Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WarOne wrote:
It is still hard to judge how society will view Breivik in 21 years from now.

It really isn't. He'll be viewed like people view Charles Manson today. And like Manson his requests for release will be rejected over and over again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
Easy there tiger. The sentence is a minimum of 21 years. It's also the maximum allowed under law (subject to reevaluation of course). So you're both right.

The fact the system is set up so that there's a cap on the top in the fine print confuses those who believe there are crimes which merit a life or even death sentence.

The law could just as easily state life in jail (subject to reevaluations). It's an emphasis thing.

It's more that they've got a system which is structured a little strangely but gets the right result all the same. Mind you, this can be said of most every legal system in the world.

But then we've got people who like to half read stuff, and who love to be outraged, so with every trial held in another country (and fair whack of the ones held at home) there is this stream of outrages that inevitably turn out to be pure nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
He is being kept in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, his incarceration will cost a lot.

When did nations become so pitiful that it made sense to kill people to justify a million dollars?

 sebster wrote:
It's more that they've got a system which is structured a little strangely but gets the right result all the same. Mind you, this can be said of most every legal system in the world.

But then we've got people who like to half read stuff, and who love to be outraged, so with every trial held in another country (and fair whack of the ones held at home) there is this stream of outrages that inevitably turn out to be pure nonsense.

WarOne acknowledged in his post that the criminal would most likely suffer life imprisonment. He was jumped on anyway.

I agree that functionally the system is going to be fine, for those who don't believe in the death penalty. I absolutely agree that the immediate release and repeat offense scenario is silly.

But the system should admit there are people who will not be reintroduced to society. I wish it wasn't so but it is.

 Scrabb wrote:
But the system should admit there are people who will not be reintroduced to society. I wish it wasn't so but it is.

It does. That's why the 5-year extentions exist in the first place.

[quote=sebster 471989 4699782 72eab7a7ce61b7d7e07cfd696c3e9130.jpg
When did nations become so pitiful that it made sense to kill people to justify a million dollars?

Palindrome wrote:
Hasn't it always been thus? Plenty of wars have been fought for little more than economic gain.

The point is that the amount is insignificant, not that it is to much. Certainly some wars have been fought over economic gain, but it costs more than a million dollars just to ship troops anywhere.

 Ahtman wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
Hasn't it always been thus? Plenty of wars have been fought for little more than economic gain.

The point is that the amount is insignificant, not that it is to much. Certainly some wars have been fought over economic gain, but it costs more than a million dollars just to ship troops anywhere.

I know that, I wasn't agruing about the cost in the first place, but its a little naive to think that human life doesn't have a price.

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
My guess?

He'll pretend to reform over the next 21 years, or however long it takes, get out on his supposedly good behavior, and then commit the same atrocity.

Sure. They're just gonna release him if he feigns some regret and writes a book about how wrong and bad he was?? How stupid do you think the Norwegians are??

There is NO WAY this man will get out of there.

Never say never. People can be convincing. He also doesn't have to convince the people he directly hurt, he just has to convince the reevaluation commitee 20-30 years from now.

I'll admit, the chance of it happening is slim, but it is there. And as more time passes, the greater the chance becomes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
My guess?

He'll pretend to reform over the next 21 years, or however long it takes, get out on his supposedly good behavior, and then commit the same atrocity.

Sure. They're just gonna release him if he feigns some regret and writes a book about how wrong and bad he was?? How stupid do you think the Norwegians are??

There is NO WAY this man will get out of there.

Never say never. People can be convincing. He also doesn't have to convince the people he directly hurt, he just has to convince the reevaluation commitee 20-30 years from now.

I'll admit, the chance of it happening is slim, but it is there. And as more time passes, the greater the chance becomes.

No, no, no! That commitee will be very well informed about that guys crimes against humanity.... imagine you were on a commitee to decide about the freedom of some guy who killed 70 people, most of them teenagers.... even after 50 years, no one will let him leave prison! And they'll be very well aware of the fact that he is intelligent and any regret might just be feigned.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
... why lose millions and millions of dollars paying for this guy's living and medical expenses over the next 60ish years?

I don't know, why do your betters tolerate you?

They don't.

sebster wrote:
When did nations become so pitiful that it made sense to kill people to justify a million dollars?

I don't think its as black and white as that. I haven't got a super hard on for the death penalty, but I definately think there is a discussion worth having. Sure we can afford a million dollars, but why waste it on people you can never release?

I don't think we should "string em all up" like you hear the idiots chant.. but for sure, if guilt is 100% assured, and release is 100% impossible, why the feth not!?

It might only be a million bucks, but we could still buy 5 ambulances with it.

But mattyrm! DNA evidence could one day prove Anders innocent!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It does. That's why the 5-year extentions exist in the first place.

Is there any situation in which the review panel will not extend the sentence before he dies?

If there is not, why not call a spade a spade?

If there is, I don't know that I agree with that.

 Manchu wrote:
But mattyrm! DNA evidence could one day prove Anders innocent!

Exactly, you don't want put someone innocent in the electric chair.

Bah. The electric chair is soooo Shawshank Redemption.

Death by Alligator is the new in-thing.

UNLEASH THE KRAKEN!!!!

 Scrabb wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It does. That's why the 5-year extentions exist in the first place.

Is there any situation in which the review panel will not extend the sentence before he dies?

If there is not, why not call a spade a spade?

If there is, I don't know that I agree with that.

Becuase the penal code is less cluttered this way.

Palindrome wrote:
Hasn't it always been thus? Plenty of wars have been fought for little more than economic gain.

Sure, but like Ahtman said, not for anything as pitiful as a million dollars. Add up all the in-mates serving life with no chance of release, times that by a million and it's a rounding error on the national accounts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
I don't think its as black and white as that. I haven't got a super hard on for the death penalty, but I definately think there is a discussion worth having. Sure we can afford a million dollars, but why waste it on people you can never release?

I don't think we should "string em all up" like you hear the idiots chant.. but for sure, if guilt is 100% assured, and release is 100% impossible, why the feth not!?

It might only be a million bucks, but we could still buy 5 ambulances with it.

I'm neither for nor against the death penalty as I figure the deed is done, whether you kill the murderer or lock him up for ever his life is basically wasted.

I just don't really understand the dollars argument. I mean yeah, that money could be spent on ambulances, but the budget isn't made or lost on the basis of a million bucks here or there. If we really wanted we could have all those in-mates and the ambulances, and just cut the budget for sport by a fraction of a percent. Or just raise taxes by about a half penny per person. On the national scale its not a material amount.

Doesn't this type of thing happen frequently in the States? I don't think this is just a one off thing. People are going 'postal' a lot over there. America is at the point where everyone should have a gun so if one crazy person feels like pulling out a gun, least he know's he'll have about 4 seconds to what ever the heck he wants before he is stopped.

People get shot frequently, but we don't have massacres on the scale this guy pulled very often. There's a difference between random gang violence/robberies gone bad and domestic terrorisim.

I don't think any have ever matched this guy's death count either.

There's also the fact that America is the size of Europe. Considering that, we don't have a remarkable shooting rate.

 Poppabear wrote:
Doesn't this type of thing happen frequently in the States? I don't think this is just a one off thing. People are going 'postal' a lot over there. America is at the point where everyone should have a gun so if one crazy person feels like pulling out a gun, least he know's he'll have about 4 seconds to what ever the heck he wants before he is stopped.

Does what happen frequently? A gunshot here or there (domestic violence, drug deal gone bad, gang-on-gang violence, drunken bar fight)? That happens. Sure.

Killing more than 1 or 2 people in a shooting "spree"? Rare.

Random acts of gun violence against people you don't know? Very Rare. Going postal is not as big a phenomenon as the news media would have you believe. This isn't the Wild West.

Heck, even the so called "Wild West" didn't have shooting sprees. A hald dozen people get killed in a outlaw shootout and it makes the history books. Meanwhile, the US army almost getting ordered to wipe out Salt Lake City and the Mormons is all but forgotten.

 sebster wrote:

Sure, but like Ahtman said, not for anything as pitiful as a million dollars. Add up all the in-mates serving life with no chance of release, times that by a million and it's a rounding error on the national accounts.

Its a rare war that causes a single casualty.

Meanwhile, the US army almost getting ordered to wipe out Salt Lake City and the Mormons is all but forgotten.

We are? We never recieved a FRAGO....Salt Lake City went insurrection? Do I need to go back to bed? ...wait just incase we deploy to Salt Lake City to crush them......Igive me a list of all the good clubs and bars..including stripper bars.... Disregard...we more likely build FoB's around Salt Lake City

It was in the 1800s

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's also the fact that America is the size of Europe. Considering that, we don't have a remarkable shooting rate.

Yes, you do. I honestly cannot believe that you'd even type that. I mean, this is an issue with decades of media coverage that has been all over the place, but throughout it all one simple truth has remained constant - the USA has remarkably high rate of murder by firearms given it is a wealthy, politically stable nation.

Don't believe me? Well per 100,000 people the basic fact is the US will have about 4 people murdered by firearm each year. This is higher than any country in Europe, and on par with countries like Zimbabwe. To compare it to countries in Europe, you can look at Italy (1.6, or less than half the USA), or Germany (0.22, or about a twentieth of the US rate), or France (0.44, or about a tenth of the US rate), or the UK (0.7, or less than one fiftieth of the US rate).

So yeah, the US does have a shooting problem compared. To put that problem in context, if you had a shooting rate roughly equal to Italy (who are quite high for a European country), then about 7,000 more Americans would live each year, instead of being murdered by firearm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
Its a rare war that causes a single casualty.

Sorry, I don't know how your post relates to mine. Could you clarify please?

However, we also have Guns. Unlike those other panzy countries that have never ever had an armed populace. Not even as far back as the middle ages were weapons common amoung the general population.

Given the amount of weapons there are, the rate of incidence isn't all that remarkable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
However, we also have Guns. Unlike those other panzy countries that have never ever had an armed populace. Not even as far back as the middle ages were weapons common amoung the general population.

Given the amount of weapons there are, the rate of incidence isn't all that remarkable.

Well, yeah. But 'because we have loads of guns it is reasonable to expect a lot more shootings' is very different to 'we don't have a remarkable shooting rate'.

 Grey Templar wrote:
However, we also have Guns. Unlike those other panzy countries that have never ever had an armed populace.

What a "Panzy" from one of those unarmed-populace socialist european countries might look like.