Yes……quite.

BBC news link

Only 21 years, could be out in 10.
Weird.
Why doesn’t he get sentenced for 84 counts of murder and have a sentence for each?
Should die in prison as far as I’m concerned.

Should die in prison as far as I’m concerned.

Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK, they believe in rehabilitation rather than retribution.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.
Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

“That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.

“It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK, they believe in rehabilitation rather than retribution.

I don’t.

I don’t.

And that’s why you are not Scandinavia.

I believe in rehab all the way, but there are limits and a whole load of variables to consider. No way should that man be allowed to set foot outside of a jail for even one second.

And that’s why you are not Scandinavia.

And that’s why I used the words “as far as I’m concerned” 🙄

See that thing in his hands. That’s not for killing pheasants, is it? Or shooting clay pigeons. It seems to have a small sword fastened to it. Does walking into a shop and buying that not set some kind of alarm ringing?

lidl base layer compression top thingy 😯

they sell Skins in Lidl??

Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK

But, but, I thought Scandinavia was the evil place that was a puppet of US imperialism and was allowing their courts to be used to persecute Julian Assange for wikileaking…

something very similar at least

Could be out in 10????

But Breivik was deemed sane by the judges and sentenced to “preventive detention.” Unlike a regular prison sentence – which can be no longer than 21 years in Norway – that confinement option can be extended for as long as an inmate is considered dangerous to society

Or maybe never.

Just read some Norwegian articles and a few Danish ones about this.
The max time they can give him is 21 years, but they can extend this with 5years again and again.
So certain ammount of years before he is to get out, they can try and get it extended which i assume that they will do, as i dont think anyone,not even in liberal Scandinavia, will like seing him getting out that “quickly”

This is utter arse.

I well remember the yorkshire rippers trial where they spent the first month debating whether he was sane or not….this, the guy who hammered bits of wood into womens bodily orifices and beat them to death with a hammer. They decided he was indeed sane. After a very short time in chokey the Prison system went …. “ahem ..hes a nutter and we can’t cope with him” and off he went to Broadmoor where hes been ever since.

Of course they are both loons, their actions are self evidently not those of a normal sane person are they? Or are they trying to say shooting and bombing 77 people who are at best very remotely linked to any issue he might have is in fact the action of a normal well adjusted human being. In which case if they are, why put him on trial for it?

Of course they are both loons, their actions are slef evidently not those of a normal sane person are they?

No “sane” person would ever kill anyone. That action is by definition outside any cultural norm of acceptable behaviour or rational thought.

Hence that Catch 22 quote above…

No “sane” person would ever kill anyone

ah well now, thats a big debate all on its own. Personally I don’t agree with that. I watched my old chap die a very slow and undignified death in a geriatric ward. If I could I would have spared him that, and I don’t think that is an insane outlook.

I would imagine, as PP says, it’s more likely to be never, than 10 years. I’d go as far to say he will die in Prison.

No “sane” person would ever kill anyone

Nonsense, if someone was going to kill me, I’d kill them. it would be insane to let them kill you without trying to kill them…

….and there you go back into the perenial 3 R’s argument about crime and punishment. i.e. is it about Revenge, Rehabilitation or Removal?

In this case I would suggest probably the first and third are the only genuine considerations in the outcome.

Fine with me. 21 is the max allowed by law, and they have applied that. Justice is not about revenge or retribution, or somehow “evening up” all the wrongs.

If they decide in 21 years that he’s still dangerous, they’ll keep him.

And the insanity argument is a load of BS. There’s no “switch” up in your brain which can be set to “sane” or “insane”. We’re all on that spectrum somewhere.

But, but, I thought Scandinavia was the evil place that was a puppet of US imperialism and was allowing their courts to be used to persecute Julian Assange for wikileaking…

Wow, there’s that clever opposing point of view again. Always impressive.

You do realise that Norway and Sweden are two different countries. Of course you do, despite your shortcomings, but don’t let that stop you trying to troll the thread.

If I could I would have spared him that, and I don’t think that is an insane outlook.

if someone was going to kill me, I’d kill them.

🙄 Okay perhaps it was too general a statement, aside from self-defence, euthanasia and other unusual exceptions, the act of murdering someone can be regarded as far enough outside the cultural and behavioural norm that it is “insane”.

I’d say that someone spending months/years devising a detailed plan to murder lots of people and get his “message” heard is probably more responsible for his actions than someone who lashed out in a furious red-mist.

It’s an interesting area.

If insane – unwell – requires treatment.
If sane – wrong – requires punishment.
They decided on punishment, and the maximum available.
They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts.

They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts

You’re missing the Catch 22 point aren’t you?

If they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

Berm Bandit – Member
They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts
You’re missing the Catch 22 point aren’t you?
If they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

POSTED 6 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Are you on drugs?

f they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

Are you on drugs?

Put it to the STW judge ‘n’ jury. They’ll know for a fact.

The definition of sane.

adjective, san•er, san•est.
1.
free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2.
having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3.
sound; healthy.

Therefore by definition, if he is sane his actions are sound, good sense and/or reasonable.

Surely that’s not too difficult to grasp?

Incidentally, I would point out I am not suggesting that I think they are, I am however suggesting that it is self evident that he is insane

They have determined that he is not a paranoid schizophrenic. As in he was able to reason that his actions were correct. Hence he is sane.

Fair enough bb. Apologies for the rude response.
I’m not suggesting either.

See that thing in his hands. That’s not for killing pheasants, is it? Or shooting clay pigeons. It seems to have a small sword fastened to it. Does walking into a shop and buying that not set some kind of alarm ringing?

You know the thing in his hands doesn’t exist, right? It’s a computer animation, isn’t it?

maybe someone from Norway should have a say here

Almost everyone here is happy with the judgement. Please do not confuse the word sane with reasonable or good sense. It means, in this case, that he is responsible for his actions and therefore can be punished by imprisonment. 21yrs is the maximum allowed. But he will never be allowed out because he will always be classed as a danger to society so his term will be extended again and again. The other option was to class him insane and therefore he was not responsible for his actions.

He was clearly very aware of his actions and very responsible for them and therefore he has to be classed as sane in this sense.

Yes, but what to the USADA have to say on the matter?

No “sane” person would ever kill anyone. That action is by definition outside any cultural norm of acceptable behaviour or rational thought.

Is that really true though?

If someone offered me a million pounds to kill you and assured me I could never get caught, would it necessarily be true that I’d have to be insane to say yes and kill you? What if I were just a selfish douchebag? Is acting outside cultural norms by definition insanity?

What about soldiers that kill other soldiers in war? What about executioners that kill the condemned? What about doctors that kill the terminally ill?

Fair enough bb. Apologies for the rude response

No need I wasn’t offended, but thank you anyway.

Regarding the sane/insane argument, it matters not where the argument is made. You cannot possibly argue that his actions were those of a sane individual, because to do so makes the act sane. He is clearly a couple of stops short of a well known East London destination, however the desire for revenge does not allow for the insane judgement to be given as that would be seen as letting him off lightly. Same was true with Sutcliffe.

Incidentally, the law in Norway does allow for indefinite detention in a mental institution in much the same way as the actual sentence given allows for indefinite detention so in fact there is no real difference in outcome other than denying the obvious, and actually admitting that he might not be the epitomy of evil in the way that gives a nice clean outcome. Goodies only wear white hats and baddies black in the movies. Reality is far more complex.

So you’re saying you have to be a paranoid schizophrenic to kill people?

Or in fact to commit any transgression against the normal bounds of society you have to be a paranoid schizophrenic?

No “sane” person would ever kill anyone

I’m not a Norwegian criminal lawyer but

You cannot possibly argue that his actions were those of a sane individual, because to do so makes the act sane.

Does it?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1102017/-Texas-Dad-Cleared-in-Molester-s-Death