Breivik has won a case against Norway.

chillidoggy

fretmeister said:

chillidoggy said:

p90fool said:

chillidoggy said:

If he'd killed my wife or son, trust me, I'd be the first in the queue to pull the trigger

But he didn't, did he?
The whole workplace canteen-style "burn the paedo's parents' house down, castrate the rapist, hang the murderer" pitchfork mentality is just sad people WANTING to be angry about something which actually has fuck all to do with them.

I've just listened to an incredibly rational survivor of Breivik's attack on Radio 4, advocating fairness and sense to all prisoners.

Years ago one of the prime movers in the Northern Ireland peace process was a university lecturer who'd lost his beautiful, gifted young daughter to an IRA bomb. He was an inspiration, and a million times more effective than any bunch of ranting vigilantes.

Maybe some people have the ability to remain calm when they've had some complete arsehole blow their loved one away. I'm saying I wouldn't have the capacity to be able to do that. If Breivik had killed my wife, he would effectively have taken my life away. So if I thought I could pull that trigger and blow the twat to hell, I would do so without hesitation, and without thought to any future consequences.

But like I said, that's just me, others will have different views and opinions.

The irony being that due to the revenge / vigilate element you would get a longer sentence.

Then when you get out his family can kill you. Then your family can kill one of theirs. Then his family....

You have perfectly illustrated why victims should have no say in the administration of justice in a case they were involved in.

Even the current trend for "victim statements" was caving into public pressure rather than any actual value in the process. 

Read what I wrote: I said I would have no thought to the future consequences. I would be past caring at that point.

fretmeister

Quite possibly.

It's a very high stress situation that doesn't match any other experience. I think it's very difficult to predict the reaction of an individual in any extreme situation.

Assuming plod gets to the alleged killer (only alleged at this point and nothing more) before the vigilante then by the time the vigilante might have access to the alleged killer I'm betting the rage level will have changed.

An instant emotional reaction (could be violent, could also be despair etc) is very different from a long term revenge plan.

Long terms revenge plans have a habit of being stopped by other family members - Reminding the potential vigilante that losing 1 person in the family was enough, and a life sentence for another, only being able to see them across a table in a visitors room would further diminish the family, particularly for any dependent members.

axisus

There is no 'justice' with this sort of thing. Justice is such a hollow word. For me justice would be if you could stick an electrode in his brain and make him feel the pain and hurt of the relatives - for the rest of his life.

I honestly think that the death sentence is best for someone like him. Just remove him from society so that he doesn't cost taxpayers anything. We know it was him that did it, there's no denying that.

fretmeister

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

lloyd

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

fretmeister

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

21 years under a standard life term.

Full life only in special "indeterminate" cases.

PolarityMan

axisus said:

There is no 'justice' with this sort of thing. Justice is such a hollow word. For me justice would be if you could stick an electrode in his brain and make him feel the pain and hurt of the relatives - for the rest of his life.

Why do you view this as justice?

Before you think I'm being flippant here's where I'm going with this thought.

Incarceration serves 2 purposes, firstly it protects the general population from dangerous individuals and secondly it acts as a punishment/deterrent for future re-offending.

For this guy he is never getting out (putting aside that you also advocated the death penalty) so the first goal is achieved and the second one is irrelevant.

So what I would say is why would it make you feel better for him to suffer? My guess is that it is largely from a victim / victim's family perspective actually a means of exerting control over a painful event they had inflicted on them. While I understand that instinct, looking at things from a more detached perspective I think providing proper counselling and support to victims, ideally funded from the offenders assets is a better approach.

lloyd

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

21 years under a standard life term.

Full life only in special "indeterminate" cases.

Yeah so technically they can have a full life term? Special cases I guess would be police killings, mass murders, child killings etc? 

That's similar to what we have in the UK isn't it?

Isn't the standard life term in the UK about 20 years?

fretmeister

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

21 years under a standard life term.

Full life only in special "indeterminate" cases.

Yeah so technically they can have a full life term? Special cases I guess would be police killings, mass murders, child killings etc? 

That's similar to what we have in the UK isn't it?

Isn't the standard life term in the UK about 20 years?

No - in the UK a life sentence of punishment is just that.

Release is not considered the end of the punishment - it's a release on licence and can be revoked for any reason at any time. (Or no reason at all). No passports, no travel etc.

It's a venue change rather than the end of the sentence. "Early" release is basically at the point the risk of re-offending is sufficiently low to allow rehabilitation and re-integration to be the primary element of the sentence.

fretmeister

PolarityMan said:

axisus said:

There is no 'justice' with this sort of thing. Justice is such a hollow word. For me justice would be if you could stick an electrode in his brain and make him feel the pain and hurt of the relatives - for the rest of his life.

Why do you view this as justice?

Before you think I'm being flippant here's where I'm going with this thought.

Incarceration serves 2 purposes, firstly it protects the general population from dangerous individuals and secondly it acts as a punishment/deterrent for future re-offending.

For this guy he is never getting out (putting aside that you also advocated the death penalty) so the first goal is achieved and the second one is irrelevant.

So what I would say is why would it make you feel better for him to suffer? My guess is that it is largely from a victim / victim's family perspective actually a means of exerting control over a painful event they had inflicted on them. While I understand that instinct, looking at things from a more detached perspective I think providing proper counselling and support to victims, ideally funded from the offenders assets is a better approach.

Actually - the "equal primary" purpose is for rehabilitation.

Heartfeltdawn

How long do you give someone for rehabilitation? ANd does anyone in this thread believe Breivik would ever apologise and denounce his actions and beliefs? 

p90fool

I sleep easier in my bed knowing I'm being protected from single mothers who haven't paid their TV license.

lloyd

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

21 years under a standard life term.

Full life only in special "indeterminate" cases.

Yeah so technically they can have a full life term? Special cases I guess would be police killings, mass murders, child killings etc? 

That's similar to what we have in the UK isn't it?

Isn't the standard life term in the UK about 20 years?

No - in the UK a life sentence of punishment is just that.

Release is not considered the end of the punishment - it's a release on licence and can be revoked for any reason at any time. (Or no reason at all). No passports, no travel etc.

It's a venue change rather than the end of the sentence. "Early" release is basically at the point the risk of re-offending is sufficiently low to allow rehabilitation and re-integration to be the primary element of the sentence.

Again looking at wiki.....

Full life imprisonment terms are reserved for  exceptional cases-cop/child killers mass murderers etc

Then you have a sliding scale:

Starting point of 30 years for murders involving firearms, involving sexual acts etc

Starting point of 25 for using a knife

Starting point of 12 for people under 21

Starting point of 15 for all other cases

Norway's tariff is under England and Wales but hardly by a huge amount.

I'd say cop killers and mass killers, terrorists etc are going to get a full life term in the UK and Norway?

I take your point, but thought it was a bit misleading to say that our "brains would melt when we found out what the maximum number of years under Norwegian law was" which is incidentally a full life term. 

PolarityMan

fretmeister said:

PolarityMan said:

axisus said:

There is no 'justice' with this sort of thing. Justice is such a hollow word. For me justice would be if you could stick an electrode in his brain and make him feel the pain and hurt of the relatives - for the rest of his life.

Why do you view this as justice?

Before you think I'm being flippant here's where I'm going with this thought.

Incarceration serves 2 purposes, firstly it protects the general population from dangerous individuals and secondly it acts as a punishment/deterrent for future re-offending.

For this guy he is never getting out (putting aside that you also advocated the death penalty) so the first goal is achieved and the second one is irrelevant.

So what I would say is why would it make you feel better for him to suffer? My guess is that it is largely from a victim / victim's family perspective actually a means of exerting control over a painful event they had inflicted on them. While I understand that instinct, looking at things from a more detached perspective I think providing proper counselling and support to victims, ideally funded from the offenders assets is a better approach.

Actually - the "equal primary" purpose is for rehabilitation.

The point still stands.

fretmeister

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

fretmeister said:

If you think the death sentence is ever the right decision in a supposedly educated society then your brain is going to melt when you find out the maximum term of years possible under Norwegian law.

The maximum possible is a full life term if wiki is correct?

21 years under a standard life term.

Full life only in special "indeterminate" cases.

Yeah so technically they can have a full life term? Special cases I guess would be police killings, mass murders, child killings etc? 

That's similar to what we have in the UK isn't it?

Isn't the standard life term in the UK about 20 years?

No - in the UK a life sentence of punishment is just that.

Release is not considered the end of the punishment - it's a release on licence and can be revoked for any reason at any time. (Or no reason at all). No passports, no travel etc.

It's a venue change rather than the end of the sentence. "Early" release is basically at the point the risk of re-offending is sufficiently low to allow rehabilitation and re-integration to be the primary element of the sentence.

Again looking at wiki.....

Full life imprisonment terms are reserved for  exceptional cases-cop/child killers mass murderers etc

Then you have a sliding scale:

Starting point of 30 years for murders involving firearms, involving sexual acts etc

Starting point of 25 for using a knife

Starting point of 12 for people under 21

Starting point of 15 for all other cases

Norway's tariff is under England and Wales but hardly by a huge amount.

I'd say cop killers and mass killers, terrorists etc are going to get a full life term in the UK and Norway?

I take your point, but thought it was a bit misleading to say that our "brains would melt when we found out what the maximum number of years under Norwegian law was" which is incidentally a full life term. 

You're still missing the point that a UK life sentence of punishment never ends. The tariff is to set the minimum part of that sentence that is served in prison. The rest is served outside of prison.

As I understand it from the various press reports, most Norwegians serve about 15 years, and those that serve 21 years have concluded their sentence. They are free at that point - not released on licence.

lloyd

Yeah I get that they're released on licence. Like I say I just thought that what you said was a bit misleading.

I would imagine that most people see getting out of prison as the end of the sentence regardless of the restrictions being placed through the licence.

fretmeister

lloyd said:

Yeah I get that they're released on licence. Like I say I just thought that what you said was a bit misleading.

I would imagine that most people see getting out of prison as the end of the sentence regardless of the restrictions being placed through the licence.

And that misconception is why what I said was not misleading. But I do appreciate from a non-legal-knowledge position it might seem that way.

The many many common misconceptions about the law is why I think it should be a compulsory school subject. In every other rule based activity we are expected to learn the rules before we join in.

lloyd

fretmeister said:

lloyd said:

Yeah I get that they're released on licence. Like I say I just thought that what you said was a bit misleading.

I would imagine that most people see getting out of prison as the end of the sentence regardless of the restrictions being placed through the licence.

And that misconception is why what I said was not misleading. But I do appreciate from a non-legal-knowledge position it might seem that way.

The many many common misconceptions about the law is why I think it should be a compulsory school subject. In every other rule based activity we are expected to learn the rules before we join in.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be a twat here BTW 

I agree with law being introduced in schools, it's a pretty wide ranging subject that impacts on everything in your life.

skankdelvar

Heartfeltdawn said:

skankdelvar said:

I do not doubt that Norway may be remarkably successful in the field of criminal rehabilitation. I just find it howlingly amusing that - for all their much-vaunted success - they can't let Breivik out of his cell for fear another inmate will kill him where he stands.

Their penal system has a lot of success of the rehabilitation front. Breivik is one hell of a special case. His act make the like of Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan, Hindley and Brady etc look like amateurs.  

I entirely take your point. 

The nub of this particular issue is the very visible collision between a well-intentioned, determinedly fair society and a member of that society who violently rejects its core beliefs. We're all rightly horrified by the nature of the events; in Breivik's mind it's simply about competing social visions.

fretmeister

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rqm9g?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=thetodayprogramme&ns_source=facebook

His victims support showing him humanity.