Guest MattP Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 21 years, works out about 100 days for each victim.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Is that it?! Absolutely disgusting
Tielemans63 Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Is that it?! Absolutely disgusting Yep. He was visibly delighted with that sentence as apparently that was the result he was hoping for. It is a minimum of 21 years though.
Guest MattP Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Yep. He was visibly delighted with that sentence as apparently that was the result he was hoping for. It is a minimum of 21 years though. He was delighted as he said being declared insane was worse than death, sees himself as a political prisoner. Norway is that Liberal he might just get out one day....
davieG Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Yep. He was visibly delighted with that sentence as apparently that was the result he was hoping for. It is a minimum of 21 years though. BBC He was convicted of terrorism and premeditated murder, and given the maximum sentence of 21 years' imprisonmentShe set the minimum length of imprisonment to 10 years..
bmt Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 I think I read somewhere he wouldn't be released whilst he was deemed a threat to society, he definitely won't be released. And if he ever is, he would get killed SO quick.
Tielemans63 Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 BBC Ooops, my mistake. I swear they said a minimum not a maximum on the radio earlier on!
Rincewind Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 If he's thought to be unfit to be released theywill just keep adding to the sentence.
Guest MattP Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Never, ever getting out. You never know what happens in time. If in 21 years he has shown remorse, feels for his victims, has been fully rehabilitated why wouldn't he be released? He has the same human rights as anybody else. Isn't that what we do in a liberal society? We don't pick and choose how we treat different prisoners.
Tielemans63 Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 He was delighted as he said being declared insane was worse than death They've fallen for his reverse psychology then? When did he say that out of interest?
Captain... Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 You never know what happens in time. If in 21 years he has shown remorse, feels for his victims, has been fully rehabilitated why wouldn't he be released? He has the same human rights as anybody else. Isn't that what we do in a liberal society? We don't pick and choose how we treat different prisoners. True, but the fact he was a normal man who conditioned himself to do these things makes me think he will never be able to be free in this society. You can cure people who want to be cured, but he was a normal functioning member of society and he willingly turned himself into a monster so he could carry out these acts.
MooseBreath Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Nice left wing success story I would've thought? Punishment being barbaric and all
Nick Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Nice left wing success story I would've thought? Punishment being barbaric and all Silly troll.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 The bloke next to me in the office, on hearing the news, said 'so he'll be out after two years, like in this country then'
purpleronnie Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Its a strange way of sentencing, I imagine daily mail readers wont understand, its amazing to me that if he was sentenced here he would be given a life sentence but people still compare what they percieve as a liberal sentence in another country to be the same as he would get in england. Maybe he will spend the rest of his life in prison but it would be a certainty that he would if sentenced in england, but people still want to assume he would have been given a light sentence here....he wouldn't. There are much more liberal countries than englansd when it comes to sentencing but people just dont want to hear it. odd.
MooseBreath Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Silly troll. Still following me around the forum nick? Need I really reference one of the numerous threads where our resident left wingers have argued in detail that crimes shouldn't be punished, rather criminals 'rehabilitated'? Well here you are, a man who murdered many innocent children will be 'locked up' in a nice comfortable prison while a fortune will be spent on trying to turn him into a better person. Exactly what you wanted, isn't it?
Rincewind Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 What is your definition of rehabiltation? Just curious. Wondering if it is different to how it is defined in the Oxford dictionary.
Finnegan Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 You never know what happens in time. If in 21 years he has shown remorse, feels for his victims, has been fully rehabilitated why wouldn't he be released? He has the same human rights as anybody else. Isn't that what we do in a liberal society? We don't pick and choose how we treat different prisoners. You can't rehabilitate a psychopath. A professional psychologist will tell you that some people just can't be "fixed."
Captain... Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 You can't rehabilitate a psychopath. A professional psychologist will tell you that some people just can't be "fixed." He is a special case, he wasn't a psychopath, he conditioned himself to be one, well so he says, which implies he could be conditioned to be normal again, but there would be no way of stopping him putting himself through the same conditioning again. It does lead to some interesting questions though, he says he got the idea from military conditioning, can anyone be conditioned to be remorseless killers? Will others try and follow his example? what will happen if this conditioning is broken? He said that if he returned to how he was before he would probably breakdown when the impact of what he has done sinks in, whether that is true or just bull shit, I don't know.
bmt Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 He is a special case, he wasn't a psychopath, he conditioned himself to be one, well so he says, which implies he could be conditioned to be normal again, but there would be no way of stopping him putting himself through the same conditioning again. I doubt they would risk it.
AdamN Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Still following me around the forum nick? Need I really reference one of the numerous threads where our resident left wingers have argued in detail that crimes shouldn't be punished, rather criminals 'rehabilitated'? Well here you are, a man who murdered many innocent children will be 'locked up' in a nice comfortable prison while a fortune will be spent on trying to turn him into a better person. Exactly what you wanted, isn't it? Nobody has ever said that criminals shouldn't be punished. Punishment and rehabilitation aren't mutually exclusive. I'd be fucking mortified if I knew I was going to be spending x amount of years locked away in a small cell, with little contact with the outside world, so yes, a lot of people consider that a pretty hefty punishment - not to mention a pretty fantastic way of keeping dangerous criminals away from the public, at least for the time being. But, what's the point in locking someone away for the duration of their sentence if you're not even going to attempt to rehabilitate them, in an effort to stop them committing crime again? And yeah, sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it does, so how is rehabilitation in any way a bad thing? And if you decide to reply with your usual "LEFT WING LIBERALS" nonsense then spare yourself the time and effort. Being adverse to pouring boiling tar in petty thieves' eyes doesn't make a tree-hugging hippy. edit: Just to clarify, I'm talking about your 'regular' criminals here, not Breivik. That guy's a maniac.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.