Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

[saxitoxin]

Convicted Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik was sentenced this week to 3 months imprisonment for each of the 77 murders he committed last year. He will be released in 21 years at the age of 53. After sentencing he laughed, saluted the photo of King Harald, and vowed to continue the struggle following his release.

Do you feel this was too harsh of a sentence?

[tkr4lf]

Haha, who voted too harsh?

Do you seriously think that 21 years is too harsh for murdering 77 people?

We have people here in the States that get life in prison for murdering one person.

Death or, since it's doubtful Norway has the death penalty, life in prison, would be an appropriate punishment for murdering 77 people, in my opinion.

[IcePack]

He was 21 years but Norway has an option to not release if he's considered dangerous etc and it's likely a life imprisonment, not 21 years...

[Army of GOD]

is 3 months like the max for homocide?

[MeDeFe]

is 3 months like the max for homicide?

FTFY

I think it's more like 21 years is the longest possible prison sentence in Norway.

[Army of GOD]

is 3 months like the max for homicide?

FTFY

I think it's more like 21 years is the longest possible prison sentence in Norway.

homocide

[MeDeFe]

is 3 months like the max for homicide?

FTFY

I think it's more like 21 years is the longest possible prison sentence in Norway.

homocide

He also murdered heterosexual people.

[Army of GOD]

is 3 months like the max for homicide?

FTFY

I think it's more like 21 years is the longest possible prison sentence in Norway.

homocide

He also murdered heterosexual people.

the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

[MeDeFe]

is 3 months like the max for homicide?

FTFY

I think it's more like 21 years is the longest possible prison sentence in Norway.

homocide

He also murdered heterosexual people.

the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

Look at your avatar.
You're the short guy, I'm the tall guy.

[BigBallinStalin]

21 years is a joke. Food, a place to live, and a community of (probably) like-minded peers. So harsh! I wonder if he gets visitors and is allowed to write and communicate with the outside world... (if so, that's more benefits).


It's the type of crime which should come with 200 lashes and the option to be killed--at the discretion of the victims' family members. If any single one votes "death," then death will be granted to the criminal.

[MeDeFe]

21 years is a joke. Food, a place to live, and a community of (probably) like-minded peers. So harsh! I wonder if he gets visitors and is allowed to write and communicate with the outside world... (if so, that's more benefits).


It's the type of crime which should come with 200 lashes and the option to be killed--at the discretion of the victims' family members. If any single one votes "death," then death will be granted to the criminal.

How very civilised of you.

[BigBallinStalin]

And it's civilized to subsidize mass murder? Explain that one please.

[patches70]

But....but....he has Rights! derpa derpa

[saxitoxin]

21 years is a joke. Food, a place to live, and a community of (probably) like-minded peers. So harsh! I wonder if he gets visitors and is allowed to write and communicate with the outside world... (if so, that's more benefits).

Not necessarily. The Telegraph did a photo set of Norway's new maximum security prison. While he will be able to receive incoming communication (each resident suite has a flat-screen plasma TV bedside), he will only have access to a computer if he chooses to bring or purchase his own laptop. Additionally, the en suite lavatory only has a shower (no baths are provided residents except on special request) and the resident personal refrigerators do not contain freezers. Bedding is only changed once per week and residents can be prohibited from access to the gymnasium, library, movie theater or games room for poor behavior.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... ml?image=1

[MeDeFe]

And it's civilized to subsidize mass murder? Explain that one please.

"Subsidise"? Are you claiming the Norwegian government sponsors potential mass murderers? Offers them training, weapons and whatnot?

[saxitoxin]

And it's civilized to subsidize mass murder? Explain that one please.

"Subsidise"? Are you claiming the Norwegian government sponsors potential mass murderers? Offers them training, weapons and whatnot?

HOW MANY PEOPLES HEARING HAS THIS GUY ASSAULTED WITH HIS VIOLIN?

SO YES, MEDEFE.

[BigBallinStalin]

But....but....he has Rights! derpa derpa

To be clear, I'm not against his rights to due process and a fair trial. It's the incentives and outcomes which perturb me.


Norway's system of enforcement and imprisonment is probably one of the most exemplary, so to lambast the overall system is not my contention. Breivik is only one case in many years--it's an anomaly which would be outside of the system's ability to correct; therefore, it would be incorrect to change the system (W. Edwards Deming comes to mind:

"making changes in response to "normal" variation would only make the system perform worse. Understanding variation includes the mathematical certainty that variation will normally occur within six standard deviations of the mean." (wiki)

(After W. E. Deming is attributed to the boosting the standards of Japanese car manufacturing, which successfully competed against the Americans--in their own domestic markets--during the late 1970s early 1980s. Before moving to Japan, he was rejected by American car manufacturers who insisted that they knew what the American people wanted and knew how to develop and deliver it). In short, W. E. Deming "ain't nuthing ta f*ck wit."

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

[BigBallinStalin]

And it's civilized to subsidize mass murder? Explain that one please.

"Subsidise"? Are you claiming the Norwegian government sponsors potential mass murderers? Offers them training, weapons and whatnot?

(1) Please read the following because it clarifies my stance: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177292&start=15#p3871049

(2) Foreign languages are not allowed on the fora; they are to be taken to the Language Forums. Words such as colour, favourite, subsidise, wot wot?!, and what not are not acceptable! For they are bastard English!

(3) On a more serious note, I'm talking about the prison systems and the luxurious or "better than being homeless/dead" commodities which are subsidized by the State and offered to criminals who are of the extremely violent type. For other criminals, that's a different matter. But for mass murderers? How is it more civilized to offer mass murderers a 20+ year standard of living, which is better than the average homeless person's SoL? In my humble opinion, MeDeFe, that's absurd.

[MeDeFe]

I may be misunderstanding something, but it seems like you're simultaneously claiming that Norway has a good system which it should keep as it is, AND that Breivik is a statistical outlier that the Norwegian system can't handle "properly".

I don't know about you, but my gut feeling is to keep the system and let the outliers be handled "improperly".


Either way, Norway's prison system is heavily focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The goal is to make sure that criminals don't commit crimes again after being released by enabling them to function within society. A standard of living at the very minimum (or even below that that, going by some of what you suggested) of what could still be called "humane" for certain felons would be counterproductive to that goal.

[saxitoxin]

Was this a successful direct action by Breivik? I'd say yes.

Breivik has said he has no plans to appeal because he's achieved his objectives and is satisfied with the outcomes: (a) he has attracted international attention to his book, (b) he has achieved a court pronouncement of his sanity, allowing his work to be critically evaluated instead of dismissed like Mitchell Heismann, (c) he has said he intends to use his free 21 years time to correspond with fans and begin new intellectual works, (d) his attention has allowed him to make new contacts within the Norwegian and European Nazi networks and possibly may inspire new networks to form, (e) 21 years is really the maximum; he could be out sooner if the political situation in Norway rapidly changes and he's given clemency (see: Landsberg Prison / Mein Kampf).

Finally, he didn't just randomly kill 77 people - he killed 77 people who were being trained for future roles in the Norwegian leadership class and LP party cadre. There's not an unlimited quantity of people motivated/qualified for future leader roles. In a country the size of Norway this is a huge dent to the intellectual arsenal of the LP that will be noticed in 10-15 years.

Norwegians are staging these elaborate publicity stunts like having flash mobs sing various songs in a square to "annoy" Breivik but it appears he's bemused more than anything. Breivik definitely won.

[BigBallinStalin]

I may be misunderstanding something, but it seems like you're simultaneously claiming that Norway has a good system which it should keep as it is, AND that Breivik is a statistical outlier that the Norwegian system can't handle "properly".

I don't know about you, but my gut feeling is to keep the system and let the outliers be handled "improperly".

Sure, but the system doesn't allow for it (There's no choice for the victims' to opt for capital punishment). So you'd have to change the system, but given the alternative (Norway's prison system as is), I'd leave it as is because shifts toward capital punishment may lead to a worse system (as advised by Deming). Case in point: USA.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but much of my criticism is directed at the US and how it ineptly treats mass murderers. Almost everything I see in this world goes through my US 'world'view.


Earlier, this was about relative civility. Giving this guy, Breivik, such a lovely standard of living--subsidized by taxpayers--really doesn't seem civil to me. You were questioning the civility of administering 200 lashes and granting the victims' loved ones the option of capital punishment. To which I reply, 'what's so civil about subsidizing mass murder?' Having a comparison is useful.

Either way, Norway's prison system is heavily focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The goal is to make sure that criminals don't commit crimes again after being released by enabling them to function within society. A standard of living at the very minimum (or even below that that, going by some of what you suggested) of what could still be called "humane" for certain felons would be counterproductive to that goal.

Righty right, but I'm guessing that mass murderers can't be rehabilitated, and if they could, it isn't worth it for nearly all of them still couldn't be rehabilitated. In the meantime, you'll incur costs like Breivik and the negative externalities he'll create from his soon-to-be-released writings and discussions. Ultimately, this subsidy to mass murderers is less civil than lashing them and killing them--at the victims' loved ones' discretion. If you still disagree that it's less civil, then it's still a joke of justice.

[BigBallinStalin]

Was this a successful direct action by Breivik? I'd say yes.

Breivik has said he has no plans to appeal because he's achieved his objectives and is satisfied with the outcomes: (a) he has attracted international attention to his book, (b) he has achieved a court pronouncement of his sanity, allowing his work to be critically evaluated instead of dismissed like Mitchell Heismann, (c) he has said he intends to use his free 21 years time to correspond with fans and begin new intellectual works, (d) his attention has allowed him to make new contacts within the Norwegian and European Nazi networks and possibly may inspire new networks to form, (e) 21 years is really the maximum; he could be out sooner if the political situation in Norway rapidly changes and he's given clemency (see: Landsberg Prison / Mein Kampf).

Finally, he didn't just randomly kill 77 people - he killed 77 people who were being trained for future roles in the Norwegian leadership class and LP party cadre. There's not an unlimited quantity of people motivated/qualified for future leader roles. In a country the size of Norway this is a huge dent to the intellectual arsenal of the LP that will be noticed in 10-15 years.

Norwegians are staging these elaborate publicity stunts like having flash mobs sing various songs in a square to "annoy" Breivik but it appears he's bemused more than anything. Breivik definitely won.

If your a-e list is true, then I'd agree that this definitely is a major victory for him. He'll be granted practically costless capital for advancing his goals.

Haha, you got me thinking: if they were more organized, they could really impact Norway's future politics. Based on Larry Iannaccone's Market for Martyrs, it seems that the supply of suicide bombers is plenty but the demand (from the organizations) is ultimately lacking--it's the major constraint on the production of suicide bombers. In Norway's case, Breivik and Co.'s objective would be to establish a few clandestine cells and recruit extremely loyal members for suicide/certain imprisonment bombers murderers--for lack of a better term. (I forget the technical term for those suicidal guys who don't use bombs but use AK47s and the like).

The value of their targets and the costs of planning and attacking them would face much government opposition--e.g. CT and what not, and even money offered for information. If they could get a group of loyal members, they could really become an effective force. I don't think Norway is equipped and ready to deal with this kind of problem.

[MeDeFe]

I claim that a lashing and/or execution at the behest of the victim's families are less civil(ised) because of several things. Firstly, something I normally don't like very much.

The slippery slope.
Of course, Breivik's is a quite clear-cut case. There's no real doubt that he murdered and injured a large number of people. But what do you do when it's a tad less clear? I don't think there's any benefit to introducing legal distinctions of "this guy did it for sure so we'll convict him" and "we think this guy did it for sure so we'll convict him". There's no good way to draw the line between the two. A person's either convicted or they aren't. If they're wrongly convicted there must be a way to reimburse them, otherwise the system truly is, in your words, "a joke of justice". Death makes any such reimbursement impossible.
The other slippery slope is asking why you should allow the victims' relatives to opt for capital punishment in a case like Breivik's, but not in a case where an enraged husband kills his wife who's cheating on him right after he caught her in the act. I assume you wouldn't want to allow the victim's family to say the court should declare a capital punishment in that case.

Secondly.
His "lovely standard of living" is a cell of a few square meters. Sure, that may be "better" (by whatever standard) than some homeless people have, but that's no reason to lower the standard of living for felons to below what can be called 'humane'. I don't even see why you're referring to it as "subsidising".

Thirdly.
You mention externalities caused by Breivik's imprisonment rather than execution, but you do nothing to show how they occur. You mention writings and discussions, but fail to say what's bad about them? Several right-wing (read: xenophobic) websites, leading persons, and publications have distanced themselves from Breivik. He can say whatever he wants, but he's still a mass murderer. That doesn't look good on his CV, and even people who're ideologically sympathetic to his views will realise that and keep their distance. Ideologically, Breivik is isolated.

[Gillipig]

BBS you're not thinking rationally here. Too much emotion involved I suppose.
You can't keep the system as it is and at the same time make changes. Norwegian politicians promised that they would never conform to terrorists. Changing the laws to appropriately punish a terrorist is doing exactly that.

@Saxi He won when killed 77 people. Whatever happens afterwards is just an added bonus for him. His goal was to create chaos and so he did. There's no way to punish him that will make his action less successful.
I've followed this process closely and there's no chance he will get out in 21 years. Even if he's changing to the better through the help of psychologists he will never be let out. the public outrage would be too large. The norweigians are perfectly able within the current system of laws that they have to keep him looked up for as long as he's alive. Just not without reconsidering his fate every now and again. After 21 years he will recieve a valuation and he will be judged as unfit to return to society.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS you're not thinking rationally here. Too much emotion involved I suppose.
You can't keep the system as it is and at the same time make changes. Norwegian politicians promised that they would never conform to terrorists. Changing the laws to appropriately punish a terrorist is doing exactly that.

@Saxi He won when killed 77 people. Whatever happens afterwards is just an added bonus for him. His goal was to create chaos and so he did. There's no way to punish him that will make his action less successful.
I've followed this process closely and there's no chance he will get out in 21 years. Even if he's changing to the better through the help of psychologists he will never be let out. the public outrage would be too large. The norweigians are perfectly able within the current system of laws that they have to keep him looked up for as long as he's alive. Just not without reconsidering his fate every now and again. After 21 years he will recieve a valuation and he will be judged as unfit to return to society.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177292&view=unread#p3871049

Norway's system of enforcement and imprisonment is probably one of the most exemplary, so to lambast the overall system is not my contention.