Anders Breivik Faces Sentence of 3 Months Per Murder

[Tiassa]

True 'nuff

Well he would have whined if I had said "dickhead" and then you'd have the whole gammut of 'you're a mod, how could you speak like that' etc.

True. Most of the words I would apply probably fall into that category, but some others that happen to be true and applicable ... oh, right, he already complained in SFOG about that.

And maybe he has a point. Maybe he's really not a liar. Maybe he's just ignorant.

 

[Bells]

True. Most of the words I would apply probably fall into that category, but some others that happen to be true and applicable ... oh, right, he already complained in SFOG about that.

And maybe he has a point. Maybe he's really not a liar. Maybe he's just ignorant.

Wasn't the word of the day at the time 'mistake'?

 

[Tiassa]

Sublimation of Bloodlust

Wasn't the word of the day at the time 'mistake'?

No ... no, "mistake" would be too harsh.

"Poorly", an adverb, was the word of the day. "Poorly worded", "poorly phrased", "poorly written", and I think there's one "ambiguous" in there.

But mistake? Indeed, presented with an opportunity to fall back to mistake in light of the demonstrable record, he rejected it and changed his story ... sort of. You know, like that whole thing kids do sometimes, when they say something without thinking, and when called out retreat to an alternate position that leads to the ... uh ... "mistaken" argument, except that, too, has a fatal flaw, so when called out again retreat to a new variation, and so on?

We actually see it here, in this thread, too:

Bells: (to Quadraphonics) Personally I just want to know what crystal ball some are using to know that he will only get 21 years.

Adoucette: Well since that's been widely reported°

"it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court" ....

.... Now it's possible that the news we are getting isn't complete, but it's not based on anyone's crystal ball.

Bells: Norway has a provision where they can keep someone incarcerated for life if that individual could pose a danger to society. He admits to doing it and he said he would do it again given the chance. What chance do you think he will have of being released before he is rehabilitated?

Adoucette: I don't know Bells, how many Mass Murderers in Norway have served more than 21 years? .... Answer NONE.​

I mean, you made a fine point in response, as noted earlier, but look at the retreat. First, it is that the maximum is the maximum. Then, when informed that the maximum is not the maximum, he falls back to what seems a non sequitur fact, that the available device has never been used.

Of course, it's not a matter of being mistaken. Rather, the problem is "conflicting reports". You know, because if one news report says twenty-one years with provisions that could extend to life, and another simply says twenty-one years, it can't possibly be that the other is bad copy—the one is necessarily wrong. He's inventing conflict where there really isn't any.

It's a series of retreats.

So let us state this clearly, for the record, so that there is no opportunity for confusion: The maximum criminal penalty in Norway is twenty-one years; the law, however, provides specifically for cases in which such a sentence is insufficient for public safety.

Or, to phrase it so my American neighbors can understand: Breivik ain't walkin' in the free light of day ever again.

The whole idea that Norway's justice system is somehow insufficient arises, quite simply, from differences in opinion about what prisons are for and how societies should deal with criminals. A more complex explanation would suggest that this thirst for judgment, punishment, and vendetta is, ultimately, a sublimation of bloodlust. If we follow the punishment/vendetta approach, then we arrive at a potential whereby there is no logical reason to ever release a convict sent to prison. This sort of prison system has the nasty effect of making a significant number of criminals even more dangerous than they were when they entered. Prisons thus become useless insofar as it makes no real sense to put someone away because they're dangerous and then release them once we've augmented the danger they pose to society.

In the end ... well, you can see the logical conclusion here, right?

In the end, we might as well just execute them. Why bother to feed and house them if they're simply waiting to die on the taxpayers' tab?

And that, ultimately, is what this is about: Cleansing society—by blood—of its criminal element.

We cannot eliminate crime altogether. Reality says. Can't do it. You know, California is considering repealing the death penalty. It will be at the ballot box in November. The guys who wrote the repeal initiative ... (wait for it) ... are the guys who won the original ballot initiative expanding the state's death penalty. No, really. Donald J. Heller, who wrote 1978's Prop. 7, recently explained: "I am convinced now that it has never deterred anyone from committing a murder. In my mind, I realized what I did was a big mistake." His partner in these ventures, Ron Briggs, put it another way: "We started with 300 on death row when we did Prop 7, and we now have over 720 — and it's cost us $4 billion. I tell my Republican friends, 'Close your eyes for a moment. If there was a state program that was costing $185 million a year and only gave the money to lawyers and criminals, what would you do with it?'" (And, yes, you can shudder at the thought that it comes down to a money argument; death penalty advocate Kent Scheideggar suggests that the financial aspect "is probably the only argument that has any chance".)

Cleansing by blood doesn't work. But that doesn't really matter to the punishment/vendetta bloc. It's not really about crime and punishment. It's not about perpetrators or victims. It's not about justice. It's about them. The legal and morally acceptable reasons for killing other people are constantly diminishing, and this hurts their feelings. Because it means the emotional gratification of knowing people they don't like are being killed is ever more rare.

And that's what we're dealing with in this thread: sublimation of bloodlust.

Horrifying? Ghastly? Perhaps. Surprising? Not in the slightest.

So strip away all of my shadows, and light me up brighter than the sun. My hands are strong from building these gallows; many will be left hanging before my time here is done.

—Floater​

​

____________________

Notes:

widely reported — We must also, specifically, review his quote and source. He quotes the BBC: "it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court". The context of that quote within the article is very intriguing. From that BBC article (accent added):

The prosecution said last week it was prepared to accept Breivik was criminally insane and therefore not responsible for his acts, and as such it might not call for a prison sentence.

However, it reserved the right to alter that view if new elements emerged about his mental health by the end of the trial.

"The way the case appears at the time the charges are being brought, there is no basis to request a regular prison penalty," state prosecutor Tor-Aksel Busch wrote in instructions to prosecutors handling the case.

"But it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court."

Medical experts have been divided over Breivik's state of mind.

A first analysis by court-appointed psychiatrists last year found that he was insane, on the basis of 13 interviews with the prisoner.

Their report said Breivik lived in his "own delusional universe where all his thoughts and acts are guided by his delusions".

However, four psychiatrists who subsequently assessed Breivik disagreed with several of their court-appointed colleagues' conclusions.​

So, in the first place, the quote is a snippet from an extended quote indicating that the prosecutor is aiming for closed psychiatric commitment, and if they lose that, they intend to seek the maximum prison term. That is to say that the quote is rather quite misrepresented.

Works Cited:

Nagourney, Adam. "Seeking an End to an Execution Law They Once Championed". The New York Times. April 6, 2012. NYTimes.com. April 18, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/u...california-execution-law-they-championed.html

British Broadcasting Corporation. "Norway attacks: Breivik charged with terror attacks". BB News. March 7, 2012. BBC.co.uk. April 18, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17286154

 

[adoucette]

True. Most of the words I would apply probably fall into that category, but some others that happen to be true and applicable ... oh, right, he already complained in SFOG about that.

And maybe he has a point. Maybe he's really not a liar. Maybe he's just ignorant.

Spoken like true fair and impartial moderators.

 

[adoucette]

Of course, it's not a matter of being mistaken. Rather, the problem is "conflicting reports". You know, because if one news report says twenty-one years with provisions that could extend to life, and another simply says twenty-one years, it can't possibly be that the other is bad copy—the one is necessarily wrong. He's inventing conflict where there really isn't any.

No Tiassa, that's not the conflict.

THIS IS:

If Mr Breivik is found guilty as charged of terrorism, the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention, and he would walk free at 53.

Which says that 5 year preventative detention concept you hang your hat on and which I found out has NEVER been used in Norway, isn't on the table.

Not COULD walk free at 53, WOULD walk free at 53.

Feel free to take it up with the BBC.

 

[GeoffP]

Now that the misplaced inter-moderator congratulation is out of the way: as it stands from the links presented, it appears that the mental status of Breivik is in some question.

The statement conflicts with an examination that diagnosed Breivik as psychotic, and therefore unfit for prison. The first, much criticised review concluded he had paranoid schizophrenia.

Some experts questioned whether someone with a grave mental illness would be capable of carrying out attacks requiring such meticulous preparation.

The new assessment was made by Terje Toerrissen and Agnar Aspaas, both psychiatrists, following a court request after the criticism of the first diagnosis. "The main conclusion of the experts is that Anders Behring Breivik is found to [have not been] psychotic during the time of his actions on 22 July 2011," the Oslo court said in a statement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/10/norway-massacre-suspect-not-insane

So he might well - particularly since the previous findings were "heavily criticized" (although one wonders by whom and why) - receive only the apparently upper limit of 21 years. The article takes the position that this is a more probable outcome, so it's not irregular to argue that it would occur. It would be of use to know to what political end the latter two opinions were submitted, if any. Given the polarity of opinion even in this discussion, it strikes me as possible.

As for the hand-wringing about leaving other countries to their own systems, it does not refute in any way the de facto position of the critics on this thread that such a system might well fail in this case. As a statistic, it is excellent. As an indicator in this case, it is much more uncertain.

 

[Bells]

Which says that 5 year preventative detention concept you hang your hat on and which I found out has NEVER been used in Norway, isn't on the table.

Not COULD walk free at 53, WOULD walk free at 53.

Feel free to take it up with the BBC.

Possibly because they have never had such a crime before in Norway and that in the past, criminals who actually came close to Breivik in the 'bad' scale (ie the serial killer nurse) had been rehabilitated and deemed safe enough to release..?

Really, it's not that hard a concept to understand.

Their legal system is completely different to yours. Theirs is based solely on incarceration to rehabilitate, not to punish. Their system also allows for a life sentence if after 21 years, the individual is still deemed a danger to society and that person's sentence would then be reviewed every few years, during which he/she would face even more rehabilitation - you can look up 'containment' in regards to Norway's criminal justice system and you might, just might, understand why you are barking up the wrong tree as usual..

That is fact.

Norwegian convicts can serve more than 21 years in prison, they can receive up to 5 year increments of additional prison time depending on whether they are considered dangerous or a high risk of committing serious offenses. Prosecutor Carol Sandbye has stated that Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the horrific attack on Norwegian teenagers that left 68 dead, could be jailed for his entire life. Sandbye also stated that it was unheard of in Norway and that life in prison was possible but highly unlikely.

Now once you wrap your mind around why it is highly unlikely that anyone would spend their entire life in jail, you will come to understand just how successful their rehabilitation system actually is.

If their system was solely designed to punish, then you might have a point. But theirs is not. Punishment does not really come into it. What matters most is rehabilitation. And that is why they are so successful compared to other countries.

Now this trial could end up with having declared insane - and based on his current performance in this trial to date, that is a very very likely possibility, or he could be deemed sane and sentenced to 21 years with the containment provision in place, which could see him jailed indefinitely if he does not accept rehabilitation or if he is still deemed a danger to society once his 21 years is up.

Do you understand now?

I really do not know how to make this clearer for you. My 6 year old understands this Arthur. If you still have issues understanding it, then I would suggest you google Norway's legal system and look up "containment" in regards to their sentencing principles..

And since you love the BBC so much:

If Breivik is judged sane and found guilty of murder, he faces a maximum of 21 years in jail, although that can be extended if he is deemed a threat to the public.

If he is judged to be insane, he will be committed to a psychiatric institution.

Personally speaking, the guy needs to be institutionalised because he is not sane.

 

[adoucette]

Possibly because they have never had such a crime before in Norway and that in the past, criminals who actually came close to Breivik in the 'bad' scale (ie the serial killer nurse) had been rehabilitated and deemed safe enough to release..?

Bells, they have a 20% recividism rate, so the point is you never really know that someone has been rehabilitated.

Really, it's not that hard a concept to understand.

No it's not, and I understand both sides of this Bells. You seem to only understand one side of the issue (which is very typical of you)

Do you have much problem with understanding THIS:

If Mr Breivik is found guilty as charged of terrorism, the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention, and he would walk free at 53.

If Mr Breivik is found guilty as charged of terrorism, he WOULD walk free, not COULD walk free.

Their legal system is completely different to yours. Theirs is based solely on incarceration to rehabilitate, not to punish. Their system also allows for a life sentence if after 21 years, the individual is still deemed a danger to society and that person's sentence would then be reviewed every few years, during which he/she would face even more rehabilitation - you can look up 'containment' in regards to Norway's criminal justice system and you might, just might, understand why you are barking up the wrong tree as usual..

That is fact.

And I'm curious, why you deem a lawyer in Virginia writing a blog on this case FACT and the BBC reporting on it is not?

Which is why I said there ARE in fact conflicting reports (including within the same source) on the maximum he can serve.

I'm sure your 6 year old would also understand what "conflicting reports" means Bells, and so ar no one has actually posted anything definitive about this issue (your Va Blog is not definitive).

Did the prosecutors, as the BBC article claims, actually forfeit that ability to do the 5 year review forever?

If he is convicted of Terrorism AS CHARGED will he, as the BBC claims, walk free in 21 years?

I've seen nothing definitive that either substantiates or refutes these assertions yet, but the point is Bells, you just can't ignore the BBC's version of the way Norway's legal system works and say that there aren't "Conflicting reports" about the maximum length he could serve.

There are.

 

[GeoffP]

I wonder: is it likely that such an individual might get up to something in the five-year intervals between his reviews on release? Hmm.

 

[adoucette]

Maybe he's really not a liar. Maybe he's just ignorant.

And yet here we have proof that you are both:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2918069&postcount=28

 

[Bells]

Bells, they have a 20% recividism rate, so the point is you never really know that someone has been rehabilitated.

I think they would have a better idea than you.

No it's not, and I understand both sides of this Bells. You seem to only understand one side of the issue (which is very typical of you)

Do you have much problem with understanding THIS:

And what part of the BBC also saying that he could be found insane or be jailed indefinitely because of the containment clause in their legal system, which allows them to keep someone in prison beyond the 21 years if they are deemed a danger to society and if rehabilitation has failed, did you fail to grasp?

What part of the numerous links provided which state the same thing, didn't you quite understand?

I know, you have your heart set on that misrepresented quote you keep repeating, just as you obviously tingled with the whole don't dial 911, use a .357 you had going in the other thread going by how many times you kept repeating it. But in this instance, you are pissing on the wrong tree. You are attempting to sensationalise this because of that one misrepresented quote from the BBC. You aren't fooling anyone Arthur.

If Mr Breivik is found guilty as charged of terrorism, he WOULD walk free, not COULD walk free.

He was also tried with murder, which means the 'containment' rule would apply to him.

Really, it's not that hard is it?

Do I need to type in morse code perhaps? Have pictures?

Diagrams?

How much simpler does this have to be made for you to get it?

And I'm curious, why you deem a lawyer in Virginia writing a blog on this case FACT and the BBC reporting on it is not?

Which is why I said there ARE in fact conflicting reports (including within the same source) on the maximum he can serve.

I'm sure your 6 year old would also understand what "conflicting reports" means Bells, and so ar no one has actually posted anything definitive about this issue (your Va Blog is not definitive).

Did the prosecutors, as the BBC article claims, actually forfeit that ability to do the 5 year review forever?

If he is convicted of Terrorism AS CHARGED will he, as the BBC claims, walk free in 21 years?

I've seen nothing definitive that either substantiates or refutes these assertions yet, but the point is Bells, you just can't ignore the BBC's version of the way Norway's legal system works and say that there aren't "Conflicting reports" about the maximum length he could serve.

There are.

Firstly, he wasn't just charged with terrorism. He was also charged with murder.

Secondly, the BBC also agreed with the blog from the lawyer who had links which described Norway's justice system in more detail, as well as the other links provided in this thread which said the same thing.. that he could either be deemed insane by the courts, or that he could be sentenced to 21 years and then possibly kept indefinitely if he is still deemed a threat to society. So either you are just, well, stupid and have reading and comprehension issues, or you are an obsessive compulsive individual who has currently focused his sights solely on one line from a BBC article which you misrepresented in this thread. Pick whichever one applies to you.

Thirdly and finally, you can google about Norway's justice system and look up the containment issue.

Now, are you done, or are you going to troll some more about this?

 

[adoucette]

I think they would have a better idea than you.

And of course that is not at all relevant.

And what part of the BBC also saying that he could be found insane or be jailed indefinitely because of the containment clause in their legal system, which allows them to keep someone in prison beyond the 21 years if they are deemed a danger to society and if rehabilitation has failed, did you fail to grasp?

None.
They were in different BBC articles.
Thus the original claim of CONFLICTING reports.

What part of the numerous links provided which state the same thing, didn't you quite understand?

Yup, read them.
Also read and posted, the two conflicting reports.

I know, you have your heart set on that misrepresented quote you keep repeating

HOW was it misrepresented Bells?

I've been trying to find out if what the BBC reported, that if he is convicted, the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention is true or not.

I've not CLAIMED that it is true, only that some of their reports conflict with other claims that he could be kept for life.

All you are arguing is that this conflicting BBC report doesn't exist.

But it does.

Thirdly and finally, you can google about Norway's justice system and look up the containment issue.

I have and like I said, from what I've found I can't confirm or deny the BBC claims.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yup.
So?

So I don't hear you applying the same argument to the USA, despite our much, much higher recidivism rates. In the USA, we have a national recidivism rates of over 50% - does that imply that we shouldn't ever let anyone out of prison?

Letting out a mass murderer after 21 years is still not a good plan when there is a 1 in 5 chance he will revert back to his old self.

What a preposterous leap of logic. The fact of the matter is that most recidivism is driven by drug addiction (and that the single most effective thing that can be done to bring down recidivism is not harsher sentencing, but drug treatment and rehabilitation). If you want to be serious about this you'll at least need to break down the recidivism rates by type of offense - the fact that drug-addicted thieves who do a few years tend to get in trouble for stealing more stuff to fuel their drug habits tells us very little about how convicted murderers respond to decades-long sentences. The fact that you're - again - mounting a transparently dishonest abuse of statistics, however, says a lot about you.

But, as to the quality of "plans:" Norway's murder rate is an entire order of magnitude lower than that in the USA. Whatever you think of their jurisprudence, the fact of the matter is that they maintain a drastically safer society than we do, so you've no real grounds to suggest that they're being imprudent or injudicious. Why would they copy a system that works the way you think it should, when said system in reality exhibits more than double the recidivism rate, and nearly ten times the murder rate?

 

[quadraphonics]

Also, since we're on the topic of right-wing fanatics who find the potential sentence in question illogical or unjust:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...ing-breivik-wants-death-penalty-or-acquittal/

Norway's prison terms are "pathetic," mass killer Anders Behring Breivik declared Wednesday in court, claiming the death penalty or a full acquittal were the "only logical outcomes" for his massacre of 77 people.​

One wonders what other features of his right-wing political platform are mirrored by our local mouthpieces...

 

[GeoffP]

Not merely right-wingers.

EDIT: Because it leaves open the question, as I suspect was mentioned below in a virulently disingenuous kind of way, I refer to the sentence, and not the views of Breivik.

Sad, but necessary.

 

[adoucette]

So I don't hear you applying the same argument to the USA, despite our much, much higher recidivism rates. In the USA, we have a national recidivism rates of over 50% - does that imply that we shouldn't ever let anyone out of prison?

When did this become a "let's compare this to the US system?"

I think our prison system is horribly broken, but that's not really the point of this discussion.

What a preposterous leap of logic. The fact of the matter is that most recidivism is driven by drug addiction (and that the single most effective thing that can be done to bring down recidivism is not harsher sentencing, but drug treatment and rehabilitation). If you want to be serious about this you'll at least need to break down the recidivism rates by type of offense - the fact that drug-addicted thieves who do a few years tend to get in trouble for stealing more stuff to fuel their drug habits tells us very little about how convicted murderers respond to decades-long sentences. The fact that you're - again - mounting a transparently dishonest abuse of statistics, however, says a lot about you.

No, I'm pointing out that even in good systems, individuals can't be said to have been "rehabilitated" with any degree of certainty.

Which is why I think it makes sense to have sentences that don't allow a chance for parole, for those people who commit sufficiently heineous crimes for which you don't want to take that chance ever again.

I guess I just think it's one thing if a car thief reverts back to their old behavior, it's totally different when the person is a public bomber and mass murderer of children.

At this point, I think he has forfeited his right to ever be a free man again.

 

[quadraphonics]

When did this become a "let's compare this to the US system?"

It's been a call for American rightists to pile on to the limp-wristed Nordic socialists from the OP, and got really explicit when Asguard called you guys on it.

Regardless, any relevant, instructive comparison is just that. If you don't have a response to the comparison, well, I'll take that as the point having been made and thank you not to try silly tactics to avoid noting such as you are doing here.

I think our prison system is horribly broken, but that's not really the point of this discussion.

Except, the US system is more closely aligned with your preferences than the Norwegian one - not to mention more subject to the political influence of yourself and those who agree with you - and so you need to answer for its real-world demonstration of what your proposals result in.

If you think the US prison system is horribly broken - and it certainly underperforms the Norwegian one by a large margin on every measure I've seen - then you probably ought to be looking to Norwegian jurisprudence as a model to be humbly copied. And not an outrage to be arrogantly attacked.

No, I'm pointing out that even in good systems, individuals can't be said to have been "rehabilitated" with any degree of certainty.

And yet they are so "said," every day, with sufficient certainty to safely release them back into society. And Norway does this a lot better than the USA does, according to the statistics.

Again: according to that reasoning there, why shouldn't all sentences be life sentences?

Which is why I think it makes sense to have sentences that don't allow a chance for parole, for those people who commit sufficiently heineous crimes for which you don't want to take that chance ever again.

That's great and all, but Norway disagrees, and exhibits a much lower murder rate and recidivism rate. And they're the ones who will be subject to the hypothetical danger if they choose to release the dude in a couple of decades so, again, who cares what you think?

I guess I just think it's one thing if a car thief reverts back to their old behavior, it's totally different when the person is a public bomber and mass murderer of children.

It's a difference in degree, certainly, but where is the difference in kind? In both cases, we're talking about the possibility that a convicted criminal will offend again after release, and so harm some innocent person.

And note, again, that Norway enjoys a murder rate drastically lower than our own. So why would they heed suggestions to change their system to make it look more like ours?

At this point, I think he has forfeited his right to ever be a free man again.

That's clear - but is the actuarial risk to public safety your actual reason for that? Or is it simply a question of justice, and all the stuff about public safety and recidivism is just rhetoric to support it?

 

[adoucette]

It's been a call for American rightists to pile on to the limp-wristed Nordic socialists from the OP, and got really explicit when Asguard called you guys on it.

Nope, never mentioned any of that BS, that's just your imagination.

Regardless, any relevant, instructive comparison is just that. If you don't have a response to the comparison, well, I'll take that as the point having been made and thank you not to try silly tactics to avoid noting such as you are doing here.

Not "regardless".
That's BS

I stated my opinion about this:

I think there are certain crimes where you forfeit your right to ever be free in society again.

This is one of them.

I don't think parents should have to worry that their kids are at the park and Anders was just released because some people in the prison system apparently think that he appears to have been rehabilitated.

I didn't say their system sucks.

Indeed I think it probably is an excellent system and I did say ours was horribly broken, so find someone else to play your silly game, but I'm not going to argue with you about things I never said or even implied.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Also, since we're on the topic of right-wing fanatics who find the potential sentence in question illogical or unjust:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...ing-breivik-wants-death-penalty-or-acquittal/

Norway's prison terms are "pathetic," mass killer Anders Behring Breivik declared Wednesday in court, claiming the death penalty or a full acquittal were the "only logical outcomes" for his massacre of 77 people.​

One wonders what other features of his right-wing political platform are mirrored by our local mouthpieces...

I agree with Mr Behring 100% on that issue, and perhaps some others.

One might also note that Hitler was a vegetarian and ordered the construction of the Autoban & the Volkswagon. Jim Jones, in addition to being a mass murderer, was Director of the human rights commission and helped to "integrate churches, restaurants, the telephone company, the police department, a theater, an amusement park, and the Methodist Hospital."

The point being that there are nut jobs and psychopaths of every political and religious persuasion and suggesting that anyone who happens to agree with Mr Behring on this or that issue is a fanatic makes about as much sense as calling all vegetarians fascists.

 

[Bells]

And of course that is not at all relevant.

I'm sorry, this is a crime, committed in Norway, by a Norweigan, who is currently on trial in Norway and who will be subject to Norway's laws. It is whatever you may have to say about it that is not relevant.

You can disagree as much as you like, it is still their system and their legal system is a very good one.

None.
They were in different BBC articles.
Thus the original claim of CONFLICTING reports.

Which leads me to believe that you are nothing but a lying and dishonest troll on this site.

Numerous links, including BBC articles, since you seem to be a tad obsessed with the BBC at the moment, have stated the exact same thing. The fact that you disregard everything else and concentrate on that one line that you actually misrepresented in this thread shows the level of your intellectual dishonesty. Oh sorry, "mistake". Since you know, you seem to have an issue with being called out on your dishonesty and all..

Now, you either accept that the reality of the matter is that Breivik's sentence can go one of three ways based on fact or you can keep being dishonest. Psychiatric institution if the court finds him insane, 21 years or 21 years and then containment clause applying after the 21 years if he has not been rehabilitated. That is what the law states in Norway. That is how their legal system operates.

Yup, read them.
Also read and posted, the two conflicting reports.

No, it is just you trying to misrepresent a paragraph in an article, despite every single other thing posted on this site clearly states what the law actually is.

I can even give you a case where the containment sentence came into play in Norway and there is currently someone in prison in Norway who may very well never be released when his 21 years is up.

The Baneheia case was a notorious double child murder that took place in Baneheia in the city of Kristiansand, Norway, on May 19, 2000. The victims, Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (aged 10) and Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (aged 8), were raped and killed. Viggo Kristiansen and Jan Helge Andersen were convicted in 2002 for the crimes[1]. Viggo Kristiansen was convicted of both murders and of raping both girls, and sentenced to 21 years in prison (containment, see below)[2]. Jan Helge Andersen was convicted of the murder of Sørstrønen, but acquitted of the murder of Paulsen. He was also convicted of raping both girls, and sentenced to 19 years in prison[2].

According to the verdict, Viggo Kristiansen was the leading force behind the crime. The court established that Kristiansen had an IQ of 83[3], that he "is to be considered dangerous", has "paedophile tendencies", "small or no possibility of improvement" and that it is "a reasonable danger that he might again commit violent acts and sexual abuse"[4]. He was not given an ordinary prison sentence, but rather sentenced to containment (the Norwegian legal term is forvaring), a form of special protective custody which means he may be held in prison indefinitely and is subject to release only at the discretion of a judge after his sentence is served. Containment is roughly comparable to a life sentence in many other European countries. Kristiansen is serving his sentence at Ila Prison, while Andersen is serving his sentence at Skien Prison.​

So, are you going to keep being dishonest about this and claim that he will definitely be out in 21 years?

HOW was it misrepresented Bells?

I've been trying to find out if what the BBC reported, that if he is convicted, the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention is true or not.

I've not CLAIMED that it is true, only that some of their reports conflict with other claims that he could be kept for life.

All you are arguing is that this conflicting BBC report doesn't exist.

But it does.

You have been arguing that he will be out in 21 years. Repeatedly. And this is despite being told why and how that may very well not be the case and even if he is out in 21 years, it will only be because he has been rehabilitated enough to be released, since Norway's system is one based on rehabilitation instead of punishment. In other words, they treat their prisoners like human beings and accord them their dignity and human rights and try to rehabilitate them. You seem to disagree, you even stated that their knowing what is best for them and their country is irrelevant. Your arrogance clearly knows no bounds.

Even though he may very well not be out in 21 years. Truth be known, he could find himself in a mental institution for the rest of his natural life if the court finds him insane.

And as has been posted to you, repeatedly, a murder charge can result in the containment sentence, whereby after 21 years, he would be assessed before release and if he would still pose a threat to society, he would not be released. This was also linked to you and I even provided you with a clear case example above. And again, you disregard it and keep reciting that BBC paragraph like it is a religious mantra to you. He was charged with a terrorist act, which can result in a 21 year sentence, and he was also charged with murder, which can also result in the containment sentence. The nature of his crime and his, well, insanity, could also result in his being found to be insane and institutionalised in a mental institution for the rest of his natural life. And again, this was provided to you repeatedly and you wilfully ignored it and disregarded it because of your BBC fetish.

As I said, my 6 year old understood this when he caught a glimpse of Breivik on the TV giving the right wing salute. It took me 3 minutes to explain it and he got it. Now you are either somewhat dim or a dishonest troll. As I said earlier, apply whichever one is more apt to you.

_________________________________________________________

One wonders what other features of his right-wing political platform are mirrored by our local mouthpieces...

DERBYSHIRE: [Breivik] kept a diary and has explained himself in a long, rambling manifesto. I note with interest that my name turns up in that manifesto. I hasten to say that this is not a great distinction. Some of my friends and colleagues are in there too -- Mark Steyn, for example. The manifesto is more than 1,500 pages long. And big slabs of it are just lifted from the writings of various anti-multiculturalist bloggers, all of whom have indignantly denied any affiliation with Breivik.

The upshot of the manifesto is that Breivik thinks European civilization is under threat of being swamped by Muslims and other incompatibles. A great many people think that, including me and a lot of my friends and colleagues.

Breivik further believes that Europe's ethno-masochist leftists, nursing as they do views like Tom Hayden's, are actively working to make this happen. I agree with that too. So far as what's happening is concerned and who's making it happen, I'm on the same page as Anders Breivik and so are a great many Western conservatives.


[John Derbyshire]
​

He also stated that he didn't agree with murdering them, but put it in such a way that leaves one to doubt his true meaning because he stated that one should not murder those responsible for the threat to Europe's civilisation and Norway's culture.. In other words, he had been providing a self defense argument for Breivik before Breivik even entered that court room.. And pretty much stated that while it's wrong to murder those responsible for destroying Europe's culture, like Breivik had murdered those children and adults, he can understand why Breivik acted as he did and why he felt he had to act.. The transcripts and Derbyshire's comments get even more offensive as it goes on.

But that is how right wingers and apparently others in your local country feel.