served, that he will not be a threat to the society". Thus just based on the ruling, it's highly unlikely that he'll ever be released.

Okay, so theoretically, if someone gets locked up because he punched someone, a judge could keep him in there indefinitely if he believes teh person is likely to go out and punch someone else? That sounds to me like the concept of maximum sentence doesn't really exist.