3 ms·

The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison. That's wrong - they can do tha

The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison. That's wrong - they can do that without Lex Breivik. The issue is when he's declared healthy, what would then happen? It's legal to detain him if it can be proved that he constitutes a danger to society. However, if he is not considered a danger to the society, he will be able to walk freely. With Lex Breivik, they will be allowed to detain him as long the society is a danger to the person. Think about that for a moment. With Lex Breivik, you can be isolated even if you've not done anything illegal (or have finished serving your imprisonment) or is considered healthy, because some people in the society want to do you harm.

j-g-faustus 14y ago
That's not what I'm reading. (I assume that you too read Norwegian, so we're not discussing artifacts of Google Translate?) From an article on the opposition to the law[1] (my translation): The Department of Health hasn't tried to hide that the goal is a stricter set of laws which can be used if Breivik is sentenced to compulsory mental health care. The department has long wanted a change of laws to improve the security in institutions that hold highly dangerous patients. This work was sped up after July 22. See also [2], which says approximately the same thing. The criticisms I've seen seem to center on that the new law makes it too simple to declare someone "dangerously insane". Do you have a link supporting your interpretation? [1] http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbor-1.8126075 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbo... [2] http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter-opposisjonen-6847648.html http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter...
- JeanPierre 14y ago
  I think we're disagreeing on definitions and words, not what's going to change. We already have "high security" psychiatric wards, but they want to increase the security and have specific people placed in those "especially high security" wards. People can be placed there if there is a risk of "attacks against the patient themselves", which is as far I know not (directly) caused by mental disorder in the patient. Take a look at http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2012/prop-108-l-20112012/10.html?id=681628 http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2... - esp. § 4A-8, which states the new changes in the law.

j-g-faustus 14y ago

That's not what I'm reading. (I assume that you too read Norwegian, so we're not discussing artifacts of Google Translate?) From an article on the opposition to the law[1] (my translation): The Department of Health hasn't tried to hide that the goal is a stricter set of laws which can be used if Breivik is sentenced to compulsory mental health care. The department has long wanted a change of laws to improve the security in institutions that hold highly dangerous patients. This work was sped up after July 22. See also [2], which says approximately the same thing. The criticisms I've seen seem to center on that the new law makes it too simple to declare someone "dangerously insane". Do you have a link supporting your interpretation? [1] http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbor-1.8126075 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbo... [2] http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter-opposisjonen-6847648.html http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter...

JeanPierre 14y ago
I think we're disagreeing on definitions and words, not what's going to change. We already have "high security" psychiatric wards, but they want to increase the security and have specific people placed in those "especially high security" wards. People can be placed there if there is a risk of "attacks against the patient themselves", which is as far I know not (directly) caused by mental disorder in the patient. Take a look at http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2012/prop-108-l-20112012/10.html?id=681628 http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2... - esp. § 4A-8, which states the new changes in the law.