Breaking news: Blast hit Norwegian government building in Oslo

[ahpadt]

Bang the guy in jail. When his term is up, hold a hearing, send him back to jail. System was designed so we didn't have to put anyone who commits murder in jail for life (as with the United Kingdom after the end of the death penalty), but may still do so in the cases where it's needed.

But people won't get that because it's written in law speak.

 

[nomix]

Then, partly, I need to get grumpy with the news media for not putting it that plainly.

Heck, this is what TV commentators should LIVE for. Commentary within news is great to help those viewers who don't understand the subject matter as presented by the people who tell the story in the news segment.

So you interview some guy about engines, he tells you a long story about how engines work. Analyse it like this: Petrol goes into engine, say boom, car moves forward.

Sure, it's simplifying the issue (like I did above), but they are dumbing down anyway, and dumbing down on issues that don't need it (law is complex enough no matter if you're an engineer or a simple mechanic, it's not a class issue, it's about expertise), so this is one GREAT case for TV commentary. Let Andrew Marr take a crash course in Norwegian law, then make him sum it up. No one would misunderstand it then.

Edit: Daily Mail is (supposedly) reporting that Breivik will be be incarcerated in 'Hotel conditions'. I've stayed in a London Hotel, I doubt prison can be THAT bad.

 

[narf]

But people won't get that because it's written in law speak.

All the news outlets here have summed it up as "21 years of jail, then reviews that will lead to extended arrest for dangerous ex-cons".

For example, one of the most popular and serious news outlets writes this:

Eine l?ngere Haftstrafe als 21 Jahre ist im norwegischen Recht nicht m?glich. Die Strafe "lebensl?nglich" gibt es nicht. Daher ist der Schuldspruch gegen Anders Breivik die H?chststrafe. Zus?tzlich zur Haft verh?ngten die Richter aber eine Sicherungsverwahrung. Diese erlaubt es den Beh?rden, Breivik so lange hinter Gittern zu halten, wie er als Gefahr f?r die Gesellschaft eingesch?tzt wird. Sie kann alle f?nf Jahre verl?ngert werden. Mit dem Urteilsspruch k?nnte Breivik also bis zum Tod hinter Gittern bleiben.

A longer sentence than 21 years is not possible in Norwegian law. The punishment "for life" does not exist. Therefore, the conviction of Anders Breivik is the maximum penalty. In addition to imprisonment, the judge imposed a preventive detention. This allows the authorities to keep Breivik as long behind bars as he is considered a danger to society. They may be renewed every five years. With the verdict Breivik could remain behind bars until death.

I don't think anyone misunderstood that.

Edit: Daily Mail is (supposedly) reporting that Breivik will be be incarcerated in 'Hotel conditions'. I've stayed in a London Hotel, I doubt prison can be THAT bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19354906

 

[nomix]

All the news outlets here have summed it up as "21 years of jail, then reviews that will lead to extended arrest for dangerous ex-cons".

For example, one of the most popular and serious news outlets writes this:

I don't think anyone misunderstood that.

How many people lives in Germany? 80 mill? There is at least four million people in Germany that either misunderstands it because they can't understand it, or just misunderstands for the heck of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19354906

I know. I do tend to think it's easier to avoid psychosis rather than treat the psychosis once it comes knocking.

 

[marcos_eirik]

As a law student of the University of Oslo I think some things needs to be clarified here...

Basically the ground values of the Norwegian justice system is to get people back into society after they have served their sentence. We have two different types of prison sentences here i Norway, one is definite, as in you get so and so many years or months in prison, and you have to participate in activities designed to get you back into the society when your time is served. The other one is indefinite, meaning that you can be held in for as long as it is deemed necessary. This form of punishment is called "forvaring" in Norwegian, translates to preventive detention in English. The whole idea behind this is to protect the society from dangerous people in cases where the defendant is likely to commit a serious crime again. You'll find this in the Norwegian Criminal Law (Strl.) ? 39c

What Breivik got was essentially a 21-year detention sentence with a minimum time of 10 years which is the strictest they can give, see Strl. ? 39e. Meaning that he can do nothing for the next 10 years, only then he can apply for a parole, but he is very unlikely to get it. There are prisoners at Ila Landsfengsel who have been locked up for 25 years without parole for less serious crimes than this... After 20 years he is supposed to be released (-1 because he has already served one year, in custody since July 22 2011), but three months before the release the Prosecutor can go on trial in the district court and demand five more years at a time, until the day he dies if it's deemed necessary.

So, no need to change any laws here... Also any change is laws would not make any difference as retro active laws are unconstitutional as per Article 96 and 97 in the Norwegian Constitution. This is an important part of the principle of "Rule of Law" on which the Norwegian justice system is firmly built.

 

[nomix]

Also known as ex post facto, I believe.

 

[narf]

How many people lives in Germany? 80 mill? There is at least four million people in Germany that either misunderstands it because they can't understand it, or just misunderstands for the heck of it.

You can pick up your honorary Personalausweis Monday 8am sharp.

 

[jack_christie]

So, no need to change any laws here... Also any change is laws would not make any difference as retro active laws are unconstitutional as per Article 96 and 97 in the Norwegian Constitution. This is an important part of the principle of "Rule of Law" on which the Norwegian justice system is firmly built.

There is need for new law because the victims' families should not have to worry about him getting out, ever.

In twenty years time the victims' families shouldn't have to tortured by judicial proceedings on whether he should get out or not.

Norwegian laws need to be amended to keep him locked up forever, with a lot less privileges than he has.

 

[nomix]

Ex post facto. Jack, do you know that principle? Our constitution states that no law should have retroactive effect. So we can't do it anyway. And the victims know this is how the Norwegian system is designed. And that it will keep him in there. THere's no jepordy here, it's not "sure thing, we'll do our very best", this is how it is.

 

[haz]

Well put. Lets move on.