Anyone from Norway?

[ballen0351]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...anders-behring-breivik-charged-with-terrorism

OSLO, Norway -- The Norwegian anti-Islam militant whose bomb attack and shooting massacre shocked this small country last summer was charged on Wednesday with terrorism and the premeditated murder of 77 people as officials prepared for a trial to start next month.
Prosecutors said they would initially seek a sentence of psychiatric care for the admitted killer but might demand 21 years in prison - Norway's nominal maximum - if an initial diagnosis of psychosis is contradicted by a second opinion.


Is that 21 years per death or 21 years total. 21 years total for killing 77 people that seems crazy to me. Also do they have parole or early release in Norway so he could actually get out sooner. Hes 33 now so he could be out at 54 and could do it again thats still young.

 

[Jenna]

I find it distasteful that his sentence is partly informed by a notion of him having mental illness. I think for someone to commit these acts with such precision and aforethought suggests he is a cold-hearted murderer and nothing less. there are people with genuine mental illness whose actions are not always under their control. Breivik was always leading to this inevitable cataclysm.

If only such clemency were afforded to the parents and families of those he put to death.

 

[Dirty Dog]

His claim to mental illness is legitimate. He is crazy. Anyone who thinks it's reasonable to do the things he did is crazy.

That doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions, or that he shouldn't be locked up (or exectuted) for them.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17286154

The prosecution said last week it was prepared to accept Breivik was criminally insane and therefore not responsible for his acts, and as such it might not call for a prison sentence.
However, it reserved the right to alter that view if new elements emerged about his mental health by the end of the trial.
"The way the case appears at the time the charges are being brought, there is no basis to request a regular prison penalty," state prosecutor Tor-Aksel Busch wrote in instructions to prosecutors handling the case.
"But it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court."

A second court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of Breivik is currently under way."

Does anyone imagine being incacerated in a mental hospital for life would be easier than being in prison.

 

[ballen0351]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17286154

The prosecution said last week it was prepared to accept Breivik was criminally insane and therefore not responsible for his acts, and as such it might not call for a prison sentence.
However, it reserved the right to alter that view if new elements emerged about his mental health by the end of the trial.
"The way the case appears at the time the charges are being brought, there is no basis to request a regular prison penalty," state prosecutor Tor-Aksel Busch wrote in instructions to prosecutors handling the case.
"But it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court."

A second court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of Breivik is currently under way."

Does anyone imagine being incacerated in a mental hospital for life would be easier than being in prison.

Im not sure you know the answer not being from Norway but would that mean as soon as hes "Better" he would be released?

In the US if your found not criminally responsible and sent to a mental Hospital and then say in 5 or 10 years they say your all better you can be released and never charged with the crime Im curious if its the same there.

 

[ballen0351]

His claim to mental illness is legitimate. He is crazy. Anyone who thinks it's reasonable to do the things he did is crazy.

That doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions, or that he shouldn't be locked up (or exectuted) for them.

I agree being crazy and being not criminally responsible are two different things. Sadly in Norway they cant execute anyone hed be a good candidate for it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17286154

The prosecution said last week it was prepared to accept Breivik was criminally insane and therefore not responsible for his acts, and as such it might not call for a prison sentence.
However, it reserved the right to alter that view if new elements emerged about his mental health by the end of the trial.
"The way the case appears at the time the charges are being brought, there is no basis to request a regular prison penalty," state prosecutor Tor-Aksel Busch wrote in instructions to prosecutors handling the case.
"But it must be clear in the charge sheet that the prosecution reserves the right, during the trial, to request a prison punishment or containment lasting 21 years, based on the complete evidence shown to the court."

A second court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of Breivik is currently under way."

Does anyone imagine being incacerated in a mental hospital for life would be easier than being in prison.

I don't know what it's like in Norway, but in the US, a mental hospital is far better than a prison. And rightly so, to my way of thinking. Criminals are supposed to be punished. Those who have been declared not fit to be responsible for their actions are not.

Too, in the US, there is no such thing as a predetermined length of commitment for the criminally insane. They're released as soon as they're determined to be "safe" for release. This leads to some really messed up situations. One example.

An anesthesiologist in a nearby town was caught (behind the surgical drapes) masturbating into the face of a 16 year old girl who was under general anesthetic. He pled insane and actually managed to convince a jury that he ought not be held responsible. After a very short stay in a mental hospital, he suddenly recovered and was released. His medical license was revoked, so he went back to school, passed the bar, and now practices law in the same town in which he was arrested. The lawyer whose practice he joined has been censured by the bar on two occassions that I know of for offering to trade his services in divorce procedings for sexual favors.
I knew the anesthesiologist. He was, and is, scum of the earth, and should have been locked up for a long long time, in an 8x10 cell with a hairy backed knuckle dragging mouth breather named Bubbha who wants to be his special friend. His new law partner is no better.

 

[Tez3]

Depends whether it's a mental hospital for patients will mental illness or a place that is for the criminally insane. We have both here, pleading insanity in a case like this will get you into Broadmoor. However mental hospitals are still full of people you wouldn't voluntarily, if sane, lock yourself up with for life. here you don't get a snetence for things like this, you are sentenced to stay at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure' which tends to be a very very long time. In Norway as here they will be state hospitals not inclined so much as private ones to be rid of criminally behaved patients.

 

[jks9199]

The insanity defense isn't really that commonly used, or that commonly successful in the US. To begin with, it's an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant must admit they did commit crime -- but they shouldn't be held responsible because they suffered from such a mental illness that they were either unable to control or unable to understand the wrongness of what they were doing. It's a tall order... And, often, when it does succeed, the defendant spends more time in a mental hospital than they might have done in jail. One of the most famous examples in recent history is John Hinckley; he's still hospitalized, and only recently has been allowed to leave the hospital at all.

 

[Jenna]

The insanity defense isn't really that commonly used, or that commonly successful in the US. To begin with, it's an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant must admit they did commit crime -- but they shouldn't be held responsible because they suffered from such a mental illness that they were either unable to control or unable to understand the wrongness of what they were doing. It's a tall order... And, often, when it does succeed, the defendant spends more time in a mental hospital than they might have done in jail. One of the most famous examples in recent history is John Hinckley; he's still hospitalized, and only recently has been allowed to leave the hospital at all.

I appreciate it is impossible without being party to evidence and but can I ask if you were presiding would you feel justice was served in this instance? Thank you.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Know nothing about Norwegian law but it was my understanding in the US that if you are found guilty by reasons of insanity you will not goto prison and you will be committed but there is also no imposed limit to the sentence. You could be held indefinitely. IS that possible in Norway?

But regardless I agree he should get put down for what he did

 

[jks9199]

I appreciate it is impossible without being party to evidence and but can I ask if you were presiding would you feel justice was served in this instance? Thank you.

I really can't say, because I don't know the Dutch legal system, and I don't know what's in the psych reports.

If he was so mentally disturbed that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong or couldn't stop himself... Yes. That doesn't mean he couldn't act in a manner that demonstrated planning and forethought -- only that he was so broken that he couldn't understand what he was doing was wrong. In that case -- does he really belong in prison -- or should he be treated?

That said, I'm personally more inclined to sentences that include both treatment and incarceration. Fix 'em -- then let 'em do their time when they can understand why they're locked up.