What's your opinion? Does the Norwegian system of justice seem a bit too mild? I don't know.The confessed murderer was today declared sane by a Norwegian court and sentenced to 21 years in prison, with a 10-year minimum, for the worst atrocities ever witnessed in the nation’s peacetime history.As the sentence was passed a wry smile appeared to cross the face of Breivik, 33, who had fought to be recognised as “criminally liable” for the attacks last summer — describing them as “cultural self-defence” to halt the “Islamisation” of Norway.
Eligible in ten years doesn't mean much, even Charles Manson eventually became eligible. That doesn't mean he gets out.
If Brevik does the entire 21 years, upon release he'd certainly be under the strictest surveillance, what's the danger?
Overall, I think their system is good. They have a smaller percentage of their population behind bars, compared to the US, and their recidivism rate is much lower.
Our way doesn't work. That's for sure.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
So you think that ten years would be sufficient revenge? He should be given a thousand paper cuts, tied to a surf board, and inserted into shark-infested waters. If it wasn't seen as violating the religious rights of someone, I'd have verses from the Qur'an played over a loudspeaker while he was being eaten.
ReplyDeleteWhat does revenge have to do with anything. Are you in high school where payback is mother fucker?
DeleteThe death penalty is primarily about revenge. We do it as a society to remove the need for feuds. This pathetic loser committed an outrage, and ten years in a cushy resort, I mean, European-style prison is far from enough.
DeleteFor me it's not about revenge, it's about paying a suitable price and a reflective punishment for the crime you've committed--and to me, 10-20 years in a Scandinavian "prison" is hardly comparable to a lifetime of sorrow and endless torture he's put 77 families through. I actually think Greg's punishment lets him off too easily.
Delete"If Brevik does the entire 21 years, upon release he'd certainly be under the strictest surveillance, what's the danger?
ReplyDeleteYou are truly stupid.
What do you mean "our way"? You mean your way doesn't work. Our way is the death penalty. That way the threat of further violence is eliminated. Under strict surveillance means that someone expects him to strike again and that alone is a risk, a risk for more to be killed. Recidivism is another cause of repeat offenders, which he is more than likely to be. Do you really want to risk that?
ReplyDeleteAgain, death by firing squad. Any other way is more political correctness bull that has to go.