Breivik ONLY gets 21 years!

For killing 77 people, Whats life then?? Killing us all?? Insanity IMO!

Is that not the maximum under Swedish law though?

Madness. Who would let that man out again! He will be 54 when he gets out. I would suggest he will sill be a huge risk to society when he is 54!!

Correct proccy - thats the maximum sentence they could give unde their current law

Insanity, If thats the case - I hope when he gets out he repeat offends, Then they may realise that the current law outrageous! As deemed sane, He should be sentenced to death for sure.

Surely this will be the case.

Have a little think about what you've said here, my irony-meter is overloading.

My first thought as well. Oh my God I'm turning into J_C..

That may be so Steve, but he has been tried in Norway under Norwegian law where it is the maximum term apparently.

I get what he means, but I'm not sure Chrissy has fully thought that one through!

Perhaps more to the point (and possibly what Chrissy meant?) is how it can be found that a man who murders 77 people in cold blood can be sane by any definition that means anything.

Oh yes, sorry Pete - geography wasn't a strong point

Thenks Verde - I didnt mean that, At all! I do however find it pure insanity he could be out in still good and able physical health...

Totally agree. Is will be out at the age of 54!!! Plenty young enough to do the same again!

But he won't be released, will he? He will be assessed and (I'm just guessing) found to be just as "sane" as when he went in. In the same way that Ian Brady was never going to be released, nor Peter Sutcliffe, etc.

for those that apparently missed it

Without betraying a confidence the Peter Sutcliffe part could well be wrong soon.....there are motions at an advanced stage in the quest to free Sutcliffe, even to the point that a nom de plume has already been agreed.

With Brievik was there ever a more deserving case of capital punishment?

Mange tout, mange tout

Cushty

Everyone can calm down. 21 years is the maximum sentence that Norwegian law allows to be given at any one time. He will be subject to sentence review , and effectively resentenced as time passes. This guy is never getting out.

Well, I bow to your insight, but I'd be astonished if Sutcliffe were released without condition into the community.

Mind you, I'm looking forward to reading his stuff...

... and if he ever does he will last a day!

IMO he was not insane, just an extreme racist and no different from the ethnic cleansers in Nazi Germany, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Syria, Somalia, oh damn it, I'm now getting bored listing them. Breivik will never come out of jail, mainly for HIS health.

When his last words to the court included him saying he would not be appealing since that would indicate that he accepted the court had the right to try him, and that he apologised for not killing more, he's hardly making a case for an outcome at sentence review that includes him walking the streets again.

Psychopathic does not equal insane. From Law.com:

Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behaviour.

His behaviour was not impulsive (in that it was planned beforehand); I can't comment on the psychosis; and while he may have had the fantasy of some far-right paradise, he seems to be aware that it doesn't exist.

Sorry guys, My point was meant to be an easy one, How, even with the rule book OPEN can a case like this have just a 'norm' max sentence? It should be a 'unique' decision, I.E - You will from today remain behind bars forever without review.

Because sentencing should be the dispassionate apolitical function of judges who are constrained by the same principles of law as everyone else (principles they try others for for not upholding).

Indeed. It should *never* be a unique decision, or all rests on the whim of the judge. Even in special cases, like this. And note that while the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, there is still the test at the end of that (and during it perhaps?) as to whether he is fit to be released into society.

It strikes me that Norway is a very civilised state in these matters. Listening to the interviews with the survivors and relatives of the victims, they seem happy on the whole with the outcome. They're not howling for blood like a gang of Mail readers might...

I think that the attitude in Norway is a very sensible one. Something terrible happens, and they look to the reasons why it happens and what might be done to avoid it in future. Sure, the principle character is out of circulation, but that doesn't seem to be the main motivation.

Why do we put people in prison?

What does it achieve to justify the cost?

I believe that for a short sentence, the purpose is punishment. For a longer sentence, the purpose is to get them out of society's way.

How well the first of these works I don't know, but I'm pretty certain that neither works particularly well as a deterrent: if they did, the prisons would be empty.