View Full Version : Breivik judged to be sane
Jimbuna
08-24-12, 06:00 AM
Looks like the muppet got the outcome he wanted on his sanity.
Twenty one years with a minimum of ten to be served...let us hope he is never allowed to leave his three roomed prison suite for as long as he lives.
A Norwegian court has found that mass killer Anders Behring Breivik is sane and sentenced him to 21 years in jail.
Breivik admitted killing 77 people and wounding more than 240 others when he bombed central Oslo and then opened fire at an island youth camp last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19365616
BossMark
08-24-12, 06:05 AM
A single 9mm bullet to the brain is all this evil bastard deserves :yep:
21 years with a minimum of ten to be served...
For killing 77 people and injuring over 200, for causing so much damage to central Oslo.
21 years.
He's 33 years old, so unless someone shanks him in prison...
I don't know much about the Norweigan justice system...but 21 years with a minimum of ten to serve seems...somewhat lenient for a mass-murderer.
Oh, on further examination I see that he could be sentenced to 'preventive detention' which is a sentence that can be extended for as long as someone is seen as a threat to society.
antikristuseke
08-24-12, 06:29 AM
It is the maximum sentence available under Norwegian law, there is also a provision the extend the sentence by 5 years indeffinatly if the is still found to be a risk to society, which he will be.
Betonov
08-24-12, 06:36 AM
A single 9mm bullet to the brain is all this evil bastard deserves :yep:
Too painless. I know of some more ''interesting methods''
It should be 21 years per victim
It is the maximum sentence available under Norwegian law, there is also a provision the extend the sentence by 5 years indeffinatly if the is still found to be a risk to society, which he will be.
I see, well, that's fair enough, the judge has obviously done what she can under the guidelines of Norwegian law. To change the law specifically for one man would be giving him more publicity than he deserves. He's already had enough but given what he did, well, it's only natural that the media would be all over it. Normally these type of people don't make it to trial, normally they're shot dead by the police or kill themselves. It's given the world an insight into his mind, and the world has been shocked by what it has seen, not surprised perhaps, but shocked nonetheless, particularly in an area such as Norway. Further south in Europe in France, Germany or even the UK it would perhaps be less surprising, but Norway? I think that's what shocked people the most, not that it would be logical to think that Norway is exempt from the Eurabia crowd, but one does not hear of such noises from the north as often as one would do from other parts of Europe.
Should he have been declared insane? That will be the question on many peoples minds, certainly he is not insane under any real classification of the matter. He is capable of rational thought as much as irrational, and clearly a lot of planning went into the attacks. However, are his beliefs being inadvertently promoted through this declaration of sanity? Certainly he did not want to be declared insane, he fought hard against it and succeeded. Perhaps there was a part of him that was scared of being written off as 'a nutter' which would discredit his political beliefs. He has written plenty of letters whilst in jail, and looks to be writing books, although it remains to be seen if one of them will be named 'My Struggle' :haha:.
I think there's going to be a lot of introspection now that the trial has ended, many people will obviously feel upset that he wasn't declared insane, but many others will be glad that he isn't being let off the hook that easily, so to speak.
It's hard to say which decision would have been the right one to take, but I am sure that the judge did her best within the framework and definition of the Norwegian judicial system, and I hope that now some of his victims can find peace.
Jimbuna
08-24-12, 07:06 AM
Oh, on further examination I see that he could be sentenced to 'preventive detention' which is a sentence that can be extended for as long as someone is seen as a threat to society.
That's also my understanding.
It is the maximum sentence available under Norwegian law, there is also a provision the extend the sentence by 5 years indeffinatly if the is still found to be a risk to society, which he will be.
I should imagine that will in fact be the case.
antikristuseke
08-24-12, 07:15 AM
m not sure how the legal definitions are in English, but here in Estonia the declaration of sanity is worded a lot differently, it is about determining wether a person is capable of understanding and taking responsiblity for his/her actions or not, in the case of Brevik he clearly is and thus liable. He is still insane though :88)
Jimbuna
08-24-12, 07:22 AM
m not sure how the legal definitions are in English, but here in Estonia the declaration of sanity is worded a lot differently, it is about determining wether a person is capable of understanding and taking responsiblity for his/her actions or not, in the case of Brevik he clearly is and thus liable. He is still insane though :88)
I think I know what you mean...I feel pretty much similarly :yep:
Seems like everybody wins here. No special treatment, no chance of release, no protracted appeals or debates over what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I genuinely hope Breivik just disappears into the system now. It doesn't matter what he "deserves" - revenge and retribution help noone. What's more important is that the victims and their relatives deserve to never hear from him again, and that's exactly what I believe this sentence means.
Tribesman
08-24-12, 09:22 AM
Seems like everybody wins here.
Yes, and the full extent they allowed the trial to run allowed him to be shown as the pathetic loser that he is.
No five year review board should ever have any difficulty with keeping him in jail for life given the extent to which the danger of his insanity was demonstrated.
Skybird
08-24-12, 09:25 AM
He is locked away and will remain to be so for the rest of his life. That is what counts, pragmatically. After prison, he will be locked in some psychiatric clinic or asylum or whatever it is in Norway.
Lowering oneself so much as to wish cruelty and torture being done on him, does nothing and will make nobody alive again. Nor is it compensation for the loss felt by those who survived the victims.
He is off the streets, forever. Or as CCIP put it, he disappears into the system. In a way one could say that from society's POV, he has seized to exist.
Nippelspanner
08-25-12, 03:04 PM
A bullet to his head - or what ever execution method - would not be a penalty, it would be salvation...
mako88sb
08-25-12, 04:01 PM
The SOB was apologizing to militant groups and his only regret is that he didn't kill more people.
Given his lack of remorse, it will be a very long time before he gets parole. I always wonder about the cost of keeping buggers like this in prison when the case is so clear cut and the likelyhood of rehabilitation is so slim.
His is definitely a case for the death penalty.
Hottentot
08-25-12, 11:58 PM
His is definitely a case for the death penalty.
As cost effective as that might be, I think Norway made the right decision here and handled the whole process in a very classy way. Breivik, despite of his crimes, got what his own fantasy society most likely wouldn't have given to an offender like him: a fair trial and a punishment according to the law, no exceptions made "just because". Such exceptions I would consider more dangerous than anything he may have done, and a first step towards what that muppet wanted to achieve in his daydreams.
I don't disagree with you. I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, although there are some circumstances where even I think it may be more appropriate than to provide for a creep that really does not deserve to live.
Hottentot
08-26-12, 01:32 AM
I didn't intend my comment to be for or against death penalty, because frankly I'm tired of that question and often being forced to choose sides in a matter that I don't want to take sides in. If Breivik had committed his crimes in a country that has death penalty and he was put to death according to that country's laws and procedures after a fair trial, then good for them.
The point that I repeat whenever this subject comes up is that we, as a society, can't start making exceptions to the law because we feel like it. There either is a death penalty or there isn't. In Norway there is not. No doubt many people there and abroad feel that Breivik should be executed, but such feelings are irrelevant as long as there is no death penalty. There are certainly also those who feel he shouldn't be executed. What makes one feeling better than the other?
If a law is bad, then the society changes it. But whether someone lives or dies shouldn't be solved by a referendum.
Tribesman
08-26-12, 02:59 AM
I don't disagree with you. I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, although there are some circumstances where even I think it may be more appropriate than to provide for a creep that really does not deserve to live.
I think he does deserve to live, I think he should live to a ripe old age and watch Norway simply carrying on with life, every day without his fantasy race war of the templars happening must really anger him.
BossMark
08-26-12, 04:22 AM
I don't disagree with you. I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, although there are some circumstances where even I think it may be more appropriate than to provide for a creep that really does not deserve to live.
Vermin like this should be put out down ASAP
u crank
08-26-12, 08:18 AM
The point that I repeat whenever this subject comes up is that we, as a society, can't start making exceptions to the law because we feel like it. There either is a death penalty or there isn't.
I would agree, but I still have some mixed feelings on the subject of capital punishment. Here in Canada the death penalty was eliminated in 1976, but there have been some cases where I would not have disagreed with it, especially the case of Clifford Olson, who murdered eleven teenagers in the early 80's. He was arrested and convicted in 1981 and he died in 2011 at the age of 71. His application for parole under Canada's "faint hope clause", which allowed a parole hearing for convicts who had served at least 15 years, was an insult to the victims families. Under Canadian law, Olson was then entitled to make a case for parole every two years. More salt in the wound.
Still I am glad that we don't have the death penalty in this country.
As other posters have said, the best punishment for Breivik is to have him become a non entity. Denying him his mad dreams and wishes is the best a civilized society can do.
Hottentot
08-26-12, 08:43 AM
I would agree, but I still have some mixed feelings on the subject of capital punishment. Here in Canada the death penalty was eliminated in 1976, but there have been some cases where I would not have disagreed with it
I can understand that. It's not like I didn't in certain local cases have similar feelings as well. But our feelings and opinions are just that: feelings and opinions. People have been lynched in the past based on feelings and opinions, and I'm glad we are not doing that anymore. If they have to be killed because of their crimes, then at least I want the society to have balls to say: "Yes, we have death penalty and we are using it." That hopefully creates enough rational standards to save the death penalty for only the people who have no other options.
Breivik's case along with some others reminds me of a book I read last spring. If I'm not totally mistaken, it was Andrei Sinyavsky's Soviet Civilization: A Cultural History (a good book, by the way). In it the author described the Soviet Gulag system among other things by saying that the people who were sentenced there were afraid for their lives. Not because they were sentenced to forced labor, but because they were sentenced to live with "criminals". They sincerely believed that they themselves were sentenced there by mistake that would soon be corrected, but all the other inmates were dangerous criminals who deserved their punishment.
In short, they basically accepted the existence of such punishment, because it was reserved for "criminals". And I believe this is what is happening always when we (anywhere) are discussing a serious crime and its punishment. We are ready to accept even unusual forms of punishment that are against the current laws, because we also believe we are immune to such punishment ourselves. We are not criminals after all, right? But as the Soviet example shows, "criminal" is a label that can easily be stamped on anyone in the right conditions.
That's why I would keep an extra careful watch for how our society is treating the criminals and on what the sentences are based on. In this sense Norway couldn't have acted better. The public pressure must have been high, but the common sense won in the end.
As other posters have said, the best punishment for Breivik is to have him become a non entity. Denying him his mad dreams and wishes is the best a civilized society can do.
And here we are in 100 % agreement. :yep:
u crank
08-26-12, 09:46 AM
That's why I would keep an extra careful watch for how our society is treating the criminals and on what the sentences are based on. In this sense Norway couldn't have acted better. The public pressure must have been high, but the common sense won in the end.
Agreed. It was handled without hysteria. In the long run I think this will help the victims' families deal with their loss.
As a further comment on the death penalty; I believe the best reason for not having it is the possibility of killing an innocent person. Here in Canada we have a long and shameful list of wrongly convicted people. Some of them probably would have been executed for their alleged crimes. One such case was that of David Milgaard who was convicted of murdering 22-year-old nursing assistant Gail Miller in 1969 in Saskatoon. Milgaard spent 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
But on the other end of the scale is Olsen who led police to all eleven of his victims bodies and confessed to their murders. In this case, well ....
I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
Jimbuna
01-18-22, 03:01 PM
Mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gave a Nazi salute on Tuesday as he entered court for a parole hearing that will decide if he should be released after spending more than a decade behind bars.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/anders-breivik-norwegian-mass-killer-gives-nazi-salute-at-parole-hearing/ar-AASTzob?ocid=uxbndlbing
Kapitan
01-18-22, 10:00 PM
Mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gave a Nazi salute on Tuesday as he entered court for a parole hearing that will decide if he should be released after spending more than a decade behind bars.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/anders-breivik-norwegian-mass-killer-gives-nazi-salute-at-parole-hearing/ar-AASTzob?ocid=uxbndlbing
About turn and goose step back into that cell for another ten
Catfish
01-19-22, 02:52 AM
They cannot actually think of relaesing this Pos at any time in the future ? :hmmm:
Jimbuna
01-19-22, 07:59 AM
About turn and goose step back into that cell for another ten
Precisely
They cannot actually think of relaesing this Pos at any time in the future ? :hmmm:
I certainly hope not
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.