I think when anyone considered sane did as he did I do not know how you could trust any remorse they show to be genuine.
I think we're all in agreement on this. Yes, in this specific case it looks unlikely, at best, that he'll ever be rehabilitated, but it's also absolutely right to allow for the possibility.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
The law demands a minimum period to be established which cannot be longer than 10 years. The court may extend the time-frame by up to five years at a time when the risk of serious re-offending is still considered to be present. This implies that preventive detention in principle may lead to a life-time in prison
The reason for the minimum of 10 years is that in fact under Swedish law it is a maximum. In this particular case it indicates that after 10 years he'd be back up before the Court every 5 years for them to add another stretch.
It still does, however theoretically, leave a possibility - however remote - that he would be released in as little as 10 years but but hey ho, their country, their law.
The law demands a minimum period to be established which cannot be longer than 10 years. The court may extend the time-frame by up to five years at a time when the risk of serious re-offending is still considered to be present. This implies that preventive detention in principle may lead to a life-time in prison
The reason for the minimum of 10 years is that in fact under Swedish law it is a maximum. In this particular case it indicates that after 10 years he'd be back up before the Court every 5 years for them to add another stretch.
It still does, however theoretically, leave a possibility - however remote - that he would be released in as little as 10 years but but hey ho, their country, their law.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
With Norway having a (per capita) prison population less than half that of Great Britain, I doubt we're in any position to criticise.
..
OTOH if even for 77 murders you can get out in 10 years - is that surprising? I bet if the maximum prison term in England was 24 hours, we'd have the smallest prison pop in the world
In this particular case it indicates that after 10 years he'd be back up before the Court every 5 years for them to add another stretch.
It still does, however theoretically, leave a possibility - however remote - that he would be released in as little as 10 years but but hey ho, their country, their law.
It also means every five years the relatives have it all dragged up again as they also consider the remote possibility he may be released.
The likes of Jon Wessel-Aas can tweet what they like but I bet they have not considered that.
I will readily accept the the likes of Norway and Sweden generally have better penal systems that we do but this five year review thing says to me those systems aren't well suited to dealing with the aftermath of a crime like this.
It also means every five years the relatives have it all dragged up again as they also consider the remote possibility he may be released.
The likes of Jon Wessel-Aas can tweet what they like but I bet they have not considered that.
I will readily accept the the likes of Norway and Sweden generally have better penal systems that we do but this five year review thing says to me those systems aren't well suited to dealing with the aftermath of a crime like this.
I'd suggest that few countries' judicial systems are "suited to dealing with the aftermath of a crime like this".
And you only make bad law if you make law on the basis of a single case.
Somewhere in the dust of time rest the bones of the Galilean He who was spat upon. He whose face was marred beyond all human likeness Somewhere buried among the lies of the past rests the tomb of Yeshua Of he who was made God in a world without Hope. And when this son of Joseph is found. What then will the Church of Rome say? Prepare yourself for the day is coming. And men will say "Blessed are the wasted lives who perished in the flames of the holy war"
My point was on the minimum sentence. The rest of it is all just their system, but let's say he did repent, regret, whatever, and was totally reformed, and would never do the same again, even so, in my opinion, 10 years for shooting 77 people dead is nowhere near enough.
Given the Norwegian (!) maximum is 21 years - what do you have to do to be told that is what you must serve? I would have thought that randomly killing dozens of innocent people to protest at government policy would be a banker for being told, "Soz, that's a s bad as it gets, you win the 21 year full stretch".
You have to kill Euronymous and burn down four wooden churches ala Varg Vikernes (although he got let out after 16 years on parole).
My point was on the minimum sentence. The rest of it is all just their system, but let's say he did repent, regret, whatever, and was totally reformed, and would never do the same again, even so, in my opinion, 10 years for shooting 77 people dead is nowhere near enough.
Given the Norwegian (!) maximum is 21 years - what do you have to do to be told that is what you must serve? I would have thought that randomly killing dozens of innocent people to protest at government policy would be a banker for being told, "Soz, that's a s bad as it gets, you win the 21 year full stretch".
You have to kill Euronymous and burn down four wooden churches ala Varg Vikernes (although he got let out after 16 years on parole).
I confess to knowing next to nothing about their legal system, but from what I have read in the papers Breivik is going to do 21 years (the maximum) and then some, at the Court's discretion.
There is no realistic possibility this guy is going to be out and about in 10 years.
eeeeeeeeeeeeer he is a self confessed child killer. only option available is to extinguish his own life. no loss to anyone except the people who have his own warped sense of life.
" my only regret is I never killed more."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 267 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...