I don't get to browse FG as much as I used to for lack of free time. So being my first post in this thread, firstly, I want to say I am deeply saddened for the people of Norway. When I first heard about the bombing, saw the pictures of the carnage (before the shootings were reported), I felt like you had your own OKC bombing. And that is a sad thing, to join the list of countries that not only have to worry about foreign terrorism but also nutcases within their own borders.
It's been said by several people, but in my mind, it's still nice to read statements of support. Thank you.
When they caught the guy who did all this, I also thought of nomix in particular, because of our past debates on how he feels the US justice system is messed up in allowing execution (or rather, leaving it up to the States). Hearing about the limited punishment he faces, and knowing the cold, methodical way in which he perpetrated his slaughter, its hard for me to even fathom how the punishment fits the crime. Or even how the Norwegian justice system works, in reading the most recent posts in this thread.
I know the US system has its faults, but I have to wonder where the line is for something like this. How many people do you have to kill in a single event to get more than 21 years? With a cap like that, doesn't that devalue each life taken by a crazed lunatic even further? If he had somehow killed say, 2977 people, would it still be 21 years?
I am also curious how you can receive a 21 year sentence, but then just be held indefinitely if you are deemed a threat to society. It sounds like the justifications we use here for keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Why is life in prison not considered an option when it clearly is?
Firstly, I have to say I'm still oposed to the death penalty, even in this case. With regards to Norwegians, recent polls show that there's still about 78 % oposition to the death penatly, even after a tragedy like this.
Secondly, this issue of 21 years in prison have been repeated a lot. It's not precise. What will most likely happen is that he will be sentenced to 15 or 21 years detention (different legal term in Norway), and this form of penalty is generally speaking designed for a criminal that's deemed an extreme threat to society. When the first 15 or 21 years are served, a court will decide wether or not there is danger of repeat offences. In essense, it means a court will decide wether or not he shall be kept in detention for another 15 or 21 years. After those 15 or 21 years, there will be another hearing. It's related to the idea of rehabilitation, as we generally speaking think of prisons as institutions of rehabilitation.
However, I don't think there's any danger mr. Breivik will be let out in his lifetime. He will die in jail. I don't think it devalues the lives of the dead, I think it honors the lives of the dead that we're still the same society.
With regards to the question of wether or not this can be likened with the way in which the United States have used detention without trial in Guantanamo, I feel the comparison is somewhat inaccurate. Firstly, it's not detention without trial. The extensions will be tried by a court. Secondly, there is a trial to begin with. Thirdly, he will not be stripped of his civil rights and his human rights. He will not be tortured or be tricked to believe he's going to get shot. He won't sit in a cage like an animal either.
So no, I don't think the comparison is accurate.
Do you Norwegian FG'ers think that additional security checks will be implemented from this? For instance I read he had acquired 6 tons of fertilizer - you do that here and the FBI will be knocking at your door. Curious why that didn't raise any suspicions, or if that is something your police had not previously worried about.
Well, then they'd have to knock on many farm doors. So I don't think there will be much more security checks, other than a general feeling that someone suspicious buying large amounts of fertilizer might get checked out. Too many farmers to limit the sale and purchase of fertilizer, though.
Lastly I wonder about why there are such differences in audio/visual recordings of high profile cases between our countries, and why you cannot even photograph a subject in transit. I am just genuinely interested in the background to that, if anyone knows.
Different cultures. I suppose there's a belief that the broadcasting of trials may lead to a less dignified process. With regards to photographing a suspect in transit, it's probably a safeguard for stopping the courts from pre-judging a suspect outside the courts. As a means, it's highly ineffective, as that's the only time you need premission to photograph anyone in Norway.
