I do apologise for my bad language which I normally try, with varying degrees of success, to avoid but I just went downstairs to make a cup of tea and I saw Sky News reporting that the Norwegian judges have given that murdering swine, Breivik - 21 years in prison with a minimum sentence of just 10 years. This is a man who deliberately set off a bomb to distract the police which killed and maimed several people and who then went on a literal man and woman hunt to shoot down in cold blood 69 more people most of them teen-agers. And for that he gets 21 years max and possibly 10 minimum?
This particular post is going to dribble away into nothingness because I simply do not have the words. The Norwegian judges are a bunch of contemptible cowards and fools not fit to sit in judgment on a motoring offence. Were I a parent of one of those youngsters shot in cold blood I would be setting off now with my rifle to see if I could even the score by taking out some of those judges. Norway is a lunatic asylum and the loonies have taken it over.
ADDITIONAL: Quite properly I have been taken to task by my e-pals, 'Webbers' and 'W', who chastise me for my harsh and inaccurate words with regard to the Norwegian judges who were simply following the letter of their ludicrous and insulting law - insulting, that is, to the dead and the bereaved and the maimed. To clarify matters, which my ill-tempered rant did not, here are the details from Wiki:
- The indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future.[2] However, the offender can be paroled or released at any time if it is determined that the offender is no longer a danger to society.
By any standard of civilised justice Breivik should never see the light of day except through prison bars.
I've been listening to some of the local reports on all this. There is an overwhelming majority of people in Norway that wanted him declared sane today, precisely so that he can be locked away NOW. Breivik emphatically didn't want to be declared insane (because, of course, to his insane way of thinking, he is completely sane), and would have appealed an insanity ruling for months, years even. the wound would never have closed.
The judges are not "contemptible cowards", and you do them an injustice. There is a penal code, and they have to work to that code. In the same way, there is a maximum tariff in the UK for most crimes and, however egregious the circumstances of a crime, they can't take it into their heads to impose an 'ilegal' sentence. You have seen for yourself that, when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman (for example), judges will bemoan the limitations which bind them.
This way, the case closes today. The families can grieve, and the fruitcake can be locked away to go stale in chokey for a couple of decades. There is no way that he will be released within 10 years. A pound to a penny says that he won't be let out in 2043, either, unless he is properly rehabilitated. The prison psychologists will be working him over, and he will be a rich seam for countless PhD theses over the decades. If he stays loony until 2043, a way will be found to protect the nation from his insanity.
Posted by: Webwrights | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:08
I think Webwrights is correct, although I share the sense of outrage. The only good aspect of this case was the Norwegians taking Breivik through "due process", and thereby showing that barbarism has not won.
Having said that, a maximum of 21 years for murder is ridiculous, and the Norwegian legislators need to think about changing this. They have obviously had a peaceful time of it so far, and have had to deal with fewer evil people than we have. And there is also the fact that "prison psychosis" sets in after about ten years or so, I believe. Whatever state Breivik is in now, he will not be fit for release in 2033. Debates about whether he is mad will, by the end of his sentence, be academic.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:14
Yes, 2033 of course. Perhaps wishful thinking had me adding the 10 years minimum to the 21 years maximum. Then again, perhaps I simply can't count.
Posted by: Webwrights | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:33
Thanks, chaps, and please see my 'ADDITIONAL' up above.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:46
"Twenty-one years is the maximum sentence for murder allowed under Norwegian law. Such sentences can, however, be extended as long as an inmate is considered too dangerous to be released."
Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were given a 30-year tariff. Hindley wasn't released, and Brady won't be. Harry Roberts (him wot shot 3 cops) was given 30 years in ~1966, and is still inside. It's a racing certainty that, unless something astonishing happens in Breivik's addled brain, he won't be released in 2033; or, for that matter, 2043!
Posted by: Webwrights | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:54
Personally, I would like to sever his spinal cord and leave him in a medically induced 'locked-in' condition for the rest of his life!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 12:22
Forgive me, but it's at times like this I wonder why the death penalty is never an option anymore. Oh yes, there have been some apparent miscarriages in the past (but not as many as some would have us believe - getting off on questioning aged evidence, or on a technicality is not 'innocence' whatever they claim).
Is it better either for (I hate using the word) society? Is it any less 'torture' to confine someone, for a period and then extend it indefinitely? Would it not be better all round if someone(thing) like this (beyond any doubt, or claim, guilty of a heinous crime) should be quietly and efficiently shot (and buried in an unmarked grave)?
As to sentencing guidelines (both Norways, and let's be honest ours) I subscribe to the understanding proposed (by whom I can never remember) that a persons judgment as to how a specific crime should be punished is directly related to how feasible they see the possibility that they could commit it.
Eg. Can you see yourself, in extremis, stealing from a shop - if so, you would support a less severe punishment with many 'excuses' accepted as legitimate.
Can you ever see yourself deliberately raping/killing a child - no, therefore the support for nailing the 'particulars' of an animal (hands cuffed behind him of course) guilty of such a crime, to a table nailed to the floor of a wooden shed, and setting the shed alight, giving him the option of either pulling it off, or burning to death (if you're wondering, I found that description on a blog discussing the penalties for pedophiles and murderers - and there wasn't a single dissenting comment, who'd have thunk it?).
It does make you think about just what kind of people we have (politicians, judges and lawyers) making these lenient sentence guidelines, as they're patently unrepresentative of the rest of us.
Posted by: Able | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 21:06
That is rather sad and spineless of you David. I would use him as target practise for the troops. Targets up targets down.
Posted by: Jimmy | Friday, 24 August 2012 at 23:57
Jimmy and Able, I am definitely sympathetic to the general thrust of your opinions but I have calmed down somewhat from the very genuine shock and anger at the news yesterday. I think I may well blog again on the subject in a more detached way later on.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 08:59