Norway Massacre: Anders Breivik sentenced 21 years

[Socius]

If I may, ABB was sentenced to 21 years in prison, and at least ten years in custody. This is a procedure that's more or less unique to Norway, allowing the courts to prolong his sentence every ten years if they still deem him a danger to society. In other words;the reality of the situation is him being locked away for life. that is all.

 

[Overusedname]

The motivation here was not like that. It was aimless. It was pointless and hinting of insanity. As such i dont think rehabilitation is an option for the safety of those around him. He should be locked away for life. Not for "revenge" or to "Make him suffer because im weird like that" but because its only safe. He has ZERO regard for human life and hes a dangerous man.

I agree. There is nothing alright about this man being allowed to walk the streets again.

However, it is worth noting that his motives had an aim. He's a bigoted, anti-muslim extremist who waged war on people he saw as sympathizers to his 'enemy'. I mean, yeah, I see bigots as insane, but is Mitt Romney in jail for being a known homophobic bully and torturer? No. He's (somehow) able to legally run for office.

...Sorry, unrelated venting. The guy upsets me. Anyway, as for this psychopath, it's important to note that he was apparently found sane. He's horrible, indecent, and sub-human, but legally sane.

Whether or not he ACTUALLY is sane is a whole other matter...either way, lock him up till he croaks. He's never going to be 'rehabilitated'.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

The only person offending me right now is you, by making assumptions about me. You keep claiming identical cases have shown remorse, but then never offered any sources. If he showed remorse and I didn't believe him, it would be because I believe somebody with an ideology that deep set will not change their mind no matter what, not because I can't forgive him.

Edit: I care about how long he spends in jail because I believe he will always be a risk.

Jeffery Dalmer, showed no remorse at trial, confessed remorse later to a guard before he was killed.
Ted Bundy in much the same way, confessed remorse before his execution.

These are people who had murder as a lifestyle, who committed atrocities over multiple years, and found themselves in a state of remorse. These are people MORE inclined to be unchanging than someone who commits a single, large scale, act of murder.

Anders is unique not in his manifesto or his ideology, but in one single fact: Unlike most mass shooters, he didn't kill himself. That's it.

But history has shown mass murderers are capable of remorse.

You cannot take something somebody said before their execution. That kind of pressure could get somebody to say anything, change their entire belief system if they think it will save them. People suddenly claim to believe in god after a lifetime of strong atheism when they see their death coming.

 

[Yopaz]

See here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate].

Norway: 0.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants per year.
United States: 4.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants per year.

With your rates being seven times higher, I don't think Americans have any right to critique the Norwegian justice system. In fact, you should probably be taking notes.

OT: Probably for the best. The only other outcome would have been him being declared legally insane. While calling him sane was exactly what Breivik wanted, it was also probably the correct decision. I mean he's clearly crazy in an informal sense, as you have to be to kill that many people for such nonsense reasons. But he was in control of his actions, like he wasn't hallucinating or anything, so he's not insane from a legal standpoint I don't think.

I looked into that link to see if those who say that punishment works better than rehabilitation. Russia, a country that offers up to 7 years of prison or labor camp for badmouthing the government got a rate as high as 10.2, USA which is still a lot stricter than Norway got 4.2. Of course the prison system alone isn't enough to make a conclusion about this since this also have to do with all the other aspects of society, but it's a clear indicator that punishment does not reduce crime alone. Norway is doing something right.

 

[maninahat]

SOURCE: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/14659962/breivik-gets-21-year-prison-term-in-norway/

Spoiler: News Story: Anders Breivik sentencing

An Oslo court has found Anders Behring Breivik guilty of "acts of terror" and sentenced him to 21 years in prison for his killing spree last year that left 77 people dead.

The five judges unanimously found Breivik sane, a verdict in line with what the far-right extremist wanted, bringing to an end a spectacular trial for the attacks that traumatised Norway and shocked the world.

Breivik killed eight people in an Oslo blast and took 69 more lives, mostly teenagers, in a shooting frenzy at an island summer camp on July 22, 2011.

"The ruling is unanimous," presiding judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen told the court.

"He is sentenced to prison for 21 years, with a minimum of 10 years," she added. Under Norwegian law the sentence could be extended.

Breivik, wearing a dark suit with a white shirt and a grey tie, smiled as the verdict was read out.

Survivors of the Utoeya island massacre took to Twitter immediately to comment on the sentencing, with Emma Martinovic tweeting: "YEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!"

And Viljar Hansse, who took a bullet to the head in the massacre, tweeted: "Finished. Period."

Breivik has previously said he would not appeal a prison sentence, as he wanted to be found sane so his Islamophobic ideology would not be considered the rantings of a lunatic.

Norway's penal code does not have the death penalty or life in prison, and the maximum prison term for Breivik's charges is 21 years. However, inmates who are still considered a threat to society after their sentence is up can be held indefinitely.

The 33-year-old loner, who made a right-wing salute in court after his handcuffs were taken off, had confessed to the attacks, seeing himself as a Nordic warrior against Europe's "Muslim invasion" and all those who promote multiculturalism.

The main question the court had to determine was whether he was sane and could be held responsible for his actions.

The prison sentence is what Breivik wanted, what most of the families of the victims had wanted, and what the Norwegian public wanted.

But prosecutor Svein Holden had called for Breivik to be sentenced to closed psychiatric care, arguing that "it would be worse to sentence someone who is psychotic to prison than to send someone who is not psychotic to psychiatric care".

Breivik, who laid out his hateful world view in a rambling 1500-page online manifesto, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and declared criminally insane after his bloody rampage on July 22, 2011.

However, a public outcry led to a second assessment which found him legally sane - a view shared by most Norwegians in polls, and by Breivik. He has said he would accept prison but appeal against closed psychiatric treatment.

Breivik hopes to speak again on the final day of his trial.

In previous testimony during the 10-week trial that ran until June, Breivik laid out in chilling detail what motivated him to plan meticulously for years and execute Norway's worst massacre since World War II.

Breivik has called himself a "foot soldier" for the "Knights Templar", allegedly a clandestine ultra-right group named after an order of Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages. Police doubt the group's existence.

He has also railed against "cultural Marxists" whose support for immigration he blames for the emergence of a "Eurabia", the reason why he targeted the centre-left government and a summer youth camp run by the Labour Party.

The court heard how Breivik spent years planning the bloodbath, using a farm as cover for purchasing the chemical fertiliser he used for the bomb he set off in a rented van outside Oslo's main government building.

In his years of seclusion, Breivik said he practised meditation, worked out and used steroids to steel his mind and body, while playing video shooting and role-playing games for relaxation.

He joined a pistol club and obtained a hunting licence to get the 9mm Glock handgun and Ruger semi-automatic rifle which he used to mow down terrified young people, the youngest just 14, trapped on the tiny lake island of Utoeya.

Dressed in a police uniform, he methodically shot dead 67 people, many at point-blank range, and two more died as they fell to their deaths or drowned while trying to escape the shooting spree, which continued for more than an hour.

During his trial Breivik showed little emotion and no remorse and once described his mass slaughter as "cruel but necessary" to protect Norway from multiculturalism.

At one stage he told the court: "I would do it again."

--------

This is hardly enough time, it should be life. 21 years jesus, that seems like such a weak sentence. shouldn't it be the life sentence or the death penelty?

he killed 77 people for christ sake. i know its there max sentence but come on he killed so many people and for what?

what do you guys/gals think about this? not enough time? and in regards to his punishment?

sorry if someone made a thread about this topic all ready, i saw it on my News site a couple of mins ago and didn't see one in Off topic discussion

I'm sure you've already been told, but whilst 21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway, they can renew it if they feel it is appropriate; which will almost certainly be the case when he reaches the end of his 21 year stint. He won't be getting out.

 

[Rikomag132]

Ha, I knew someone couldn't make this thread without someone twisting it around to be about how America is bad and full of crime and stupid Americans!

Why is there always these people who think everybody hates America? People don't care nearly as much as you'd might think.
I know this might be really shocking, but there have been studies, and they show that people in general really don't give a shit about "those stupid Americans". They don't spend their days thinking about Americans and "how stupid" they are.
They simply do not care.

 

[Darkmantle]

I hope they make a law that if they feel like it they can re-sentence him after his first penalty is through.
And then re-sentence him again, again and again.. Untill he dies.

they already have that law, and that's almost definitely what they will do.

Ha, I knew someone couldn't make this thread without someone twisting it around to be about how America is bad and full of crime and stupid Americans!

It's what happens when people start bitching about a system they do not understand. Those people put themselves in contest with the norway system.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

The only person offending me right now is you, by making assumptions about me. You keep claiming identical cases have shown remorse, but then never offered any sources. If he showed remorse and I didn't believe him, it would be because I believe somebody with an ideology that deep set will not change their mind no matter what, not because I can't forgive him.

Edit: I care about how long he spends in jail because I believe he will always be a risk.

Jeffery Dalmer, showed no remorse at trial, confessed remorse later to a guard before he was killed.
Ted Bundy in much the same way, confessed remorse before his execution.

These are people who had murder as a lifestyle, who committed atrocities over multiple years, and found themselves in a state of remorse. These are people MORE inclined to be unchanging than someone who commits a single, large scale, act of murder.

Anders is unique not in his manifesto or his ideology, but in one single fact: Unlike most mass shooters, he didn't kill himself. That's it.

But history has shown mass murderers are capable of remorse.

You cannot take something somebody said before their execution. That kind of pressure could get somebody to say anything, change their entire belief system if they think it will save them. People suddenly claim to believe in god after a lifetime of strong atheism when they see their death coming.

Dalmer wasn't executed. He was killed by an inmate. He was asking to remain in prison at the time because he understood the gravity of what he had done.

He wasn't trying to appeal to anyone to get out; the opposite was true.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

The only person offending me right now is you, by making assumptions about me. You keep claiming identical cases have shown remorse, but then never offered any sources. If he showed remorse and I didn't believe him, it would be because I believe somebody with an ideology that deep set will not change their mind no matter what, not because I can't forgive him.

Edit: I care about how long he spends in jail because I believe he will always be a risk.

Jeffery Dalmer, showed no remorse at trial, confessed remorse later to a guard before he was killed.
Ted Bundy in much the same way, confessed remorse before his execution.

These are people who had murder as a lifestyle, who committed atrocities over multiple years, and found themselves in a state of remorse. These are people MORE inclined to be unchanging than someone who commits a single, large scale, act of murder.

Anders is unique not in his manifesto or his ideology, but in one single fact: Unlike most mass shooters, he didn't kill himself. That's it.

But history has shown mass murderers are capable of remorse.

You cannot take something somebody said before their execution. That kind of pressure could get somebody to say anything, change their entire belief system if they think it will save them. People suddenly claim to believe in god after a lifetime of strong atheism when they see their death coming.

Dalmer wasn't executed. He was killed by an inmate. He was asking to remain in prison at the time because he understood the gravity of what he had done.

He wasn't trying to appeal to anyone to get out; the opposite was true.

My mistake, I misunderstood you. Either way, the Dahmer case is different. He has no deep-held belief or reason for killing that needed to change. Breivik truly believes in his cause.

 

[Terminate421]

There needs to be an international justice system that I'd actually human on certain matters. Every single one is flawed and shit like this happens.

 

[Naeras]

I agree. There is nothing alright about this man being allowed to walk the streets again.

However, it is worth noting that his motives had an aim. He's a bigoted, anti-muslim extremist who waged war on people he saw as sympathizers to his 'enemy'. I mean, yeah, I see bigots as insane, but is Mitt Romney in jail for being a known homophobic bully and torturer? No. He's (somehow) able to legally run for office.

...Sorry, unrelated venting. The guy upsets me. Anyway, as for this psychopath, it's important to note that he was apparently found sane. He's horrible, indecent, and sub-human, but legally sane.

Whether or not he ACTUALLY is sane is a whole other matter...either way, lock him up till he croaks. He's never going to be 'rehabilitated'.

..and there's currently a huge debate on whether or not it was correct to judge him as legally sane. It's no secret that pretty much everyone in Norway wanted him to get a custody sentence rather than prison/rehabilitation, and he needed to be judged as sane for that very reason. There have been both reports and pieces of psychological evidence that has been flat-out ignored during the process as a result.

 

[Evil Smurf]

if we advocate murder, are we any better then the murderers themselves?

 

[Frostbyte666]

Snip

Just because I want them punished doesn't mean they shouldn't know why they are punished why do you think punishment and the reasons for it are mutually exclusive? Punishing the individual does not exclude finding the reasons for why the crime was committed and sorting that out so others do not commit it. That way you can reduce crime while also giving deserved punishment to commited criminals, though in this case if he doesn't know that murdering people just because they are different from you is wrong, he has serious issues, and at 77 people is a lost cause, deserves no leniency or any mercy whatsoever and should preferably be taken out back and shot.

I can see that we are just going to keep disagreeing and raising different points so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[Not Matt]

READ THIS. IT IS THE EXPLAINATION FOR THE SENTENCE.


okay. first of all i am Norwegian and i know our legal system so I?ll try to explain. Clearly all other nations don't get this.

1. Reason why he got 21 years is cause that is max sentence in Norway. instead if life we evaluate people every 21 years. breivik is never getting out since in about 21 years from now on we will send him back to jail.

2. Death is not an option since death sentence is illegal in Norway cause we think it's inhuman. but to no one's surprise. We have been wondering if we should legalize it for about 1 week or so just to off this monster. But we decided this was better.

3. he was not declared insane cause then we would have to help him, more tax money would go to him and our doctors would have to help him. By declaring him sane he will be put in prison. Where the other prisoners have admitted that they will hurt, rape, torture, kill and make him suffer. He will be under strict supervision at all time. And he's guards are allowed to shoot him if he does something stupid.

4. we are tired. 77 people (some of them my friends) died. The entire nation is sick and tired of this trail, we are just glad it is over now for the next 21 years. i am not looking forward to it. Having to listen to this monsters opinion is driving us insane. It?s better to just let him rot in jail.

 

[Not Matt]

sorry about this post. i pressed the wrong button and posed another post. i just edited it. the escapist won't let me delete it

 

[Datsle]

With 100+ families ruined, friends and more distant relatives-
Inmates with kids etc. The tree of affected people here- and the
Grand total of people who would want him dead or injured. It really doesnt
Matter If he is in or out. His life is over, in one way or another.
And there is nothing about this that should make anyone feel good.
Its just tragic from beginning to end.
At least the system Didnt go all medieval on him.