If the man had truly reformed then to keep him inside is nothing but vindictive. FWIW I don't think he will turn the corner but to keep him inside simply for the sake of the families is not something that a free a liberal society should be doing.







Do you think he could be released if granted anonymity?

It's very unlikely he'll change and he's shown zero regret so far.

And for this reason he won't get out, no court would risk him re-offending.

On the basis of what you and John D say, no, but even if he was he'd have to be shipped out of Norway imo. Various people in the UK have served their time and been given new identities only to have them uncovered, so I'd guess it would unlikely that the anonymity would last.

Do you think he could be released if granted anonymity?



Where would he go though ? That's the problem.

Especially as he's one of the most recognisable faces on the planet right now.

He's been sentenced in Norway though.

Precisely, but hats off to the Norwegians for not making a special case out of it all and treating him just as they would anyone else detained at King Harald V's pleasure.

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".

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. If he had been diagnosed as mentally ill, received treatment and as result any remorse could be linked to an improved mental state that would be different.



As he is perfectly sane I really do not know how you could decide any remorse was genuine and not just a ruse to get out to go and do it all again. So in the interests of public safety I would have to say killing 77 people means he doesn't ever get the benefit of the doubt.



With any luck he may spare the Norwegian authorities the trouble and carry on maintaining he has no remorse and was right to do as he did.

For the first few years he will, after that he'll say anything to get out.

[url=http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/24/cold-clinical-and-sane-the-only-thing-anders-breiviks-terrorist-attack-must-change-is-far-right-racism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterThis[/url, basically.