Breivik judged to be sane
 

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19365616

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.

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.

Too painless. I know of some more ''interesting methods''

It should be 21 years per victim

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.

That's also my understanding.

I should imagine that will in fact be the case.

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.

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.

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.

A bullet to his head - or what ever execution method - would not be a penalty, it would be salvation...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vermin like this should be put out down ASAP