Norweigian Claims He Killed 77 in "Self-Defense".

[Formless]

Bullshit. You could use the same argument against letting people off on parole. Its fundamentally the same concept, just applied in reverse-- instead of saying "you have been deemed too dangerous to release at this time" as in Norway's law its "you've been deemed acceptable to release early." I don't see how "uncertainty" is a valid argument against the justice of Norway's system. Its only uncertain in the sense that the person's future state is unknown at the time of sentencing. Do you require the judge be a freakin' oracle, or are future circumstances of a prisoner irrelevant to your idea of justice?

[Alkaloid]

No, its wrong because its uncertain and unequal. Norway is in the minority on this, not the US.

And by all reasonable standards, Noway has a justice system that works better than the US. Why being in the minority would matter I don't know, I didn't think laws were passed by international vote.

[Zaune]

This is all academic right now anyway. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the maximum sentence available to the court that's trying Breivik, what is in place now is what he's going to serve. Shaking up the entire legal system in order to keep Breivik in jail until the day he dies will just make a martyr of him, and hold up the trial for months or years into the bargain.

[Sea Skimmer]

Bullshit. You could use the same argument against letting people off on parole.

No, because that would assume the two are the same, which they are not. Parole means you are being given a chance yes, but your remaining sentence still exists and can be reimposed. That's different then end of sentence. When on parole you can and will go back to jail just for being arrested for anything at all until the remainder of your sentence has run its course. This means you must maintain a high standard of behavior. However nothing can extend your actual sentence without a new trial and conviction.

Its fundamentally the same concept, just applied in reverse-- instead of saying "you have been deemed too dangerous to release at this time" as in Norway's law its "you've been deemed acceptable to release early." I don't see how "uncertainty" is a valid argument against the justice of Norway's system. Its only uncertain in the sense that the person's future state is unknown at the time of sentencing. Do you require the judge be a freakin' oracle, or are future circumstances of a prisoner irrelevant to your idea of justice?

Any indeterminate sentence is against my concept of justice because I believe it is dishonest, and a denial of judgement. All the more so when everyone is acting like he has no chance of release which seems simply wrong at worst, and just pointless at best, why not just have life sentences then. Parole and extending a sentence are not the same thing. You don't agree, fine.

This is all academic right now anyway. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the maximum sentence available to the court that's trying Breivik, what is in place now is what he's going to serve. Shaking up the entire legal system in order to keep Breivik in jail until the day he dies will just make a martyr of him, and hold up the trial for months or years into the bargain.

Anyone who is going to believe such a man is a martyr is a lost cause anyway. But I would not say the law should be retroactively changed for him, but it should be changed promptly for future cases. All the more so if you think he has enough followers waiting for a martyr to be a serious threat.

[Formless]

I am not assuming anything, SKIMmer, you are just ignored my analogy to suit your bias. Equal in concept =! equal in implementation. That was the point. In the sense that the nature of your sentence is uncertain due to an uncertain future status of the person sentenced, parole is identical in concept to Norway's system. Its reversed, so obviously its a different implementation of the concept.

You have the possibility of living out your sentence outside of prison, with all the perks that implies. You have a possibility of being kept in prison with all the shit that implies. The former has limitations built into its implementation, but in essence it is still a privilege not every prisoner is eligible for, and which a prisoner's eligibility for at the time of sentencing is unknown. Hence, your idea of justice (one judgement made, no re-evaluating that judgement later because that would undermine the initial judgement I guess ) should not admit the possibility of parole while condemning Norway's system where life imprisonment is determinate on threat assessments updated every five years starting at the end of the original sentence. Unless of course, you either don't accept parole as being just, or you just accept the U.S.A. Conventional Way as the Right Way on principle.

And before you repeat yourself, I don't particularly care if people are already coming to conclusions about whether Breivik will ever get out of prison. They could be right, they could be wrong. Doesn't matter. It is irrelevant to your objections, which are based in whole on the justice or injustice of Norwegian sentencing law, not Breivik's particular case.

[Eulogy]

Not to go off on a tangent, but it is in Brelvik's best interests to remain locked up and away from the public. He's too famous. That said, I think he realizes this too, hence the thread title.

[Zaune]

Anyone who is going to believe such a man is a martyr is a lost cause anyway. But I would not say the law should be retroactively changed for him, but it should be changed promptly for future cases. All the more so if you think he has enough followers waiting for a martyr to be a serious threat.

Well, the biggest difference between Breivik's views and the editorial position of mainstream British newspapers is that he actually put his money where his mouth was. Five Chinese Crackers and Tabloid Watch chronicle this trend in detail; this is a particularly extreme example.

So yes, I do think he has enough followers to be a serious threat. Even if most of them are currently in denial about being his followers.

But I still think that rewriting the law on Breivik's account would be handing him a victory of sorts, or at least giving his core supporters something to spin as "[demographic that isn't white, straight and right-wing] gets special treatment RARRRRGH!!!!". Quite frankly, I don't want to see the Norwegian government give the twisted little shit and his equally vile fellow-travellers the satisfaction.

[The Infidel]

Quisling selling out the entire country and helping register and round up its Jews for deportation kind of was this bad, and much worse. He was executed for murder and treason.

Yes, he did. That's worse, but he was considered a war criminal and was excecuted by a firing squad, hence why I wrote "in peace time".

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anyone who is going to believe such a man is a martyr is a lost cause anyway. But I would not say the law should be retroactively changed for him, but it should be changed promptly for future cases. All the more so if you think he has enough followers waiting for a martyr to be a serious threat.

Don't the Scandinavian countries have a very real social issue about immigration and national identity? I am not saying that everyone is cheering for Breivik, mind you. While the outcomes of his beliefs are not agreeable, it is my impression that many of his beliefs are fairly widespread in a certain subset of the population. Just like Timothy McVeigh for us Yanks: not everyone is psychopathic enough to bomb federal buildings, but at the same time the fears he had about the nature of the federal government and its relationship to American citizens are held by many.