Terrorist attack in Oslo

[Asmodean]

A mental incarceration is the only way a criminal can be locked away for life in Norway.

Actually, what is called a forvaringsdom with a frame of maximum 21 years can theoretically be prolonged indefinitely after said period. Getting out of a mental institution, however, hinges on being declared healthy and posing no apparent threat to self or others.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Whether he was insane or not isn't really the problem for the legal system but rather where do you put him so he may not influence others. Labeling him insane and putting him in a mental hospital would help and easy to do so.

I don't think he was insane, for the simple reason that everything was well thought out and executed ruthlessly to his plan that was years in the making. He didn't act on impulse or act due to any mental disorder, he wrote books about his worldview that have a logical structure (even though they are fucked up). He understood what he was doing was wrong and made sure he hid what he was doing. There is the argument that his disregard for human life could be the signs of his insanity but I don't think so, he viewed the deaths as necessary for the greater good in a political/military sense. Was he a nutter? yes. Was he insane? no.

Are insane people not able to execute plans or think logically? Are they not able to write books? I don't see why not.

[Tank]

A mental incarceration is the only way a criminal can be locked away for life in Norway.

Actually, what is called a forvaringsdom with a frame of maximum 21 years can theoretically be prolonged indefinitely after said period. Getting out of a mental institution, however, hinges on being declared healthy and posing no apparent threat to self or others.

And there is the phrase that will keep him tucked away for the rest of his life.

[Asmodean]

And there is the phrase that will keep him tucked away for the rest of his life.

Most likely, yes. But, say, twenty years is a long time and if after said period some group of New-Ager shrinks finds the new and harmless Breivik to be... Well, new and harmless... The possibility of him getting out is there due to the process involved in evaluating threat level and health status (Due to what has to be included in evaluation and what has not to)

It's there even if we imprison him, since today Norway does not have any real form for life-sentencing. The maximum sentence is thirty years in prison (applies to terrorism only, I think), after which time you kind of have to be released OR you can get a 21 year sentence with the possibility of extention every five years or so, which again brings us to the process involved, which puts the convicted in a reasonably good position to be released.

[Buddy]

One does have to wonder, what do the victims' families think he should get? Do they get any say whatsoever?

[Tank]

One does have to wonder, what do the victims' families think he should get? Do they get any say whatsoever?

That is an extremely important question and an emotional minefield. On the one hand how can somebody who has not been the victim of a particular crime (in this case the murder of one's child/brother/sister/mother/father) truly understand its impact? While on the other hand how can the relation of a victim ever be considered sufficiently emotionally detached/objective to have a reasonable view on what should be done to the perpetrator?

I don't know the answer to these very vexing questions but I do know that if my son or daughter were killed I wouldn't be in a place where I would be able to be objective about what I would personally want to happen to the perpetrator. But I am firmly against the death penalty. Not because I have any sympathy to murderers but because the judicial system is run by people and therefore subject to human error.

[KingPhilip]

One does have to wonder, what do the victims' families think he should get? Do they get any say whatsoever?

That is an extremely important question and an emotional minefield. On the one hand how can somebody who has not been the victim of a particular crime (in this case the murder of one's child/brother/sister/mother/father) truly understand its impact? While on the other hand how can the relation of a victim ever be considered sufficiently emotionally detached/objective to have a reasonable view on what should be done to the perpetrator?

I don't know the answer to these very vexing questions but I do know that if my son or daughter were killed I wouldn't be in a place where I would be able to be objective about what I would personally want to happen to the perpetrator. But I am firmly against the death penalty. Not because I have any sympathy to murderers but because the judicial system is run by people and therefore subject to human error.

Agreed, it's a very difficult subject to try and sort out how involved you make the victim's family in the whole process. Personally I don't believe that they should have any sort of official say in what happens, as they will be incredible impartial and often push to punish the first suspect found simply for closure.

I am very for the death penalty, but only in cases where it is absolutely clear that there is no other possibility than this person having committed the crime in question. Such as Mr. Breivik. If you only have a minimal amount of evidence that convicted them, then it's really a huge risk to take.

[Asmodean]

One does have to wonder, what do the victims' families think he should get? Do they get any say whatsoever?

No say at all, although their interests may be considered while sentencing.

[Buddy]

I guess that one who was a victim of a crime of this stature would not be as emotionally stable and not objective, but I do think that their opinions should at least be heard.

[Tank]

I guess that one who was a victim of a crime of this stature would not be as emotionally stable and not objective, but I do think that their opinions should at least be heard.

AFAIK in the UK there is such a thing as a victim impact statement. It is read out in court if the virdict is guilty and the judge may choose to take the statement into account when sentencing the criminal.

[Sandra Craft]

I guess that one who was a victim of a crime of this stature would not be as emotionally stable and not objective, but I do think that their opinions should at least be heard.

I have to admit that victims impact statements make me uncomfortable -- if there's anyplace were impartiality and cold reason should hold sway, it's a courtroom.  As Tank pointed out, that's already compromised by humans being humans so the impact statement just throws another wrench in the works.  Besides, it seems faintly insulting to me to assume that others would not understand that the victims and survivors are devastated without being told.  And people working in the judical system probably understand it already much better than most.

[The Magic Pudding]

I have to admit that victims impact statements make me uncomfortable -- if there's anyplace were impartiality and cold reason should hold sway, it's a courtroom.  As Tank pointed out, that's already compromised by humans being humans so the impact statement just throws another wrench in the works.  Besides, it seems faintly insulting to me to assume that others would not understand that the victims and survivors are devastated without being told.  And people working in the judical system probably understand it already much better than most.

One purpose of the statement is to allow the person or persons most directly affected by the crime to address the court during the decision making process. It is seen to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim. From the victim's point of view it is regarded as valuable in aiding their emotional recovery from their ordeal. It has also been suggested they may confront an offender with the results of their crime and thus aid rehabilitation.

I don't have a problem with victims having a say, it seems a bit of a sop but if victims think it helps I wouldn't deny them.
I think it's done in the sentencing process, after guilt is established.
Judges do the sentencing and I don't see them being unduly swayed by emotion.

[Asmodean]

I guess that one who was a victim of a crime of this stature would not be as emotionally stable and not objective, but I do think that their opinions should at least be heard.

AFAIK in the UK there is such a thing as a victim impact statement. It is read out in court if the virdict is guilty and the judge may choose to take the statement into account when sentencing the criminal.

I don't know about that, but this case has naturally been getting immense media coverage and the victims have taken a more or less direct part in that. Judges do watch TV occasionally and read a paper now and then, so the victims are heard in that way at least. How much the judge is allowed to let himself be influenced by such is a different matter though.

[Crow]

Are insane people not able to execute plans or think logically? Are they not able to write books? I don't see why not.

Good point. Yeah that was not a good reason for him being sane. Insanity could in fact be the leading cause for the thoroughness of his plans and devotion to has goals. What I find interesting could the same type of dedication be considered insane if the outcome was benign or beneficial to society?

[Stevil]

What they should do is this.
Calculate his net worth,
Calculate how much money would be spent on psychiatric treatment.
Calculate how much money would be spent on lawyers.
Write a book and sell it, collect all the money.
Write a movie and sell it, collect all the money.
Put people into talk shows and news documentaries, collect all the money.
Sell his guns, memorabilia to the sicko Americans that like to buy that stuff, collect the money.

Shoot him.

Give all the money to the families of the victims.