Anders Breivik found sane and sentenced to maximum term of detention

[The Iceman of the North]

So, he'll be out in 10 with good behavior.

Wherever did you get that conclusion?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not being a lawyer, I take it for granted that these terms are well defined. You do have terms like "aggravated assault" in US law?

"Aggravated assault" is a technical term that varies state by state. Referring to "serious" crimes sounds a lot more vague, but then again, I'm not a Norwegian lawyer.

They obviously must have committed a crime in the first place. Attempting to commit a crime is only illegal under certain circumstances, again well defined elsewhere in the penal code.

Again, it all boils down to that "serious" crimes issues, which clearly goes beyond murder and attempted murder.

[The Iceman of the North]

"Aggravated assault" is a technical term that varies state by state. Referring to "serious" crimes sounds a lot more vague, but then again, I'm not a Norwegian lawyer.

Why would you assume that what does or doesn't constitute a "serious" crime, isn't well defined within the Norwegian system?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm surprised that you can't let that go considering that you must intellectually know that Norway isn't a country that shares the English common and statute law tradition and that it will have it's own system of legal protections for individuals however different and alien that may be from the English tradition.

I didn't say I couldn't let it go. I specifically used the word "visceral" to connote that the reaction was immediate and emotional rather than logical and reasoned.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why would you assume that what does or doesn't constitute a "serious" crime, isn't well defined within the Norwegian system?

Perhaps it is. As I've said repeatedly, a Norwegian lawyer might be able to shed more light on it. As it is presently written, without more information, it is vague.

But again, given that specifically covers more that just crimes that endanger life, but also include crimes that endanger "health" or "freedom", it certainly contemplates life in prison for crimes other than murder or attempted murder.

[Castel]

Wherever did you get that conclusion?

I assume that he was making a joke about liberal prisons and sentences in Norway and the like.

[RWHamel]

Wherever did you get that conclusion?

Where could I possibly draw such a conclusion.

[Castel]

Well, guess who was fucking wrong :blushing:

[IheartTesla]

I read somewhere the difference between Norwegian and US law to be 'restorative' versus 'retributive' justice.

Different strokes for different folks. For those brought up in the latter form of justice systems, the former may seem viscerally 'wrong'. Still, to talk about which is better is beyond my pay grade.

[KAH]

So, he'll be out in 10 with good behavior.

Hardly.

In 30-35, perhaps. I doubt he'll stay his entire life in prison, but out at ten is not going to happen.

[The Iceman of the North]

Where could I possibly draw such a conclusion.

Nesset received a 21 year prison sentence, Breivik received 21 years of protective detention. Not the same. With protective detention, behaviour in prison plays a minor role, what matters more is the risk of recidivism.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I read somewhere the difference between Norwegian and US law to be 'restorative' versus 'retributive' justice.

Different strokes for different folks. For those brought up in the latter form of justice systems, the former may seem viscerally 'wrong'. Still, to talk about which is better is beyond my pay grade.

Ugh, I'm getting flashbacks to my crim law class :)

You are probably correct though. As you say, different strokes for different folks.

[RWHamel]

Nesset received a 21 year prison sentence, Breivik received 21 years of protective detention. Not the same. With protective detention, behaviour in prison plays a minor role, what matters more is the risk of recidivism.

I thought I read that Nesset received a 21 year sentence, to be followed by an additional 10 years of preventive detention.

[Lord Toblerone]

I thought I read that Nesset received a 21 year sentence, to be followed by an additional 10 years of preventive detention.

I think the law has been changed since then.

Breivik received a 21 year preventive sentence. He could be released before then if he was no longer considered a threat to the public. That seems unlikely.

[The Iceman of the North]

I thought I read that Nesset received a 21 year sentence, to be followed by an additional 10 years of preventive detention.

It wasn't the same type of 'preventive detention', there's a different set of rules now.

Technically, Nesset wasn't released until 2004, after serving 23 years. But in 1993, due to good behaviour, he was transferred to "free serving". I guess this is some kind of half-way house, where the inmates are free to leave during day time, but have to return for the night.

Another major point is the "risk to society" issue. Nesset was a M.D. who killed several of his patients, for some reason, but as he's naturally not allowed to function as a medical doctor, there's hardly a hight risk of recidivism.

[Lummel]

I didn't say I couldn't let it go. I specifically used the word "visceral" to connote that the reaction was immediate and emotional rather than logical and reasoned.

pardon me Mam'selle, poor wording on my part :)

To jump back to the original post. Justice is an abstract concept and not one that will necessarily mean much to the survivors or the mourners of those who fell. And what good would vengeance be, one life can hardly count against so many?

I'm not sure if re-offending is much of an issue as it would be hard to imagine that Breivik will be unmonitored until he's cold in the grave himself and he'll be a figurehead for violent extremists whatever is done with him, unless of course he comes to repent of his acts. But that seems a tall order for a prison system to produce.

In short he falls into an awkward category of people who have committed crimes for which restitution can hardly be imagined, but chances of re-offending are minimal and his future risk to society comes from his legacy not his person. Removing him from society, perhaps indefinitely may well be a failure of imagination but quite possibly the only meaningful thing (in the sense of marking the attitude of the legal system towards the seriousness of the crime) that could be done.

[Bronson]

Even after the 21 years is up , it's very unlikely that they will ever let him out.

[Seli]

Good for Norway. It seems this is the conviction that made the most sense to start with.

...

Just to give a parallel, there is outrage by some over whether we should be able to detain indefinitely non-U.S. citizens seized on a battlefield because of a belief they will fight us again. The only reason the whole country didn't go apeshit is because those provisions are not applicable to U.S. citizens. So you've essentially got a provision in your law that would be castigated violently if it existed in the U.S..

...

There is the slight difference between people convicted, monitored by the legal system, with an extendible incarceration and people never convicted and locked up because they are deemed dangerous (unless their status changed while I did not pay attention).

But my comfort with the Norwegian system can result from the Dutch practice of enforced psychiatric treatment after a prison sentence that can also be extended as long as the authorities deem the patient dangerous. Admittedly slightly different rules and circumstances, but close enough to trust the system.

[Galactus]

Again, it all boils down to that "serious" crimes issues, which clearly goes beyond murder and attempted murder.

According to swedish law, the crimes that carry a life sentence are: Murder, aggravated rape, aggravated espionage, aggravated arson, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sabotage, or sabotage against air- or sea- traffic. I do believe High Treason (which can only happen in times of war, which, for obvious reasons hasn't been relevant since Napoleon's day) also carries a lifetime penalty. (note that many of these do not carry a life sentence automatically, but they have the potential for them) also things like attempting to overthrow the government by violence.

EDIT: Flow, the issue is that you're not familiar with what scandinavian law looks like (which is it's own little legal tradition, separate from both civil and common law) what Iceman linked to is (assuming the norwegian law is structured even remotely like swedish law) the description of the *sentence itself*. There are similar descriptions for eg. what it means to be issued a fine, or a time-mandated prison sentence, or community service, etc. There are the lists of what kind of sentences can be imposed by the criminal justice system, and what sentence can be imposed is then listed under the relevant crimes.

These overviews do *not* list what crimes are applicable for these sentences, the sentencing is listed under the crime itself (to take a swedish example, here's the text for murder)

§1 "The person who deprives another of life, is sentenced for murder to imprisonment of a certain duration, at least ten and at most eighteen years, or life. Law (2009:396)

§2 "Is crime that is mentioned in §1 with consideration to the circumstances that precipitated the deed to be considered less severe, is sentenced for manslaughter to prison, at least six and at most ten years."

Now, the thing is, in addition to the law as written, there are other sources of law: Most notably precedent, and secondly the intention of the writers of the law (as put forwards in various papers that are produced in the process of writing the law, ("förarbeten") What circumstances exactly make a murder "less severe" is listed there, not in the law-text itself.

[Horza]

I'm just glad they found the bastard sane. To do otherwise would have swept his premeditated, calculated, politically-motivated campaign under the convenient little rug of insanity.*

*available at all good furniture stores, sold separately or as part of the Living Room of Madness and Despair suite