4 ms·

on the other extreme, across the pond you have a guy who murdered 77 teenagers and kids, and is chilling in a hotel-like facility with a good chance to be out i

on the other extreme, across the pond you have a guy who murdered 77 teenagers and kids, and is chilling in a hotel-like facility with a good chance to be out in 2033. I'm really not sure what's worse.

mikeyouse 4y ago
There’s no chance he gets out in 2033 but the ability for level-headed decisions about continuing effectiveness on all prisoners is absolutely something we should emulate.
chki 4y ago
> a good chance to be out in 2033 Source needed. From what I've read he will probably never be free, which makes sense since he is actively dangerous.
- twelve40 4y ago
  If he repents, he can be free - after everything he has done. He currently chooses not to.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Citation needed. This does not match anything I’ve read about the situation.
  - hither_shores 4y ago
    It's not up to him. "Preventive detention" is still potentially a life sentence, it just has to be renewed by the court every five years after the initial 21 year sentence is up.
- googlryas 4y ago
  It seems wrong for him to ever get out of prison, even if he wasn't viewed as actively dangerous.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Why? Being vindictive (wanting someone to suffer because they made others suffer) serves no practical purpose, as far as I can tell.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      The rational answer is because nothing in life is certain. Someone who decides to shoot and bomb and kill 77 people could decide to do so again. Certainly the odds seem much higher for that person repeating than it is for a random individual to do the same thing. No science we have can say a person won't do the same thing again. The emotional answer is that some people serve no practical purpose. I don't understand why society would care so much about the life of someone who values life so little that they can repeatedly kill dozens of people. We have no problem as a society putting down a deranged dog, even though we could totally lock it up in a cage and let it live out it's days there. Heck, maybe it won't be deranged when it is 9 years old. Let's consider this hypothetical: I am just really curious what it is like to kill someone, so I go out and randomly kill someone you love very dearly. After I do it, it turns out I don't like killing at all and never want to do it again. The rest of my life will be devoted to peace and love. How much jail time do you think I should serve?
ACS_Solver 4y ago
As someone from a neighboring country, I think that's a fantastic example of the justice system, justice at its very best. The murderer is absolutely the worst kind of criminal there is. He killed 77 people and he did so because of his Nazi ideology, to which he fully sticks a decade later. He got a fair trial. He got the conviction he deserved. In his desire to encourage violence and division, he failed completely and society did not for a moment fall to his level. And he's not walking free. For some reason conservative US media loved the "he'll be out after 20 years" idea, which is, in plain terms, a lie. Norwegian law mandates a court hearing after 21 years of a sentence to decide whether the sentence has to be extended. There's no question that it will be and the killer in question will most likely die in prison or perhaps be released in the final days of his life. Having a mandatory additional hearing seems like a great safety feature built into the law. Hotel-like facility? I haven't seen many hotels that lock you inside your room and don't allow a minute's unsupervised interaction with another person. We don't think it necessary to design prisons to be intentionally cruel to the inmates, we don't think torturing people accomplishes anything. The killer is provided with enough to meet basic human rights and that is overwhelmingly supported by public opinion. I've never been able to take anyone who says "Scandinavian prisons are like a vacation" seriously because nobody who claims that will admit to wanting to spend time in there.
- twelve40 4y ago
  Maybe. From what I understand, he's relatively happy about how it all turned out, and that makes me uneasy. He can also fake repentance any time he feels like it, so I'm not sure why you are so convinced about the outcome of some future hearing 10 years from now.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Except that it does not work the way you imply. He wont get out merely for saying "I repent". What you are doing amount to a lie - using caricature and exaggeration of theoretical possibility. Making rhetorical make points to make people outraged over shadows is harmful.
    - 4y ago
lucb1e 4y ago
If this were true, then you must be presenting a single-sided story. Even for one murder, people typically get ten years or more (presuming no mitigating circumstances). But the sibling comments already revealed that your claim of freedom in ten years is not true in the first place.
- twelve40 4y ago
  you are wrong, I did not say anything about sentence of 10 years.
  - lucb1e 4y ago
    an assumption based on the only available information: 2033 is about ten years from now. For all I know, their life expectancy was until 2015 and they turn 100 years old in 2033, which could be reasonable. Since that made little sense as a sentence to be unimpressed by, I figured it was more likely a case you recently heard about and 2033-$recent=~10. Maybe give some more info about the case then? Such as why they 'only' (in your eyes) got the sentence they got?
    - twelve40 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

mikeyouse 4y ago

There’s no chance he gets out in 2033 but the ability for level-headed decisions about continuing effectiveness on all prisoners is absolutely something we should emulate.

chki 4y ago

> a good chance to be out in 2033 Source needed. From what I've read he will probably never be free, which makes sense since he is actively dangerous.

twelve40 4y ago
If he repents, he can be free - after everything he has done. He currently chooses not to.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Citation needed. This does not match anything I’ve read about the situation.
- hither_shores 4y ago
  It's not up to him. "Preventive detention" is still potentially a life sentence, it just has to be renewed by the court every five years after the initial 21 year sentence is up.
googlryas 4y ago
It seems wrong for him to ever get out of prison, even if he wasn't viewed as actively dangerous.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Why? Being vindictive (wanting someone to suffer because they made others suffer) serves no practical purpose, as far as I can tell.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    The rational answer is because nothing in life is certain. Someone who decides to shoot and bomb and kill 77 people could decide to do so again. Certainly the odds seem much higher for that person repeating than it is for a random individual to do the same thing. No science we have can say a person won't do the same thing again. The emotional answer is that some people serve no practical purpose. I don't understand why society would care so much about the life of someone who values life so little that they can repeatedly kill dozens of people. We have no problem as a society putting down a deranged dog, even though we could totally lock it up in a cage and let it live out it's days there. Heck, maybe it won't be deranged when it is 9 years old. Let's consider this hypothetical: I am just really curious what it is like to kill someone, so I go out and randomly kill someone you love very dearly. After I do it, it turns out I don't like killing at all and never want to do it again. The rest of my life will be devoted to peace and love. How much jail time do you think I should serve?

ACS_Solver 4y ago

As someone from a neighboring country, I think that's a fantastic example of the justice system, justice at its very best. The murderer is absolutely the worst kind of criminal there is. He killed 77 people and he did so because of his Nazi ideology, to which he fully sticks a decade later. He got a fair trial. He got the conviction he deserved. In his desire to encourage violence and division, he failed completely and society did not for a moment fall to his level. And he's not walking free. For some reason conservative US media loved the "he'll be out after 20 years" idea, which is, in plain terms, a lie. Norwegian law mandates a court hearing after 21 years of a sentence to decide whether the sentence has to be extended. There's no question that it will be and the killer in question will most likely die in prison or perhaps be released in the final days of his life. Having a mandatory additional hearing seems like a great safety feature built into the law. Hotel-like facility? I haven't seen many hotels that lock you inside your room and don't allow a minute's unsupervised interaction with another person. We don't think it necessary to design prisons to be intentionally cruel to the inmates, we don't think torturing people accomplishes anything. The killer is provided with enough to meet basic human rights and that is overwhelmingly supported by public opinion. I've never been able to take anyone who says "Scandinavian prisons are like a vacation" seriously because nobody who claims that will admit to wanting to spend time in there.

twelve40 4y ago
Maybe. From what I understand, he's relatively happy about how it all turned out, and that makes me uneasy. He can also fake repentance any time he feels like it, so I'm not sure why you are so convinced about the outcome of some future hearing 10 years from now.
- watwut 4y ago
  Except that it does not work the way you imply. He wont get out merely for saying "I repent". What you are doing amount to a lie - using caricature and exaggeration of theoretical possibility. Making rhetorical make points to make people outraged over shadows is harmful.
  - 4y ago

lucb1e 4y ago

If this were true, then you must be presenting a single-sided story. Even for one murder, people typically get ten years or more (presuming no mitigating circumstances). But the sibling comments already revealed that your claim of freedom in ten years is not true in the first place.

twelve40 4y ago
you are wrong, I did not say anything about sentence of 10 years.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  an assumption based on the only available information: 2033 is about ten years from now. For all I know, their life expectancy was until 2015 and they turn 100 years old in 2033, which could be reasonable. Since that made little sense as a sentence to be unimpressed by, I figured it was more likely a case you recently heard about and 2033-$recent=~10. Maybe give some more info about the case then? Such as why they 'only' (in your eyes) got the sentence they got?
  - twelve40 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik