Anders Breivik Faces Sentence of 3 Months Per Murder

[Bells]

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.

Mr Behring is actually Mr Breivik. So while you may try to hide who it is you are agreeing with by using his middle name, lets just make sure you don't try to misrepresent this, shall we?

You just advised that you "agree" with Anders Behring Breivik on the issue of his sentencing (because he wants to die a martyr to his cause or be released) and apparently on other issues as well.

Do tell, what else do you agree with the mass murderer of children about, Madanthony?

Do you, like Derbyshire, agree with his views on multiculturism in Norway and that Breivik was acting in self defense? Do you, like Derbyshire, blame those teenagers and children and hold them responsible?

And citing Jim Jones as an example?

You left out the part that he was made a director of the Human Rights Commission in Indianapolis because he had blacks in his 'intergrated' church, blacks he later went on to murder, along with all the rest members and others he ordered shot on that run way. In fact, he used that political clout to recruit more people to his cause, which led to those people's deaths. Really? This is what you're using as an example?

And Hitler.. Unbelievable, but you actually cited Hitler and how one can apparently agree with him as well, well you can agree with him.. Lets look at his embracing and constructing the autobahn, shall we?

Just days after the 1933 Nazi takeover, Adolf Hitler enthusiastically embraced an ambitious autobahn construction project and appointed Fritz Todt the Inspector General of German Road Construction. Soon, over 100,000 labourers worked at construction sites all over Germany. As well as providing employment and improved infrastructure, necessary for economic recovery efforts, the project was also a great success for propaganda purposes.​

Touting Hitler's propaganda tools as something you agree with. That propaganda helped get him elected into power and murder over 11 million people.

This is a new low for you and an embarrassment for the rest of us..

 

[quadraphonics]

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

What do you think about his ideas on multiculturalism, and religio/ethno-nationalism?

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."

One might also note that you've walked right into the trap I set for you. And not only did you reach right for Adolph fucking Hitler, but threw in an apologia for Jim Jones to boot! It's unreal!

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.

Good thing nobody actually said that, then.

What I did point out was that right-wing fanatics all seem to agree on the point in question. Which is unsurprising: the idea that Stern Father State needs to mercilessly punish misbehavior might as well be the definition of "right wing."

But the really relevant point you have stumbled onto, particularly with your defense of Jim Jones, is the fact that even the most depraved, insane individuals contain elements of goodness and compassion. This (highly Christian, note) insight is the basis for the belief that all humans are redeemable, and the demand that such form the basis of criminal justice systems.

 

[quadraphonics]

I didn't say their system sucks.

Right, you just said that it's a travesty of justice that they might release this dude in 21 years, and directly impugned the judgement and political legitimacy of the officials making that hypothetical decision. How I could ever have misconstrued that as any kind of criticism of Norway's justice system is a total mystery, indeed.

Indeed I think it probably is an excellent system and I did say ours was horribly broken,

So why do you keep slamming fundamental elements of their justice system, and demanding that they need to be changed to be more similar to the American justice system? Again, if you're really so impressed by the Norwegian system, and disgusted by the American system, why aren't you doing the exact opposite?

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

Derbyshire is a real piece of work alright - so openly racist that even conservative mouthpiece publications fire him!

But it is indeed noteworthy what a hurry the right is in to distance themselves from the guy. It's a constant problem for them that they tend to indulge these same paranoid racist "militia" types on one hand, and then need to turn around and be "respectable" and "law-abiding" on the other. And so we see the hysterical fury of authoritarian enmity for a law-breaker - we have to throw away the key! put him to death! - that seems disproportionate until you note the magnitude of the liability involved. This is the same crowd who hitched their political fortunes to the Tea Party - with guns at protests and "blood of tyrants" signs and all - and currently suffering from a scandal of Ted Nugent going on about killing Obama, so the last thing they need is a gory demonstration of just how hollow all their "it's just harmless political rhetoric!" dodges really are.

 

[Bells]

Derbyshire is a real piece of work alright - so openly racist that even conservative mouthpiece publications fire him!

But it is indeed noteworthy what a hurry the right is in to distance themselves from the guy. It's a constant problem for them that they tend to indulge these same paranoid racist "militia" types on one hand, and then need to turn around and be "respectable" and "law-abiding" on the other. And so we see the hysterical fury of authoritarian enmity for a law-breaker - we have to throw away the key! put him to death! - that seems disproportionate until you note the magnitude of the liability involved. This is the same crowd who hitched their political fortunes to the Tea Party - with guns at protests and "blood of tyrants" signs and all - and currently suffering from a scandal of Ted Nugent going on about killing Obama, so the last thing they need is a gory demonstration of just how hollow all their "it's just harmless political rhetoric!" dodges really are.

And we have our own reaching for Hitler's propaganda which allowed him to be elected and murder millions of people and Jim Jones, who used the political clout given to him so that he could recruit more people, whom he later killed, not to mention Breivik as being psychopaths our resident right wingers agree with. Apparently the propaganda of the autobahn, which helped Hitler be elected and murder millions of people is a good thing that all should agree with.. Not to mention Jones' using his position to recruit more of his victims, is something we should all agree with. Well, Madant obviously agrees with them since he's using those as examples..

The desperation of that post was, for lack of a better term, stunning.

 

[adoucette]

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.

WTF?

This is a FORUM for discussion of various topics Bells, it is not for ONLY Norwegians to discuss this topic.

Indeed, what if on the Zimmerman case I told you to STFU because:

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

If we impose that kind of moronic rules it is kind of pointless to even HAVE a forum don't you think?

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

Well same to you. The difference is I brought up a legitimate question about a conflicting report I'd seen, and ever since then you've just been throwing ad hominems, as if even bringing up the idea that there might be some confusion over here about what the Norwegian Justice system can or can't do is somehow dumping on the Norwegians.

It isn't.

You just want to shut down all discussion on the topic.

Why Bells?
What are you afraid of?

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..

I've read all the links, and yes I agree many of them say what you claim, but that doesnt' mean they are right and that the other is wrong.
I'm not misrepresnting anything. I simply posted the links, to reputable news reports that showed where I had read conflicting reports on this ONE issue dealing with this case.

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.

Yeah, that's what YOU say, but then you haven't actually posted a link that clarifies what the BBC article meant by them FORFEITING the right to preventive detention.

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.

Again, I' m not misrepresenting anything Bells. You keep saying that, but then you never explain what this misrepresntation supposedly is.

It isn't like I made that report up now is it?

Sure it could be wrong, which I've also suggested, but so far no one has posted anything definitive on it.

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

Nope, I said there are conflicting reports about that.
I posted the links to the conflicting reports.
Personally, I'd like to get the conflict resolved.
And if it turns out that the Prosecution didn't forfeit anything by the way they are charging him, unlike what the BBC claimed, I'll actually be happier.

 

[adoucette]

Right, you just said that it's a travesty of justice that they might release this dude in 21 years, and directly impugned the judgement and political legitimacy of the officials making that hypothetical decision. How I could ever have misconstrued that as any kind of criticism of Norway's justice system is a total mystery, indeed.

A criticism of a part of the system that could release this person back into society is STILL not saying that the system sucks.

Do try to keep perspective.

So why do you keep slamming fundamental elements of their justice system, and demanding that they need to be changed to be more similar to the American justice system? Again, if you're really so impressed by the Norwegian system, and disgusted by the American system, why aren't you doing the exact opposite?

Because I'm just talking about dealing with MASS MURDERERS, which as we have all agreed, is a very tiny part of their justice system. So NO, it's not "slamming fundamental elements of their justice system", this is clearly dealing with a very RARE and very EXTREME issue.

Do try to keep perspective.

 

[Bells]

WTF?

This is a FORUM for discussion of various topics Bells, it is not for ONLY Norwegians to discuss this topic.

Indeed, what if on the Zimmerman case I told you to STFU because:



If we impose that kind of moronic rules it is kind of pointless to even HAVE a forum don't you think?

But you aren't discussing it. You are using a much earlier article from the BBC which discussed one of the things he's charged with and trying to claim he will only get 21 years. What you keep failing to mention or possibly even realise is that 21 years would be for a terrorism charge that he is facing. You seem to wilfully and dihonestly seem to ignore and refuse to accept that he has also been charged with murder, whereby the containment sentence could very well apply in his case. You also misrepresented the laws in Norway, saying that the containment sentence has never applied in the past, when it clearly has been.

Well same to you. The difference is I brought up a legitimate question about a conflicting report I'd seen, and ever since then you've just been throwing ad hominems, as if even bringing up the idea that there might be some confusion over here about what the Norwegian Justice system can or can't do is somehow dumping on the Norwegians.

It isn't.

You just want to shut down all discussion on the topic.

Why Bells?
What are you afraid of?

Nice try.

But no cigar.

You brought up a legitimate question and then refused to accept any answers to that question and tried to pass of that question as the only charge that applied to this case, when it has been clearly been demonstrated to you that it is not the case. Quite the contrary. What you have done is misrepresented the sentencing and tried to claim that he would only get 21 years for murder, when the much earlier quote from an old BBC article dealt with his terrorism charges. Later quotes from the BBC and other sources which discussed his terrorism and murder charges were ignored by you as you tried to claim he could only get 21 years and then tried to dishonestly claim that was for murder as well.

I've read all the links, and yes I agree many of them say what you claim, but that doesnt' mean they are right and that the other is wrong.
I'm not misrepresnting anything. I simply posted the links, to reputable news reports that showed where I had read conflicting reports on this ONE issue dealing with this case.

And I have posted numerous links, from that very same news source which reported on the terrorism charges you seem to have an obsession about and seem to believe will be the only thing he will be tried and sentenced with and it also reported on his other charge, which is murder and which can result in the containment sentence being applied.

The article you keep referring to dealt with the terrorist charge. The murder charge can result in the containment sentence.

So stop lying about their being a conflict in the report. There is no conflict.

Yeah, that's what YOU say, but then you haven't actually posted a link that clarifies what the BBC article meant by them FORFEITING the right to preventive detention.

Now you are blatantly lying.

I have provided numerous links to BBC articles and other reputable news sources, legal blogs, wiki and elsewhere, which discussed the sentencing options applying for all of the charges he faces.

To repeat, for the dishonest troll (ie you) who can't seem to read and comprehend.. The article you linked and the sentence you are currently having some sort of obsessive fetish over was discussing his terrorism charges mostly. Later articles from the same source (ie the BBC) discussed his murder charges and also made clear that if found guilty, he could face the containment sentence, which was clearly explained to you as being 21 years and then assessed every 5 years until he was deemed to no longer be a threat to society or his death.

The choice is yours Arthur. We can either take you at face value and treat you like an idiot, or you can stop trolling.

Again, I' m not misrepresenting anything Bells. You keep saying that, but then you never explain what this misrepresntation supposedly is.

It isn't like I made that report up now is it?

Sure it could be wrong, which I've also suggested, but so far no one has posted anything definitive on it.

Again, more dishonesty. It was clearly layed out to you by myself and others on numerous occasions.

At this rate there are two options about you. You are either just dumb arse stupid or a dishonest troll for attempting to deny what is clearly fact and has been proven repeatedly in this thread or you are lying because that is what you do best. Again, apply whichever one is most apt to you personally.

Nope, I said there are conflicting reports about that.
I posted the links to the conflicting reports.
Personally, I'd like to get the conflict resolved.
And if it turns out that the Prosecution didn't forfeit anything by the way they are charging him, unlike what the BBC claimed, I'll actually be happier.

There is no palm, big enough for the facepalm you just got.

Stop lying and stop being dishonest and I might start to treat you like you have a minute amount of intelligence.

Because your argument at present would be akin to someone claiming the earth was flat because an article said it was, when there was clear and present evidence that the earth was not flat and that individual trying to declare that there was a conflict between the flat earth article and the clear and present evidence that the earth was not flat.. I'll put it bluntly, at the moment, you are the flat earther in this discussion.

 

[adoucette]

But you aren't discussing it. You are using a much earlier article from the BBC which discussed one of the things he's charged with and trying to claim he will only get 21 years. What you keep failing to mention or possibly even realise is that 21 years would be for a terrorism charge that he is facing. You seem to wilfully and dihonestly seem to ignore and refuse to accept that he has also been charged with murder, whereby the containment sentence could very well apply in his case. You also misrepresented the laws in Norway, saying that the containment sentence has never applied in the past, when it clearly has been.

That's funny.

What you said BEFORE wasn't that he was ALSO being charged with something,

Before you claimed:

His trial has only just begun. Seeing that the prosecutors have decided to charge him with murder and not a terrorist act,

And CLEARLY that is NOT what the BBC article implied either.

Unlike your claim, they say he IS being charged with Terrorism:

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.

So is that is NOW your claim?

That he is only being charged with Murder and that has the Containment clause and the the BBC was WRONG to use the term "AS CHARGED" in reference to the Terrorism?

Which might explain WHY there are CONFLICTING reports.

You brought up a legitimate question and then refused to accept any answers to that question and tried to pass of that question as the only charge that applied to this case, when it has been clearly been demonstrated to you that it is not the case. Quite the contrary. What you have done is misrepresented the sentencing and tried to claim that he would only get 21 years for murder, when the much earlier quote from an old BBC article dealt with his terrorism charges. Later quotes from the BBC and other sources which discussed his terrorism and murder charges were ignored by you as you tried to claim he could only get 21 years and then tried to dishonestly claim that was for murder as well.

Oh, bollox, I brought this quote up quite a few times as the source of the conflict:

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.

And NOT ONCE did you say: "oh, but that's wrong, he's not being charged with Terrorism", or "Oh, but that's wrong, since he's being charged with MURDER, the preventative detention still applies"

You had plenty of chances to point either of those supposed errors in the BBC report out, and not once did you.

And I have posted numerous links, from that very same news source which reported on the terrorism charges you seem to have an obsession about and seem to believe will be the only thing he will be tried and sentenced with and it also reported on his other charge, which is murder and which can result in the containment sentence being applied.

And yes, I've acknowledged them, but that doesn't resolve this initial claim by the BBC.

The article you keep referring to dealt with the terrorist charge. The murder charge can result in the containment sentence.

And your source for this NEW claim of yours, that the Terrorism Charge didn't have the Containment, but the Murder Charge does, comes from WHAT SOURCE?

So stop lying about their being a conflict in the report. There is no conflict.

Oh Bollox again

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.

This is clearly in conflict with what you are now claiming.

You are saying the BBC report I linked to was wrong because the use of the term "AS CHARGED" was wrong, and because the actual charge is Murder and not Terrorism, the Containment clause applies.

Well if you are right that would explain the conflict, and all you have to do is post something AUTHORITATIVE to back this claim up, you know, some actual proof that the original BBC report is wrong and you can't use another BBC report to prove the other is wrong. How can we tell which is correct. *hence the conflict*

Now you are blatantly lying.

I have provided numerous links to BBC articles and other reputable news sources, legal blogs, wiki and elsewhere, which discussed the sentencing options applying for all of the charges he faces.

No Bells, I'm not lying.
None of your links mentioned the clause that the BBC brought up, about how the prosecuters could FORFEIT that ability, which is kind of the key issue in this conflicting report.

Finally, why are you having a friggin cow over trying to resolve the conflict in these reports?

Aren't you at all curious about what situation the BBC meant by the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention?

Or would you rather just remain ignorant?

 

[Bells]

That's funny.

What you said BEFORE wasn't that he was ALSO being charged with something,

Before you claimed:



And CLEARLY that is NOT what the BBC article implied either.

Unlike your claim, they say he IS being charged with Terrorism:



So is that is NOW your claim?

That he is only being charged with Murder and that has the Containment clause and the the BBC was WRONG to use the term "AS CHARGED" in reference to the Terrorism?

Which might explain WHY there are CONFLICTING reports.

He is charged with murder and terrorism.

Do you understand now?

So is that is NOW your claim?

That he is only being charged with Murder and that has the Containment clause and the the BBC was WRONG to use the term "AS CHARGED" in reference to the Terrorism?

Which might explain WHY there are CONFLICTING reports.

And as I have advised since, provided countless of links since and therefore corrected the earlier mistake, he has been charged with murder and terrorism.

It's not that hard.

And yes, I've acknowledged them, but that doesn't resolve this initial claim by the BBC.

You mean the article that dealt specifically with his terrorism charge?

And your source for this NEW claim of yours, that the Terrorism Charge didn't have the Containment, but the Murder Charge does, comes from WHAT SOURCE?

Thus far, a few BBC articles, I believe other news sources, law blogs discussing Norwary's laws in detail, etc..

More than yours.

Oh Bollox again

Uh huh..

And it is spelled 'bollocks'..

This is clearly in conflict with what you are now claiming.

You are saying the BBC report is WRONG.

Well if you are right that would explain the conflict.

And I'm still waiting for some actual PROOF that the BBC report is wrong.

Let me get this straight..

I say that you linked an article and a sentence from that article that discussed his terrorism charge and not the murder charge, for which he was also charged with. You tell me that I am apparently wrong and then link this from the BBC:

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. ​

While disregarding the fact that as has been linked and shoved up your nostrils repeatedly in this thread and which you are either too stupid to understand or you are just lying about, if he is found guilty of murder, he can be sentenced with the containment clause.

Breivik was also charged with murder.

Do.. You.. Understand.. Now..?

No Bells, I'm not lying.
None of your links mentioned the clause that the BBC brought up, about how the prosecuters could FORFEIT that ability, which is the key issue in this conflicting report.

Again, for the dishonest dimwit..

He was also charged with murder.. Therefore, as has been repeated over and over again, it will mean that he can be sentenced with the containment provision that applies to their sentencing laws. Which is why he was charged with murder and terrorism. To give the prosecutors the option of keeping him jailed indefinitely. Otherwise, he would only have been charged with an act of terrorism.

Do.. You.. Understand.. Now..?

Finally, why are you having a friggin cow over trying to resolve the conflict in these reports?

Aren't you at all curious about what situation the BBC meant by the prosecution will have forfeited its right to ask for preventative detention?

Or would you rather just remain ignorant?

I'm having a cow?

Try again flat earther..

I am not curious about that line in the BBC article because they have gone on to clarify it repeatedly and also stated in later articles that because he was charged with murder, he could face an indefinite prison term and may end up never being released.. that is if he is not found insane by the courts whereupon he would be sent to a mental institution.

 

[adoucette]

He is charged with murder and terrorism.

Do you understand now?

That's what I thought, but then YOU were wrong before when you said Seeing that the prosecutors have decided to charge him with murder and not a terrorist act ?

And as I have advised since, provided countless of links since and therefore corrected the earlier mistake, he has been charged with murder and terrorism.

It's not that hard.

No Bells, it's not, I've always thought he was charged with both, you seem to have been confused for a while though.

You mean the article that dealt specifically with his terrorism charge?

The article said he would walk, it didn't say that his other self would stay in jail on the Murder charge.

Thus far, a few BBC articles, I believe other news sources, law blogs discussing Norwary's laws in detail, etc..

Which ones SPECIFICALLY Bells? I'm not going back and re-reading all your links looking for something you claim they contain, since you just brought up this idea that it is the Murder charge that links to the Containment clause and not the Terrorism charge.

More than yours.

You don't get to the truth by adding up the number of links.

Let me get this straight..

I say that you linked an article and a sentence from that article that discussed his terrorism charge and not the murder charge, for which he was also charged with. You tell me that I am apparently wrong and then link this from the BBC:

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. ​

While disregarding the fact that as has been linked and shoved up your nostrils repeatedly in this thread and which you are either too stupid to understand or you are just lying about, if he is found guilty of murder, he can be sentenced with the containment clause.

Breivik was also charged with murder.

Yes Bells, because UNTIL that last post, you didn't claim that that was what was wrong with the BBC article, that the charge had changed and with it came the containment clause and now that you've made that claim all we need for you to do is to PROVE IT, and we can all get on with our lives, because that would indeed explain the CONFLICTING reports that I brought up.

Do.. You.. Understand.. Now..?

I understand your claim perfectly Bells, I'm just waiting for you to PROVE your claim. (Why do I think that I'm going to be told to find it myself though?)

Again, for the dishonest dimwit..

He was also charged with murder.. Therefore, as has been repeated over and over again, it will mean that he can be sentenced with the containment provision that applies to their sentencing laws. Which is why he was charged with murder and terrorism. To give the prosecutors the option of keeping him jailed indefinitely. Otherwise, he would only have been charged with an act of terrorism.

Do.. You.. Understand.. Now..?

Yup, now just show where the Murder claim has the containment provision and the Terrorism doesn't have that clause and we can call it a day.

Remember, I've only ever claimed there were conflicting reports, not said which was correct, I'd personally like to know.

I am not curious about that line in the BBC article because they have gone on to clarify it repeatedly

Yes and because YOU are not curious about that CONFLICTING line, you've gone on and on and on, calling me names because I am curious about it. Hell of a moderator you are Bells.

And no you have not shown where the BBC clarified that phrase at all, personally I'd like to know what it takes for the prosecutor to forfeit the right to get preventive detention, or even if that is possible.

The whole problem as I see it is that so far my searches are in English and only bring up various paraphrasings of the law.
When I have more time I'll try to find the actual laws in Norwegian, and maybe we'll both actually learn something.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

But should you be so disposed.........

Crime stats: Norway vs United States
<ul>

Adults prosecuted 12,009 14,203,800
Ranked 28th. Ranked 1st. 1182 times more than Norway
Believe in police efficiency 70% 89%
Ranked 9th. Ranked 1st. 27% more than Norway
Car thefts 23,339 1,246,096
Ranked 21st. Ranked 1st. 52 times more than Norway
Drug offences 987.1 per 100,000 people 560.1 per 100,000 people
Ranked 1st. 76% more than United States Ranked 4th.
Frauds 12,295 371,800
Ranked 22nd. Ranked 2nd. 29 times more than Norway
Jails 46 1,558
Ranked 26th. Ranked 5th. 33 times more than Norway
Murders committed by youths 11 8,226
Ranked 64th. Ranked 3rd. 747 times more than Norway
Perception of safety > Burglary 68% 78%
Ranked 6th. Ranked 4th. 15% more than Norway
Police
Prisoners 2,914 prisoners 2,019,234 prisoners
Ranked 109th. Ranked 1st. 692 times more than Norway
Prisoners > Female 5.3% 8.5%
Ranked 43rd. Ranked 9th. 60% more than Norway
Prisoners > Foreign prisoners 15% 0.5%
Ranked 31st. 29 times more than United States Ranked 77th.
Prisoners > Per capita 64.0 per 100,000 people 715.0 per 100,000 people
Ranked 119th. Ranked 1st. 10 times more than Norway

Total crimes 330,071 11,877,218
</ul>

Norway is top of the world for drug offences.
Who'd have thought that?

 

[Bells]

That's what I thought, but then YOU were wrong before when you said Seeing that the prosecutors have decided to charge him with murder and not a terrorist act ?

And then went on to correct myself and advised you, with links and quotes, that he had been charged with murder and terrorism charges.

So you can stop lying now.

No Bells, it's not, I've always thought he was charged with both, you seem to have been confused for a while though.

And again you lie.

You have been quoting the same quote from the BBC, declaring he can only get 21 years and that he will be released after said 21 years for how many pages now? That same quote discussed only his terrorism charges. When this was pointed out to you, which even led me to ask you what crystal ball you were using, you declared there was a conflict and then repeated the same declaration that he would only serve 21 years. It has been many pages since then and you are still arguing and saying that that one sentence in the BBC article, which discussed solely his terrorism charge is the only one that stands correct and that everything else conflicted with it and again argued he would be released in 21 years and made this plea as to why it was wrong.

Sorry flat earther, your lies are blatant.

The article said he would walk, it didn't say that his other self would stay in jail on the Murder charge.

And you completely and dishonestly represented that as being for the murder charge when you initially posted it. And this was pointed out to you numerous times by myself and others and you dishonestly argued your point that he would only serve 21 years and disregarded all evidence that his murder charge could result in his being incarcerated indefinitely because one sentence in a BBC article that discussed his terrorism charge said 21 years for his terrorism charge.

Which ones SPECIFICALLY Bells? I'm not going back and re-reading all your links looking for something you claim they contain, since you just brought up this idea that it is the Murder charge that links to the Containment clause and not the Terrorism charge.

Sorry Arthur, the evidence is there, in this thread. If you are too lazy, dishonest and too stupid to read it, that is not my problem but yours.

But here is a guide for you..

Post 34, I provide a link after bringing up, again, that he can face an indefinite jail term under the containment rules in Norway's laws.. And then in post 45, I link another article which also discussed a possible indefinite jail sentence under the containment rules - that if he was still deemed a threat after his sentence, they can keep him in jail indefinitely. Post 60 where I made the mistake about his not being charged with terrorism, but again, discuss the murder charge and link yet another article discussing if he is found guilty of his charges, he faces a possible indefinite sentence if he is still deemed a risk after 21 years. And then post 64, with links and quotes..

And so on and so forth..

Again, lie some more.

You don't get to the truth by adding up the number of links.

Numerous sources advising the same thing and all saying that you are wrong.

You linked an article discussing his terrorism charge and attempted to misrepresent it as also applying for his murder charge as well. I provided numerous links which advised if he is charged with murder, a different clause can apply.

Sorry flat earther, you'll have to try harder.

Yes Bells, because UNTIL that last post, you didn't claim that that was what was wrong with the BBC article, that the charge had changed and with it came the containment clause and now that you've made that claim all we need for you to do is to PROVE IT, and we can all get on with our lives, because that would indeed explain the CONFLICTING reports that I brought up.

Again you lie.

I brought up the indefinite jail term (ie containment) from the first page, linked from post 34 as proven above and have linked many other articles and discussions from several different sources all discussing the same thing and advising of the same thing - that he could face an indefinite jail sentence if he is still deemed a risk to the public at the end of his sentence.

I understand your claim perfectly Bells, I'm just waiting for you to PROVE your claim. (Why do I think that I'm going to be told to find it myself though?)

And again you lie.

It was proven and links provided from various sources.

Stop lying flat earther.

Yup, now just show where the Murder claim has the containment provision and the Terrorism doesn't have that clause and we can call it a day.

Remember, I've only ever claimed there were conflicting reports, not said which was correct, I'd personally like to know.

Here is more for you:

The key issue to be resolved during the ten-week trial is the state of Breivik’s mental health, which will decide whether he is sent to prison or to psychiatric care.

If deemed mentally competent, he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, or an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is prolonged for as long as an inmate is deemed a danger to society.



[Source]
​

And here:

Breivik is due to stand trial on Monday over a bomb attack and shooting spree last July that killed 77 people.

The 33-year-old, who insists he is mentally stable, was "pleased" with the new assessment, his lawyer said.

Geir Lippestad told reporters his client would defend his actions during his 10-week trial, adding, "he will also regret that he didn't go further".

Both reports will be considered by the court when it decides, at the end of the trial, whether he should be sent to a psychiatric ward or jail.

If Breivik is deemed to have been sane at the time of the killings then he could face 21 years in prison with the potential for indefinite extensions to his term as long as he is considered a danger to the public.


[Source]
​

It is also discussed here.

You are obviously not curious and no you have not shown where the BBC clarified that phrase at all, personally I'd like to know what it takes for the prosecutor to forfeit the right to get preventive detention.

By also charging him with murder.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

He will only be released in 21 years should there be good reasons for doing so.
After that time, he will have the legal right to request parole.
I can't see him being released after such a short time, but eventually, if he is
changed in his ideas and showing remorse, he may be freed on parole.
There would be conditions attaching, such as no contact with far right groups, and no political activity.

In my opinion, he will not change his opinions, and will not show remorse.
In that case, he will be in prison till he dies.

Added later:
I have made a mistake above.
He could, in theory but not conceivably, serve a sentence of less than 21 years.
And again, in theory but not conceivably, be released after 21 years served.

 

[adoucette]

Bells,

Your own post shows the SAME apparent conflict as the original BBC report:

he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, or an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is prolonged for as long as an inmate is deemed a danger to society.

You see, ONE sentence he could get is indeed a MAXIMUM of 21 years and does NOT include that 5 year renewal OR he could get the renewal sentence.

And if you will note, that makes no reference to that hinging on the charge of terrorism vs murder.

So back to the original assertion:

In other words, he would face rehabilitation and if he is not rehabilitated and still deemed a risk to society, he could very well find himself incarcerated for the rest of his life.

That seems to be in dispute.

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

Now YOU post a source that says that he can in fact get a sentence of a MAXIMUM DETENTION of 21 years, as the original BBC report alluded to.

Research shows this is known as a "Determinate Penalty".

So I guess there no longer is a "Conflicting report", he indeed can, like the original BBC article said, get a sentence that provides a maximum penalty and no 5 year renewal.

And unlike your recent assertion, this possibility seems to have nothing to do with the Murder charge.

 

[Bells]

Bells,

Your own post shows the SAME apparent conflict as the original BBC report:



You see, ONE sentence he could get is indeed a MAXIMUM of 21 years and does NOT include that 5 year renewal OR he could get the renewal sentence.

And if you will note, that makes no reference to that hinging on the charge of terrorism vs murder.

So back to the original assertion:





Now YOU post a source that says that he can in fact get a sentence of a MAXIMUM DETENTION of 21 years, as the original BBC report alluded to.

Research shows this is known as a "Determinate Penalty".

So I guess there no longer is a "Conflicting report".

It turns out you were simply wrong.

You would have to be the most dishonest troll we have had grace this forum.

Learn to read and stop being such a dishonest troll.

The reports, links, everything was clear. He can be sentenced to 21 years and then for an indefinite amount of time if he is still deemed a threat to society. You can try and lie through your teeth and misrepresent what has been posted repeatedly, and I can see that you clearly are, but you fail.

You fail because it is clear you are intellectually dishonest in the manner in which you conduct yourself on this site.

 

[adoucette]

The reports, links, everything was clear. He can be sentenced to 21 years and then for an indefinite amount of time if he is still deemed a threat to society.

Yes Bells, but that is NOT all your link says Bells.

A) he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years,

or

B) an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is prolonged for as long as an inmate is deemed a danger to society.


I have never said option B was off the table

BUT clearly option A still exists, (as alluded to by the original BBC report I linked to) and doesn't include the 5 year renewal.

AND

It apparently has NOTHING to do with your assertion about the Murder charge vs the Terrorism charge

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I see it like this:

He can serve up to a maximum of 21 years as a fixed sentence, and then an unlimited sentence until he is judged completely safe to be released.
The judge will decide his minimum sentence,
which I dare say will be the full 21 year term.

Nobody seems to be disagreeing with any of this.
So, what on earth is this thread about?

In 21 years time he will be 52.
After the fixed term, I doubt that there is a judge in Europe who would risk releasing him before he is 70.
Not unless he spends his time in prison finding the cure for cancer.
(Breivik, not the Judge)

 

[adoucette]

I see it like this:

He can serve up to a maximum of 21 years as a fixed sentence, and then an unlimited sentence until he is judged completely safe to be released.
The judge will decide his minimum sentence,
which I dare say will be the full 21 year term.

Nobody seems to be disagreeing with any of this.
So, what on earth is this thread about?

Apparently that is not true.

He can get a DETERMINATE sentence, and if so he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, and then can get supervised parole after 7 years and early release after at 14 years, but if he didn't make that, he would be released after 21 years

or

He could get an INDETERMINE sentence, which is an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is also 21 years, and he has to serve at least 10 years, but then he can be released, or it can be prolonged, in 5 year increments, for as long as he is deemed a danger to society.

It's not clear to me how the imposition of which sentence is determined, and the BBC article I linked to suggested that there are ways the prosecution could forfeit the ability to ask for the Indeterminate sentence, and it is on those specific issues that I can find little to nothing on when searching in English for primary info on Norwegien legal issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

 

[quadraphonics]

This is a FORUM for discussion of various topics Bells, it is not for ONLY Norwegians to discuss this topic.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that issues of standing and relevance no longer apply.

Again, I've already repeatedly provided the appropriate razor: those who learn the relevant history and reasoning of the topical jurisprudence and have something to say about it are just that. And those who pointedly refuse to do so, and instead just beat their chest, shout emotive sound-bites, and generally use the issue as a domestic political football are, likewise, just that.