Norway Massacre: Anders Breivik sentenced 21 years

[Chairman Miaow]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

 

[Reaper195]

I think a lot of people are missing the fact that while Norway can legally only detain him for 21 years, they can extend the sentence under certain conditions. I honestly don't see Bravik ever leaving a cell. Ever. 21 years will be up, and Norway will be all "Nah, for his safety and whatnot, he'll be staying here some more.". Bravik will never be a free man.

 

[SillyBear]

This is hardly enough time, it should be life. 21 years jesus, that seems like such a weak sentence.

Wow. If I see one more person say this my head might explode.

Why would you offer critique on his sentencing if you don't understand Norwegian law to begin with? That's a really, really strange thing to do.

Listen:

21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway. That's the highest they can sentence someone at one time. After the 21 years is up, they reevaluate the prisoner and decide whether or not they are safe to release. If they think the prisoner is still unsafe and is not worthy of release - they keep them in there.

That's just how their system works. It doesn't mean Breivik is only going to serve 21 years. The chances of the Norwegian courts deeming Breivik safe to society after 21 years are slim to none - he'll be in there for life.

Please, don't rush into something so quickly without understanding it.

 

[Private Custard]

He will never get out. Even if he is deemed to be "reformed," they still have to hold him until they can guarantee that it's safe for him on the outside. Which will never happen. He has left far too many people scarred for life, and upon his hypothetical release he would be killed within a few days.

Depends on the people affected.

If he had killed one of my family, I'd be waiting for him, no matter how long it took.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Weren't the people who worked for megavideo sent down for more than that.

21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway. That's the highest they can sentence someone at one time. After the 21 years is up, they reevaluate the prisoner and decide whether or not they are safe to release. If they think the prisoner is still unsafe and is not worthy of release - they keep them in there.

Yeah I believe this is true, and this is if he gets through 21 years alive...

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

20 years is longer than I could imagine. It's an eternity. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a completely different person every couple of years in terms of my opinions and my own personal convictions. He'll probably become a fully converted buddhist in less than 5 years. Then again, maybe not. Some people are just dumb and don't change.

 

[Zeema]

This is hardly enough time, it should be life. 21 years jesus, that seems like such a weak sentence.

Wow. If I see one more person say this my head might explode.

Why would you offer critique on his sentencing if you don't understand Norwegian law to begin with? That's a really, really strange thing to do.

Listen:

21 years is the maximum sentence in Norway. That's the highest they can sentence someone at one time. After the 21 years is up, they reevaluate the prisoner and decide whether or not they are safe to release. If they think the prisoner is still unsafe and is not worthy of release - they keep them in there.

That's just how their system works. It doesn't mean Breivik is only going to serve 21 years. The chances of the Norwegian courts deeming Breivik safe to society after 21 years are slim to none - he'll be in there for life.

Please, don't rush into something so quickly without understanding it.

sorry Norwegian law isn't very well advertised in Australia

i saw the news story on TV and they did not mention a extension of said law they just said 21 years with a POSSIBLE extension after the 21 years

Im just relaying the story

this is what i heard in Australia and i only skim read the news story i linked

Please don't rush so quickly without understanding my POV

 

[SillyBear]

Im just relaying the story

But you aren't just doing that dude. You're framing the story in a way which leads others to believe some huge injustice has been served. There is a chance that someone will read what you wrote and get all worked up over it and tell others something equally as incorrect.

this is what i heard in Australia and i only skim read the news story i linked

:S

Please don't rush so quickly without understanding my POV

What is there to understand about your point of view? You were wrong? I already understood that. You being Australian and having little knowledge of Norway's justice system doesn't really change anything. Ignorance is still ignorance. Ignorance in and of itself is totally fine - I'm equally as ignorant as you are, just about different things. But it is the whole posting something emotionally charged without understanding it bit that gets me.

I'm really not as angry as I sound and I apologise if I'm coming across as psycho. I just hate seeing people get led astray by emotional rhetoric and outrage when there is no need to.

Justice was served! He is behind bars where he can't hurt anyone ever again. That is all people need to know.

 

[Olas]

Every day: 77 lashings
The name of a victim read out to him right before each lashing with pictures of the victims projected on the wall in front of him. I doubt it's possible to make someone like this feel remorse but I'd damn well try.

As for reformation, the day he repays his debt of 77 human lives he's free to go. Good luck with that.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

The only person offending me right now is you, by making assumptions about me. You keep claiming identical cases have shown remorse, but then never offered any sources. If he showed remorse and I didn't believe him, it would be because I believe somebody with an ideology that deep set will not change their mind no matter what, not because I can't forgive him.

Edit: I care about how long he spends in jail because I believe he will always be a risk.

 

[Dr Jones]

It wouldn't be very democratic to give him a special punishment. He is a criminal and should be treated within the confines of the law that is already established.

 

[MatsVS]

What is there to understand about your point of view? You were wrong? I already understood that. You being Australian and having little knowledge of Norway's justice system doesn't really change anything. Ignorance is still ignorance. Ignorance in and of itself is totally fine - I'm equally as ignorant as you are, just about different things. But it is the whole posting something emotionally charged without understanding it bit that gets me.

Thank you, SillyBear. Being a person from Norway emotionally invested in the case on these forums has been dreadful the past couple of days, with americans and other various cryptofascists coming out of the woodwork to declare how terrible the Norwegian justice system is. It is super nice that someone takes the time to point out their ignorance, so thank you for that.

 

[Daveman]

So these parts:

Under Norwegian law the sentence could be extended.

However, inmates who are still considered a threat to society after their sentence is up can be held indefinitely.

can just be ignored then?

Bear in mind the prison system in Norway is about rehabilitation and protection(of the public and the convicted), not revenge.

And I absolutely abhor the death penalty. It's pointless vengeance and has no place in today's society. Obligatory IMO.

The thing is I find it much harder to get unnecessarily worked up if I read those, so I'm just gonna ignore them.

 

[Liquidcool]

Well if he's out in 21 years and completely rehabilitated, I don't see a problem.

How long do you think he will survive if he gets released? I imagine that a lot of people want to get even.

 

[Frostbyte666]

It's not about being a good samaritan. It's about looking at what makes society better.

Justice doesn't stop further robberies. Justice doesn't stop the drug problem. Justice doesn't stop muggings, raping. Justice doesn't seek to stop crimes... it only seeks to punish crime.

Rehabilitation DOES stop further robberies, further rape, further mugging. The whole POINT is to prevent recidivism.

What's better--the victims get more justice, or there's less victims? Which is a better functioning society? One where you can be assured that if you get stabbed, they'll pay and pay and pay.... or one where you can be assured you won't get stabbed?

Which is the better society?

Your post seems to assume that it is the same people who commit the offenses.

From things i've heard criminals seem to take it as a holiday spa, free food, free board, free education. There have been people who got better at crime after going to jail because they could talk shop with others. Maybe jail does rehabilitate people, but that's only those caught and jailed, not those out their still committing crimes, so yes I have to say jail is there for punishment, maybe make it so that 3 quarters of your stay there are horrendous and the last quarter do the rehabilitation. Show them that if you do bad things horrible things will happen to you, but if your willing to improve and be a better person, better things will happen. Society is too soft of criminals. If rehabilitation stopped crime there would be less of it, and I don't see much evidence of that, I see criminals getting minimal sentences, slaps on the wrist, leaving court, or jail and committing more crimes (most of the time). I read things like that in the paper often enough, so no criminals are punished no where near enough.

I can't say society is better for this rehabilitation because it isn't, to me it's failing and pretty much saying oh the criminal is misunderstood we just don't understand the pressures he's under shame on you trying to blame him for crimes he's committed.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that somebody who has based their life on an ideology to the point where they will kill 70 people, more if he had his way, cannot change their belief in that ideology.

Edit: I have also said that I do respect the Norwegian system, and that it clearly works, just that this case is a wasted effort.

And that's a single snapshot of a single person's life.

We don't know what lead him to that point. We don't know where he goes from here. If such people are truly unchanging, then how did he get there in the first place? How is it possible for a man to change so that he's willing to kill 70 people, but not able to change such that he's remorseful about having killed 70 people?

So people can change for the worse but never the better?

I simply refuse to believe that. Change can work in both directions,

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that people cannot change. If such a person could be rehabilited then at some point the question of forgiveness must come up. And when you're talking about such a level of mass murder... forgiveness is a very hard thing to ask of anyone. It's hard to contemplate and is certainly not an easy choice.

When someone does something unforgivable I suppose believing they are irredeemable makes it a lot easier to swallow. I certainly can't fault anyone for having that view.

Ok, continue to tell me what I think and why I think it, that's cool.

Doesn't make me wrong, does it?

No, the fact that you are wrong about me means that you are wrong about me. None of that applies to me, because I have nothing to forgive him for, he never wronged me.

We do know how he got to that point. It's fairly well documented. Mostly by him.

Then why do you care how long he spends in jail? Why are you unwilling to accept that because some people who do equally heinous things WITH the same level of documentation HAVE shown remorse, that it is possible that he also has the possibility of showing remorse? There IS precedent for this, and you're claiming that, in his case, there is a 0% possibility of remorse.

What is so different about his case that makes it 0%, when other, identical cases, show the number to be non-zero? The only rational conclusion that CAN be formed is either you are unaware that other similiar cases have shown remorse, or that you have a confirmation bias, or both.

I'm saying that the chance of reform is nonzero. I'm not even claiming it's 50% or anything reasonable--but there IS a chance. The chance is NOT zero. You're claiming it is zero, and that's an unjustifiable claim given that his case isn't that different from previous cases, and should be judged on the same merits.

Thus, it truly isn't so much that you believe he won't show remorse, it's that you don't actually care if he does or not, you won't believe him, because you find his actions unforgivable. To which I am showing some empathy and saying that, yes, it is very hard to forgive such actions and that you are not wrong for feeling that way. It doesn't matter if it directly affected you; some actions done to strangers still offend the detached individual, and thus forgiveness is a valid expression. Otherwise the concept of society seeking justice for crimes would not make any sense, would it?

In short, you have a confirmation bias, the only rational conclusion is that it's because you are too offended by his crimes to see he is not different from similiar criminals, some of whom have shown remorse. Such offense held is unforgivenness.

The only person offending me right now is you, by making assumptions about me. You keep claiming identical cases have shown remorse, but then never offered any sources. If he showed remorse and I didn't believe him, it would be because I believe somebody with an ideology that deep set will not change their mind no matter what, not because I can't forgive him.

Edit: I care about how long he spends in jail because I believe he will always be a risk.

Jeffery Dalmer, showed no remorse at trial, confessed remorse later to a guard before he was killed.
Ted Bundy in much the same way, confessed remorse before his execution.

These are people who had murder as a lifestyle, who committed atrocities over multiple years, and found themselves in a state of remorse. These are people MORE inclined to be unchanging than someone who commits a single, large scale, act of murder.

Anders is unique not in his manifesto or his ideology, but in one single fact: Unlike most mass shooters, he didn't kill himself. That's it.

But history has shown mass murderers are capable of remorse.

 

[Gardenia]

He will never get out. Even if he is deemed to be "reformed," they still have to hold him until they can guarantee that it's safe for him on the outside. Which will never happen. He has left far too many people scarred for life, and upon his hypothetical release he would be killed within a few days.

Depends on the people affected.

If he had killed one of my family, I'd be waiting for him, no matter how long it took.

He killed 77 people, the vast majority of which were children, in a country with just 5 million people. Most people know someone affected.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's not about being a good samaritan. It's about looking at what makes society better.

Justice doesn't stop further robberies. Justice doesn't stop the drug problem. Justice doesn't stop muggings, raping. Justice doesn't seek to stop crimes... it only seeks to punish crime.

Rehabilitation DOES stop further robberies, further rape, further mugging. The whole POINT is to prevent recidivism.

What's better--the victims get more justice, or there's less victims? Which is a better functioning society? One where you can be assured that if you get stabbed, they'll pay and pay and pay.... or one where you can be assured you won't get stabbed?

Which is the better society?

Your post seems to assume that it is the same people who commit the offenses.

From things i've heard criminals seem to take it as a holiday spa, free food, free board, free education. There have been people who got better at crime after going to jail because they could talk shop with others. Maybe jail does rehabilitate people, but that's only those caught and jailed, not those out their still committing crimes, so yes I have to say jail is there for punishment, maybe make it so that 3 quarters of your stay there are horrendous and the last quarter do the rehabilitation. Show them that if you do bad things horrible things will happen to you, but if your willing to improve and be a better person, better things will happen. Society is too soft of criminals. If rehabilitation stopped crime there would be less of it, and I don't see much evidence of that, I see criminals getting minimal sentences, slaps on the wrist, leaving court, or jail and committing more crimes (most of the time). I read things like that in the paper often enough, so no criminals are punished no where near enough.

I can't say society is better for this rehabilitation because it isn't, to me it's failing and pretty much saying oh the criminal is misunderstood we just don't understand the pressures he's under shame on you trying to blame him for crimes he's committed.

Well that depends on what you mean by rehabilitation.

It's not about being a good samaritan. It's about looking at what makes society better.

Justice doesn't stop further robberies. Justice doesn't stop the drug problem. Justice doesn't stop muggings, raping. Justice doesn't seek to stop crimes... it only seeks to punish crime.

Rehabilitation DOES stop further robberies, further rape, further mugging. The whole POINT is to prevent recidivism.

What's better--the victims get more justice, or there's less victims? Which is a better functioning society? One where you can be assured that if you get stabbed, they'll pay and pay and pay.... or one where you can be assured you won't get stabbed?

Which is the better society?

Your post seems to assume that it is the same people who commit the offenses.

From things i've heard criminals seem to take it as a holiday spa, free food, free board, free education. There have been people who got better at crime after going to jail because they could talk shop with others. Maybe jail does rehabilitate people, but that's only those caught and jailed, not those out their still committing crimes, so yes I have to say jail is there for punishment, maybe make it so that 3 quarters of your stay there are horrendous and the last quarter do the rehabilitation. Show them that if you do bad things horrible things will happen to you, but if your willing to improve and be a better person, better things will happen. Society is too soft of criminals. If rehabilitation stopped crime there would be less of it, and I don't see much evidence of that, I see criminals getting minimal sentences, slaps on the wrist, leaving court, or jail and committing more crimes (most of the time). I read things like that in the paper often enough, so no criminals are punished no where near enough.

I can't say society is better for this rehabilitation because it isn't, to me it's failing and pretty much saying oh the criminal is misunderstood we just don't understand the pressures he's under shame on you trying to blame him for crimes he's committed.

Then why is it that countries that have rehabilitative prison systems have lower crime rates and lower recidivism than countries that prefer to persue justice over rehabilitation? I mean, yes, rehabilitation seems to work because in those countries there IS less of it!

It's not a matter of feeling sorry for the criminal, it's about exercising a modicum of logic and common sense. Most criminals don't understand they're doing wrong. They blame all sorts of external sources and they refuse to take responsibility. The reason retribution doesn't work is really simple. Have you ever tried to punish a kid who doesn't understand he's done wrong? What happens, does the kid learn not to do that again, or does he learn to resent you for senseless punishment and simply try harder not to get caught?

Criminals react in exactly the same way. The thing is, rehabilitation isn't about being nice to the crooks, it's about showing them how society isn't to blame, letting them accept responsibility, then breaking the cycles that cause enable them to commit crimes in the first place.

It's about asking 'Why do they commit these crimes?' and then once you find an answer, actually DO something about it. Retributive punishment doesn't do that. It just reinforces the concept of a society against them, and thus encourages recidivism.

What's going to be more effective, finding out why they commit crime and stopping it, or not asking why and just punishing them for justice? You don't have prisons being crime schools if you remove the reasons for committing crimes.

 

[ScaryAlmond]

Very good.

Now turn the cameras off, forget his name and his actions, and let him and his twisted beliefs rot and die in that jail cell forever. Let us never mention him again, and as he watches the world continue without him, his stand and acts forgotten, that will be a torture to his mind more potent than anything we could consciously subject him to.

Because what is the worst fate a human being can have? For their life to be impactless on this universe, and their person forgotten.

While I understand why you have that position I do disagree if we don't want those people he killed to die in vain we have to look at the situation and we have to look for solutions.
If you look at America their having a mass shooting every couple of Months and they haven't tried to stop and generally forget about it that's why it keeps happening.
You need to come up with an appropriate solution to a complicated problem.
There were alot of mistakes that allowed this to happen a review of the disaster has showed them that and they need to rectify that to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Through history his actions must not be forgotten but the man and the motivations will be fairly soon.
Can you name man who crashed the plane into the twin towers no he has been forgotten and so too will Anders Brevik.