People hate him. I am pretty sure somebody would kill him ( like Jack Ruby killed Oswald )

(27-07-2011 07:55 PM)Tropico Bob Wrote:  Don’t put words in my mouth. I was referring to the luxury prison he is currently in, ...

Unless I read the news incorrectly, the judge ordered that he be held for a month in solitary confinment without any news of the outside world and with no communication to the outside world. The order was made in a closed court session which did not allow him to further spread his poisonous ideas. Such frustration for a politically motivated murderer.

That situation seems a poor fit to the concept of a "luxury" prison.

But I suppose closely held in solitary confinement with no communication (except a lawyer) in a Norweign prison is "luxury" compared with ordinary conditions in most overcrowded state prisons in the U.S.

(27-07-2011 08:14 PM)Che Guevara Wrote:  People hate him. I am pretty sure somebody would kill him ( like Jack Ruby killed Oswald )

Such hatred, if untreated, can manifest itself in many problems that the society needs to address. The first step is identifiying those people that need immediate treatment before they take actions against others not associated directly with their current focus of passionate negative emotions. Their problems could esculate into self-distructive activities that harm society and/or themselves without treatment which cant begin until they have been identified.

(27-07-2011 08:03 PM)Che Guevara Wrote:  There is not hard enough punishment for what that asshole did.

Is your society based on fear of punishment for crossing the line of what others will allow?

Obviously, he was not afraid of punishment after the fact. What foreknowledge of potential punishment to be imposed for the act would have kept him from acting as he did?

(27-07-2011 08:23 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 07:55 PM)Tropico Bob Wrote:  Don’t put words in my mouth. I was referring to the luxury prison he is currently in, ...

Unless I read the news incorrectly, the judge ordered that he be held for a month in solitary confinment without any news of the outside world and with no communication to the outside world. The order was made in a closed court session which did not allow him to further spread his poisonous ideas. Such frustration for a politically motivated murderer.

That situation seems a poor fit to the concept of a "luxury" prison.

But I suppose closely held in solitary confinement with no communication (except a lawyer) in a Norweign prison is "luxury" compared with ordinary conditions in most overcrowded state prisons in the U.S.

Again a misleading approach to my statement. Try reading postings for what they are, instead of what you think they are. You do this all the time. Way too much analyzing & dissecting of peoples postings. Guys, tell me if I’m wrong.

I can think of many situations in response toward post #94, as I’m sure many others can.

(27-07-2011 08:33 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 08:03 PM)Che Guevara Wrote:  There is not hard enough punishment for what that asshole did.

Is your society based on fear of punishment for crossing the line of what others will allow?

Obviously, he was not afraid of punishment after the fact. What foreknowledge of potential punishment to be imposed for the act would have kept him from acting as he did?

The mental disturbed do not think reasonably or in a logical manner.If treatment was ordered years ago, when first identified as a risk to social norms, then this incident might have been avoided.

(27-07-2011 08:43 PM)rj66 Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 08:33 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 08:03 PM)Che Guevara Wrote:  There is not hard enough punishment for what that asshole did.

Is your society based on fear of punishment for crossing the line of what others will allow?

Obviously, he was not afraid of punishment after the fact. What foreknowledge of potential punishment to be imposed for the act would have kept him from acting as he did?

The mental disturbed do not think reasonably or in a logical manner.If treatment was ordered years ago, when first identified as a risk to social norms, then this incident might have been avoided.

Logic? You want to criminalize people on the basis of logic?!

Good luck with that!

(27-07-2011 08:04 PM)rj66 Wrote:  Poor guy is just getting his persecusion complexes reimforced.

I think they(authotiyies) should release him on his own recognisance. Perhaps with one of those ankle montors so they can monitor his movements as he goes about his normal daily activities. This would show that society trusts his humanity.

What is the worst that could happen. Some other mental case shots him down. Oh well, might as well get all the mental cases identifed so treatment can begin.

No he goes and gets another stash of guns and takes out a bunch more people.

it will be interesting if he gets in that prision were the guards have no guns and he escapes.

(27-07-2011 09:33 PM)Easy Bakes Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 08:04 PM)rj66 Wrote:  Poor guy is just getting his persecusion complexes reimforced.

I think they(authotiyies) should release him on his own recognisance. Perhaps with one of those ankle montors so they can monitor his movements as he goes about his normal daily activities. This would show that society trusts his humanity.

What is the worst that could happen. Some other mental case shots him down. Oh well, might as well get all the mental cases identifed so treatment can begin.

No he goes and gets another stash of guns and takes out a bunch more people.

it will be interesting if he gets in that prision were the guards have no guns and he escapes.

What is so interesting about a situation that you preordained in your first statment. Seems as if you dont trust your own prediction.

the1 st statement was if they were stupid enough to release this guy at all.

the 2nd if the let him stay in the less then minimum security prision.

I think this discussion is largely going in circles now. The fact is the man has been sentenced, and whether we agree with it or not it's what's going to happen. I have many personal ideas on how they could do things better, but I'm not a citizen of Norway nor am I in charge of their legal department so at this point arguing about their decision serves little purpose.

Let's be happy this is all over now and hope the people of Norway and the rest of the free world don't give in to terror and hate. We don't live in a perfect world, but we can certainly do a lot more to make it better.

I don’t remember him being sentenced. He’s just incarcerated, but yes, we’re running in circles here.

(27-07-2011 10:19 PM)Easy Bakes Wrote:  the1 st statement was if they were stupid enough to release this guy at all.

the 2nd if the let him stay in the less then minimum security prision.

Oh, OK.
So what happens in 21 years when he is released at the age of about 53 years old.

You think the world will last that long?

(27-07-2011 11:01 PM)Tyroq Wrote:  You think the world will last that long?

Oh don't start with that again.

(27-07-2011 11:01 PM)Tyroq Wrote:  You think the world will last that long?

The world existed a couple billion years before mankind, so yes the world will still be here.

(27-07-2011 10:59 PM)rj66 Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 10:19 PM)Easy Bakes Wrote:  the1 st statement was if they were stupid enough to release this guy at all.

the 2nd if the let him stay in the less then minimum security prision.

Oh, OK.
So what happens in 21 years when he is released at the age of about 53 years old.

I still haven’t heard of a sentence yet. I did hear about upwards of thirty years. This could all change. Why don’t we wait until the trial is over. This is all speculations, and conjectures. Let’s just wait, and see.

(27-07-2011 11:11 PM)Che Guevara Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 11:01 PM)Tyroq Wrote:  You think the world will last that long?

Oh don't start with that again.

Again? I've never started this here. Or are you referring to some other discussion you guys have had here before I arrived? At any rate it wasn't a serious question, I was just kidding around.

(27-07-2011 11:21 PM)Tropico Bob Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 10:59 PM)rj66 Wrote:  

(27-07-2011 10:19 PM)Easy Bakes Wrote:  the1 st statement was if they were stupid enough to release this guy at all.

the 2nd if the let him stay in the less then minimum security prision.

Oh, OK.
So what happens in 21 years when he is released at the age of about 53 years old.

I still haven’t heard of a sentence yet. I did hear about upwards of thirty years. This could all change. Why don’t we wait until the trial is over. This is all speculations, and conjectures. As an attorney, I thought many things, until the actual sentence was adjudicated, and the reverse of what I thought happened. Let’s just wait, and see.

mabey 6 months it will be finished.

(24-07-2011 10:38 AM)HenryVem Wrote:  You see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_impris..._in_Norway

There isn't a big chance of him getting out of prison

21 years can turn into life imprisonment if the court thinks you still are a threat to society, after 21 years.

I notice some posters are still talking about the Norwegian sentence of 21 years as being absolute with release mandated. A prisoner sentenced for some types of crime has no absolute right of release. If a question is raised that the prisoner is still a threat to society, a court may renew the sentence.

Henry mentioned it; I brought it up again as part of post #82.

Speculations about what happens after Breivik's convicted are indeed pointless, since it's even unsure what charges are being pressed.
What can be done however is talking about which options are known for the Norwegian Justice Department and what your homecountry would do if something simular happened (of which I hope it never will).

For what I gathered from the news, there are currently two options:

1) Breivik got convicted for all murders he had done with one punishment.
This means he got the maximum amount of 23 years in prisson; with the option to keep him locked up in another institution afterwards if it can be proven he was insane.

2) Breivik got convicted for "Crimes against humanity".
The maximum penalty for that is 30 years in prison; again with the option to keep him locked up in another institution afterwards if it can be proven he was insane.

A third possible option might be that relatives of the victims decide to join forces and sue Breivik for the murder of their relative(s).
If this is possible in Norway; the sentence might be done after doing the one he got from the state; meaning the time he's imprisoned is doubled at least.

Two other things that have to be taken into account:

1) Is the time he spend in jail before the trial taken off the sentence or not. If it is, the actual time he's spending in prison is shorter; although it'll still be the maximum time possible.
If it isn't, he's locked up longer as the sentence given to him. But knowing current sentiments, for many that'll be too short anyway.

2) What about parole? If Breivik got convicted for murder and thus have the 23 years penalty, he'll be able to walk out of prison just after 14 years. Something the Norwegian public won't agree with, I'm sure.

So, that's the options as I see them.
Looking at them and the justiary system in my home country - the Netherlands (or "Holland" for dummies) - as well as the one shooting and two political murders we had here over the past decade; he'll be sentenced to life. Which is in this case doesn't mean 25 years in prison, but staying there until he dies; with no chances for parole.
And he's got to spend it most likely in solitary; just like the murderer of Theo van Gogh.

Which is, imho, a well deserved punishment.

Thorin

(28-07-2011 02:25 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  

(24-07-2011 10:38 AM)HenryVem Wrote:  You see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_impris..._in_Norway

There isn't a big chance of him getting out of prison

21 years can turn into life imprisonment if the court thinks you still are a threat to society, after 21 years.

I notice some posters are still talking about the Norwegian sentence of 21 years as being absolute with release mandated. A prisoner sentenced for some types of crime has no absolute right of release. If a question is raised that the prisoner is still a threat to society, a court may renew the sentence.

Henry mentioned it; I brought it up again as part of post #82.

Doly noted that I dont follow the kangaroo court proceedings of foreign cases mister Esquire CoconutKid.

(28-07-2011 02:46 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote:  ... What can be done however is talking about which options are known for the Norwegian Justice Department and what your home country would do if something simular happened ...

That is an excellent comment Thorin.

In Norway: I speculate based on the news reports and my personal acquaintence with with Norway (albeit limited) that the Norwegian legal system will exaustively investigate the accused and the circumstances. He then will be put on trial. The trial will first determine if he is mentally deranged and to what extent. This phase of the trial will be done cooperatively between the state officials and his defense lawyer. It will be impartial rather than adversary and the court will adjudicate on the totality of the evidence available so as to be as objective as possible.
If then he is judged to be mentally fully responsible for his actions, the second phase of the trial will proceed rapidly. His defense lawyer may try to present his political defense. Its bare outline will be entered into the record and quickly cross-countered with a complete refutation. The court will determine that he failed to have a defensible cause of concern nor a showing that he had taken sufficient measures short of violence to correct his concern. So his political defense will fail on two simple points. He then will be sentenced to the maximum term in close (gagged - e.g. no public contact) confinement with an automatic requirement for a full review for continued confinement at the point when release could be considered.
If on the other hand, if he is judged to be mentally deranged, he will quickly disappear into an appropriate facility seldom to be heard from or of again.

In the U.S.: He would be assassinated or lynched under similar circumstances.

Bullsh*t, Coconuts. Totally. McVeigh, the Unibomber, Akbar, Hasan ... all mass murderers, all under process of law and none lynched. I really do not understand what it is you have against the United States. Really, that is just slander.

(29-07-2011 12:43 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  Bullsh*t, Coconuts. Totally. McVeigh, the Unibomber, Akbar, Hasan ... all mass murderers, all under process of law and none lynched. I really do not understand what it is you have against the United States. Really, that is just slander.

Ditto. Not much of an American. He stands against us, instead of beside us in most of his silly postings with the US as a topic. Once again misleading people about Americans. Such a pitty.

(28-07-2011 08:59 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  In the U.S.: He would be assassinated or lynched under similar circumstances.

I doubt that. It's more likely that the brass in the justice department, "intelligence" agencies and in the goverment are going to be lynched, considering you folks still have the Terrorism Act running.
Still, as already pointed out, McVeigh and the Unabomber never got lynched but spend their time in a goverment hotel instead. Dunno about Akbar and Hassan, but I doubt they're sunbathing in Barbados or the Caymans atm.

So: What does happen in the US? I know you folks got Federal and State laws, so that's two options to think off. I also know not all states have the same punishment for similar crimes, while some states even have no deathpenalty either. Which in turn makes me wonder: does "life" in the USA means " 'til death do us part" or is it just long enough to turn you into an old person by the time you leave jail.

Any American prepared to explain??

Thorin

@Thorin,

If a Judge states at sentencing... life imprisonment. It means life with the possibility of parole. Such as Charles Manson got (after his death sentence was commuted). Every parole hearing with him was denied. So it’s likely he’s die in prinson. Parole does not mean you’ll get released. It just means your eligible for parole.

If a Judge states at sentencing... life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. Then you’ll die there.

It’s not so much a matter of Federal, or State Jurisdiction. It’s a matter of the Judge’s statement at sentencing, and is often requested, or sought by the prosecutors at the trial. It is also the type of act of the crime. Was he a serial killer, a terrorist, a crime of passion, premeditation, and what the prosecutors are seeking. These factors in most case’s determine the sentence. Not to mention who did he kill, and how many? There is no flat out answer here. In my time in court, I have seen people commit the same crime, and get different sentences.

(29-07-2011 01:13 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote:  

(28-07-2011 08:59 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  In the U.S.: He would be assassinated or lynched under similar circumstances.

I doubt that. It's more likely that the brass in the justice department, "intelligence" agencies and in the goverment are going to be lynched, considering you folks still have the Terrorism Act running.
Still, as already pointed out, McVeigh and the Unabomber never got lynched but spend their time in a goverment hotel instead. Dunno about Akbar and Hassan, but I doubt they're sunbathing in Barbados or the Caymans atm.

So: What does happen in the US? I know you folks got Federal and State laws, so that's two options to think off. I also know not all states have the same punishment for similar crimes, while some states even have no deathpenalty either. Which in turn makes me wonder: does "life" in the USA means " 'til death do us part" or is it just long enough to turn you into an old person by the time you leave jail.

Any American prepared to explain??

Thorin

I believe Manson was originally sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to life in prison about the same time the death penalty was removed from California state law. He was eligible for parole after about the 7th year after his sentence was commuted to life in prison. He has had a couple well publicized parole hearings(12 parole hearing in all) and a couple media interviews. He stated long ago that prison was his home.

Truely sad he and his followers most definetly needed treatment but few if any got any. Instead of electro-shock they got video taped by the media.

>edited for corrections after I checked wikipedia records

Vigilanty justice is very rare and usually only happens with low profile cases. The higher profile cases tend to have massive protection details. Weirdly moronic.

(29-07-2011 01:32 PM)rj66 Wrote:  Vigilanty justice is very rare and usually only happens with low profile cases. The higher profile cases tend to have massive protection details. Weirdly moronic.

That’s not true. Casey Anthony whom many people considered “getting away with murder” is not under protection by any law enforcement agency.

The only time you’re under protection is during a trial, and if incarcerated, and if the case qualifies for such protection.. If your found innocent, even though the majority of the public believes your guilty... you’re on your own. Law enforcement agencies can not afford to baby-sit these individuals. This is only one such case. I defy you to tell me who is under this protection after found innocent.

Or did I mis-understand your post?

(29-07-2011 01:13 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote:  

(28-07-2011 08:59 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  In the U.S.: He would be assassinated or lynched under similar circumstances.

I doubt that. ... So: What does happen in the US? ... Thorin

You should note that I said "under similar circumstances." And I was being partly sarcastic. After all, it hard to select one of the many similar cases in the U.S. with which to compare the Norwegian case.

I suggest this a case of first impression in Norway. After President Kennedy's accused assassin was assassinated in the midst of a crowd of police, law enforcement was embarassed and started taking stringent measures to protect the accused -- especially in nortorious cases which inflame the public. That killing of a President was the beginning of the end of an era of openness of access to public figures and public buildings. We still struggle to cope as is evident with the wounding of the Arizona Congresswoman.

You may also wish to note the number perpetrators of horrible and inflamatory crimes in the U.S. who immediately commit suicide.

Not to argue with those learned in the law, but I suggest to you that while our Federal System does indeed have two tiers of courts adjudicating two levels of law, that does not mean that it is just a "pick & choose" matter to deal with a specific criminal act under one system or the other. While the criminal code of the national government and the criminal codes of law of the 50 states plus the territories may superficially overlap in some ways, there are questions of jurisdiction over and the criminality of the act. Sadly, only a superfical answer can fit on a forum such as this.

The bottom line is that for horrible crimes, one may be executed or locked-up for life. Except in the state of Texas, one may die of old age while waiting to be executed.