Norway sentences mass murderer to 99.5 days in prison per victim — maximum

posted at 9:21 am on August 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In 2011, Anders Brevik set off a bomb outside a government building in Norway and then slaughtered dozens of unarmed people on a retreat, methodically picking them off as they tried to escape from an island.  Seventy-seven people died in Brevik’s murder spree, and the unrepentant killer gave an unemotional description of his actions in court. The court in Norway reacted by handing down a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison — just under 100 days per murder victim:

A Norwegian court ruled Friday that confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik was sane, deciding he was criminally responsible for the massacre of 77 people last summer.

Reading the ruling, Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen said that “in a unanimous decision … the court sentences the defendant to 21 years of preventive detention.”

In case you’ve forgotten the circumstances of the case, NBC reminds us in this earlier preview of the decision:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Actually, the sentence is for a 21-year maximum.  The minimum is 10 years, or 47.4 days per victim.  In Norway, courts can keep prisoners past their maximum release date if a judge finds that they remain a danger to the community.  The prosecutors, who wanted Brevik committed for life as insane, loaded up the court record with tales of Brevik’s horrors, apparently anticipating that they would need the testimony later to keep Brevik behind bars.

And how sad is that?

I’d bet that in 21 years, Brevik will be found safe enough to release, if not earlier.  If the court wanted to keep him behind bars for life, they surely could have done so today.  A sizable contingent will argue that keeping Brevik any longer would be cruel and wasteful … and that’s not just a European impulse, either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

bless your heart

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM

lol

Axe on August 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Really you are not prepared to discuss biblical matters I am honestly trying to be kind and suggest you refrain from that area to support your arguments.

Skwor on August 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

No, you are not, you are being arrogant and condescending, but bless your heart for trying.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Notice yet again you did not address my post, only responded with snark. I am being neither and quoted the bible specifically where it refuted your post. It would be nice if you started responding similarly.

I do honestly believe form your posts you have not seriously studied the bible and suggest you might want to avoid using what your understanding of the bible say as arguments in your reasoning. I am not saying to not quote it, just that your reasoning on the quotes and text hasn’t shown many insights.

Skwor on August 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Please define “mass murderer” for me. /boggle

Skwor on August 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM

When the term is used to describe people who’ve killed…you know…hundreds of thousands or even millions, calling a single guy who just shoots a few people (in comparison) a “mass murderer” is kinda giving them the attention they seek, dontcha think?

Dunedainn on August 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Even if Mr Brevik should happen to live a further 63 years, and spend all of those years in prison he still would serve only about 10 months per victim.

He cannot be executed more than once, so an execution would still rate each victim’s life as 1/77th of the murderers.

How many people here have complained when somebody who murders, say, three people, gets the same twenty years as somebody who murdered only one?

The reality is that no system of justice does, or even could, work in the simplistic way some people seem to think it should work.

YiZhangZhe on August 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Dunedainn on August 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Not to mention, you know, cheapening the term…

Dunedainn on August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Let us know when Norway starts prosecuting muslims for crimes against non-muslims. Or for “honor-killings” against their own, for that matter.

Easy-peasey.

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Well, there is the honor killing of Anooshe Sediq Ghulam where the perp, who had complained at the trial that he had been a refugee in Iran and Russia, but only in Norway did the social services meddle with his private life, was locked up for 18 years. Then there’s this guy, who got five years for threatening the life of a Norwegian politician. (I don’t know what the politician’s religion is, but with a name like Erna Solberg, I assume she ain’t muslim.)

I’m sure there was a point you were trying to make, though…

Time Lord on August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

When the term is used to describe people who’ve killed…you know…hundreds of thousands or even millions, calling a single guy who just shoots a few people (in comparison) a “mass murderer” is kinda giving them the attention they seek, dontcha think?

Dunedainn on August 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

While mass murderer definatly fits your definition so also does a genocidal (in fact it fits better)

However I would argue the murder of 77 fits the definition of mass, ergo mass murder.

Skwor on August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

lol

Axe on August 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Hey… I’m just an ignorant uneducated redneck from Southern (part of the Confederacy) California who couldn’t possibly have ever studied the Bible or know anything.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM

When the term is used to describe people who’ve killed…you know…hundreds of thousands or even millions, calling a single guy who just shoots a few people (in comparison) a “mass murderer” is kinda giving them the attention they seek, dontcha think?

Dunedainn on August 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

In the exact reasoning you are using against “mass” I would argue you are cheapening his crime by saying he murdered only a “few” people. 77 is much more than say 3 or 4 which is typically attributed with the term “few”

Skwor on August 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Nathor, I’ve only interacted with you a couple of times at HotAir, but it’s abundantly clear that you’re either an idiot, or a moral coward incapable of taking a stand on or for anything.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 12:19 PM

if you read my comments in this thread, my stand is, their system works for them, but it would not work for us. and its no fair to say that life is cheap in norway, because they abhor murder as much as we(abortion issue apart).

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Maybe you should, you know, try reading the Bible. When Jesus forgave someone, that was it, done, over. No retribution, no consequences, period, done finished. Remember the story of the woman brought before him caught in the act of adultery? The Pharisees were going to stone here? Let you who is without sin cast the first stone ring any bells? Go and sin no more ring any?

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

You-Eh-Vee on August 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM

http://sequart.org/images/picard-facepalm.jpg

You-Eh-Vee on August 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Norway laws and courts and politicians to victims….

meh.

PappyD61 on August 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Norway laws,courts and politicians

Idiots.

PappyD61 on August 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Yep, off to prison. Sounds pretty grim, doesn’t it?

Doesn’t it?

Dr. Mercury on August 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Killing a million innocent babies a year gets you 0 days in confinement in the USA.

hillsoftx on August 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM

good point…………….and covering yourself in the blood of the unborn in the Illinois Senate gets you millions in campaign cash from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the others in the Baby Murder Industry.

it’s all good in America.

PappyD61 on August 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM

We have a winner! There’s lots of over emotional revenge seeking here, but no reasoning. There has never been any evidence to suggest that the more punitive a justice system, the more effective it is at anything whatsoever. Capital punishment? Same deal.

ernesto on August 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

And we all bow to the wisdom of Ernesto, who has declared the winner.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM

good point…………….and covering yourself in the blood of the unborn in the Illinois Senate gets you millions in campaign cash from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the others in the Baby Murder Industry.

it’s all good in America.

PappyD61 on August 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I know fetuses do bleed, but fertilized eggs bleed?

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I know fetuses do bleed, but fertilized eggs bleed?

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Your lack of logical thinking is astonishing. Of course you’re right, there’s no blood in those “fetuses” until after they’re born…

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

ernesto on August 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I think it’s safe to assume if they kill him, he won’t be able to do it again.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I’m sure there was a point you were trying to make, though…

Time Lord on August 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Interesting: Threatening a politician draws five years. Killing a child gets you 99.5 days.

However, you haven’t shown that the Norwegians have started fighting crime in their muslim-populated “no-go zones”. Or that their are consequences when a muslim immigrant rapes a non-muslim woman — because, “the sight of her uncovered hair drove him to a frenzy of sexual madness”.

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Your lack of logical thinking is astonishing. Of course you’re right, there’s no blood in those “fetuses” until after they’re born…

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

you know I was making fun of the “covered in blood” rhetoric of the previous post.
that kind of rethoric just ticks me off. you cannot keep calling millions people in this country murderors and don’t expect any reaction.
I am sure you prolifers are covered in the blood of the civility of the political discourse of this country.

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I think it’s safe to assume if they kill him, he won’t be able to do it again.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Without a doubt, but could they execute him while upholding their own principals on the concepts of justice. The Norwegians abolished capital punishment in 1902 and haven’t executed anyone since 1876.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

There has never been any evidence to suggest that the more punitive a justice system, the more effective it is at anything whatsoever. Capital punishment? Same deal.

ernesto on August 24, 2012 at 12:12

The death penalty works every time it is applied.
The purpose of the death penalty is not to serve as a societal deterrent. It is to deter one person: the murderer. And it does a fine job of that. If the death penalty serves to deter others from murder, that is all well and good – but that is just a nice side effect.
Guaranteed that the murderer to whom the death penalty is applied is permanently deterred from murdering again. Rehabilitated, even.

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Killing a child gets you 99.5 days.

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM

This is complete and utter bullshit. The false assumption that Anders Brevik was sentenced to 99.5 days per victim is absurdly dishonest. He was sentenced according to Norwegian legal statutes. It was Ed and others here that fallaciously asserted the number of victims divided by the time sentenced meant that he was only sentenced 99.5 days per victim.

Anders Brevik was sentenced according to Norwegian law, the length of his sentence had nothing to do with the age of the victims or the number of victims divided by the time of the sentence.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The death penalty works every time it is applied.
The purpose of the death penalty is not to serve as a societal deterrent. It is to deter one person: the murderer. And it does a fine job of that. If the death penalty serves to deter others from murder, that is all well and good – but that is just a nice side effect.
Guaranteed that the murderer to whom the death penalty is applied is permanently deterred from murdering again. Rehabilitated, even.

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

That is your opinion, and I do not necessarily disagree with you, however, Norway clearly does and has disagreed for well over 100 years. You do understand that Norway abolished capital punishment in 1902 and hasn’t executed anyone since 1876, right?

I am 90 percent opposed to capital punishment, Anders Brevik is of a class of criminal for whom I would make an exception and fully support capital punishment.

The important and salient point here however is not what I or you would do, but what the Norwegian’s did choose to do. And what they did choose to do was entirely 100 percent consistent with the moral and ethical values that Norway has embraced for over 100 years.

It is insulting to the Norwegians to suggest that their justice system has failed, when they clearly have a lower crime rate and a lower recidivism rate than we do and they maintain that lower crime rate and lower recidivism rate under the exact same justice system that sentenced Anders Brevik.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM

you know I was making fun of the “covered in blood” rhetoric of the previous post. that kind of rethoric just ticks me off. you cannot keep calling millions people in this country murderors and don’t expect any reaction.
I am sure you prolifers are covered in the blood of the civility of the political discourse of this country.

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You and I have tangled over abortion before, and you’ve yet to provide an affirmative defense. You always default to “I think abortion is horrible, but I can’t force someone to give birth.”

Thing is, it’s not pro-life rhetoric. It’s an argument, something you can’t provide to defend your side.

So yeah, I expect a reaction when I call you and people like you murderers and cowards. It’s the only thing you’ve got left to deal with your guilty conscience.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM

This is complete and utter bullshit. The false assumption that Anders Brevik was sentenced to 99.5 days per victim is absurdly dishonest. He was sentenced according to Norwegian legal statutes. It was Ed and others here that fallaciously asserted the number of victims divided by the time sentenced meant that he was only sentenced 99.5 days per victim.

Anders Brevik was sentenced according to Norwegian law, the length of his sentence had nothing to do with the age of the victims or the number of victims divided by the time of the sentence.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Dear Swalker,

The complete and utter stink is all on your side. Nobody said that Norwegian law assigns a punishment of 99.5 days per victim We have said however, that a reasonable argument can be made that the effect of that law is that each life is valued at 99.5 days, a ludicrous mockery of justice.

But you (and the coterie of leftist cowards defending Norway on this thread) can continue to hide behind your “it’s the law” excuses, as if the law somehow confers morality on the object of its action.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Dear Swalker,

The complete and utter stink is all on your side. Nobody said that Norwegian law assigns a punishment of 99.5 days per victim We have said however, that a reasonable argument can be made that the effect of that law is that each life is valued at 99.5 days, a ludicrous mockery of justice.

But you (and the coterie of leftist cowards defending Norway on this thread) can continue to hide behind your “it’s the law” excuses, as if the law somehow confers morality on the object of its action.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Pull your head out of your ass and stick your moral superiority where your head was just removed from. You want complete and utter stink, complete and utter stink is trying to tell a country with a lower crime rate and a nearly non existent recidivism rate that their idea of justice sucks because it isn’t your idea of justice.

Trying to smear Norway’s justices system as immoral because it doesn’t behead infidels like you would do is unadulterated stink. Unadulterated stink is implying that Norwegians only value a human life at 99.5 days because you divided the number of victims by the time of the sentence and then trying to pretend that the implication of that assertion wasn’t exactly that, yea, that’s unadulterated stink.

And the ultimate stink, yea, that’s you asserting that your morality is the ultimate definition of morality and any other morality is immoral.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Pull your head out of your ass and stick your moral superiority where your head was just removed from. You want complete and utter stink, complete and utter stink is trying to tell a country with a lower crime rate and a nearly non existent recidivism rate that their idea of justice sucks because it isn’t your idea of justice.

Bless your heart, but I’m not claiming moral superiority. I’m claiming logical superiority, sweetie.

A country with that’s 87% white Norwegian, 13% immigrant; that sequesters it’s troublesome immigrants into “no go” zones where the government literally has to pay the occupants to not commit crime — that’s the “stink,” if you will. The reason their crime rate is so low has NOTHING to do with their justice system, and everything to do with their homogeneity and their racial profiling of undesirables into ghettos.

Let me put it in simple terms so you leftards can understand. Yes, Norway’s crime figures are lower, but their racial & discriminatory ends don’t justify the means.

Trying to smear Norway’s justices system as [sic] immoral because it doesn’t behead infidels like you would do is unadulterated stink. Unadulterated stink is implying that Norwegians only value a human life at 99.5 days because you divided the number of victims by the time of the sentence and then trying to pretend that the implication of that assertion wasn’t exactly that, yea, that’s unadulterated stink.

Cute (in a simple sort of way) but I’d never behead an infidel. Go ahead and profile me, though. Your ad hominem attacks are all you have.

And again, at risk of repeating my argument, and at more risk of looking the fool for believing you’d actually understand and/or address it, Norwegians don’t value life at 99.5 days, but their law implies that. You may not like the math, but this guy will serve 99.5 days for each murder he committed.

Note that this is the same point I made in the last post, but you chose to call me names rather than deal with the logic of my argument.

And the ultimate stink, yea, that’s you asserting that your morality is the ultimate definition of morality and any other morality is immoral.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I didn’t assert moral supremacy, I asserted the supremacy of my argument. I won’t, and will never kowtow to the notion that somehow you and I can believe in two logical notions that are in direct conflict, and yet somehow both of us can be right.

I made an argument for my view.

You called me names.

You refuse to deal with the facts & logic of my case, yet say I have my head up my ass. Who’s asserting ultimate privilege exactly?

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I didn’t assert moral supremacy,

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Like hell you didn’t. You’re still trying to.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 2:37 PM

They’ve been holding it since WW1, I think —the dinner, not the lutefisk.

claudius on August 24, 2012 at 9:36 AM

heh! how can you tell?

ted c on August 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Uff da!

claudius on August 24, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You and I have tangled over abortion before, and you’ve yet to provide an affirmative defense. You always default to “I think abortion is horrible, but I can’t force someone to give birth.”

horrible if its a late term abortion. very early abortion barely moves me. honestly.

Thing is, it’s not pro-life rhetoric. It’s an argument, something you can’t provide to defend your side.

lets just disagree on that one. ppl covered in the blood of babies seems rhetoric to me.

So yeah, I expect a reaction when I call you and people like you murderers and cowards. It’s the only thing you’ve got left to deal with your guilty conscience.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM

ah, another pathetic attempt on inducing guilt trips but achieving only to be an annoying righteous prick

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Like hell you didn’t. You’re still trying to.

SWalker on August 24, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Still with the accusations. Still without an argument.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM

horrible if its a late term abortion. very early abortion barely moves me. honestly.

Yes, we’re familiar with your position. Still unclear as to whether you have an argument to back it up.

ah, another pathetic attempt on inducing guilt trips but achieving only to be an annoying righteous prick

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Nope, just an observation that indignant assertions that we pro-lifers are wrong aside, you’re hiding behind your straw men because you’ve yet to provide an affirmative defense for why you believe the way you do.

You and I disagree on the issue of abortion. Either one of us is wrong, or we both are.

I’ve presented an affirmative defense of my position.

You’ve called me an annoying righteous prick.

And this righteous prick will continue to annoy you, primarily because of my pointing out that you can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding your belief in the absence of a reason to do so.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM

ah, another pathetic attempt on inducing guilt trips but achieving only to be an annoying righteous prick

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Still struggling with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when holding a belief in the absence of a reason to do so? OK, go ahead and call me names.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I’ve presented an affirmative defense of my position.

who claiming that I should feel guilty can be “affirmative defense of my position”

You’ve called me an annoying righteous prick.

because you are!

And this righteous prick will continue to annoy you, primarily because of my pointing out that you can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding your belief in the absence of a reason to do so.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM

cognitive dissonance? holding your belief in the absence of a reason? I sure hope you are not a religious person!
I have layed out my rational before in other threads and you know it. so, bombarding me with “you should feel guilty” comments seems just trolling.

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Norway? Man, that’s where I’m headed the next time I want to kill a bunch of people!

BillCarson on August 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Yeah because no one on these boards criticized Obama or Huckabee for those decisions//

melle1228 on August 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Grin…just saying that we’ve got a few problems of our own, justice system-wise.

And I have to confess. Huckabee is on my mind. Right at this very moment Huckabee might be surpassing Obama on my own absolutely despise o-meter. At least Obama is one of the red coats. Huckabee and Akin are our very own Bennedict Arnold. There’s a special place for traitors. The seventh ring of hell, I think.

Portia46 on August 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM

who claiming that I should feel guilty can be “affirmative defense of my position”

Grammar aside, I think you meant to say that all I’m saying is that you’re guilty, and that a statement like that is not an argument.

You’re right.

Unfortunately, that’s not all I said (in this post and others between you and I). What I have said is the following:

1. You (Nathor) have stated that it’s OK to abort a fetus as long as it’s not a person.

2. I then said “How do you define personhood?” In fact, I challenged you to provide a clear definition of personhood so that we can differentiate fetuses from babies.

3. You stated that you could not do so.

4. Consequently, since you can’t differentiate between a fetus and a person, they are one and the same.

5. Since it’s wrong to kill a person, it is then wrong to kill a fetus.

6. Since abortion kills a fetus, abortion is wrong.

See? That’s an argument.

You could attack the argument, primarily by arguing for a definition of personhood, but since (by your own admission) you can’t do that…

I have layed out my rational before in other threads and you know it.

nathor on August 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Actually, no. In our last go ’round, you established that you didn’t known when “personhood” was achieved, but that your opinion was that it occurred at the third month of pregnancy. You then presented the notion that somehow society’s acceptance of this view justifies your position.

That’s not an argument. It’s an opinion, backed somehow (magically) by society’s opinion.

Opinions are not arguments. In fact, nowhere in that entire thread did you actually present an argument.

So I repeat. Again.

I have stated an affirmative argument for my position.

You have not.

Who’s the self-righteous prick asserting his view on the other in spite of the facts?

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM

YET another LIBERAL paradise, falls on it’s face in public. Isin’t it GREAT that you can kill 77 and only get 20 years? Isint that a GREAT system? JUSTICE.

…what a damn JOKE.

TX-96 on August 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Say what?

billrowe on August 24, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It’s a pity Ed trivialised this report with such a facetious title. We could have been discussing how it is that somebody in a ‘western’ and ‘democratic’ country has come to believe that discussion, negotiation and the ballot box are ineffective and that violence is the only way to significantly influence the policy debate.

What makes this Mr Brevik a criminal rather than a freedom-fighter? Where, according to the western intellectuals and politicians presently encouraging evil men in Syria to kill more people for the sake of liberty and better government, is the boundary between criminal and freedom-fighter, and how was the boundary defined?

It would be nice if the supposedly ‘mainstream’ political classes could learn something about their own hypocrisy and self-righteous arrogance from this affair.

YiZhangZhe on August 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Norway’s judicial system is an embarrassment. A complete and utter joke.

And I say this as a Norwegian citizen.

Norwegian on August 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

What makes this Mr Brevik a criminal rather than a freedom-fighter? …

It would be nice if the supposedly ‘mainstream’ political classes could learn something about their own hypocrisy and self-righteous arrogance from this affair.

YiZhangZhe on August 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM

You’re right. A man slaughters 69 campers, mostly teenagers. He’s definitely a freedom fighter.

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Norway? Man, that’s where I’m headed the next time I want to kill a bunch of people!

BillCarson on August 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM

And, if you get caught, you have a nice stay on a pleasant little vacation isle – with your own cottage – to look forward to.
Sounds like prime hunting territory – with relatively few downsidea.
Ha

Solaratov on August 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Wow, you pin down SWalker or Nathor & they just leave. Fascinating, it’s almost like they know their arguments won’t hold water…

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 5:50 PM

How did the Norwegian criminal justice system devolve to this travesty? Are there no real men left in Norway?

Mojave Mark on August 24, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Disgrace to justice.

AshleyTKing on August 24, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Must have been a Milwaukee County circuit court judge presiding.

Steve Eggleston on August 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM

oooo snap! Good one Steve.

watertown on August 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Well, this guy planned and executed a multiple premeditated murder, for the express purpose of reading some manifesto he wrote on international TV.

If he was given the choice to do it all over again, he has been very clear that he would do it again, just the way he did.

Why do people think he should be let loose on the world again? Do they think he’s not going to do this again?

Voyager on August 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM

There has never been any evidence to suggest that the more punitive a justice system, the more effective it is at anything whatsoever. Capital punishment? Same deal.

ernesto on August 24, 2012 at 12:12

If Ernesto or anyone of his ilk are still hanging around the fact is that the impact of applying the death penalty to detering future murders has been quantified.

Researchers have been looking into the potential effect of that possibility, and they estimate that anywhere from 3 to 50 future murders would be deterred by every execution actually carried out.

The is from a longer article, link below, see footnote #4 for the references.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/how_about_some_bleeding-heart_conservatism.html

ironmarshal on August 24, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Justice and injustice are not dependent on pragmatism.

Imrahil on August 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM

This shithead should die. Exponentially.

Coronagold on August 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Oh, and Norway is toast. No longer pining for the fjords. Buh bye.

Coronagold on August 24, 2012 at 10:52 PM

It is hard to feel sorry for a people who have so little respect for their own lives. You get what you pay for.

seanrobins on August 24, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I remember that Norwegian newscaster who laughed at that audience guy whose high pitched voice sounded like his balls got cut off. I laughed. The entire USA audience laughed. The gay socialist puissant Norwegian audience didn’t laugh. They were to uptight and fucked up for that. Apparently Norway has no sense of humor. They should be shot dead for that alone. Now that’s funny. Ha ha.

Coronagold on August 24, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Have a look at this chart. It contradicts both your assertions (homogeneous/population density).

lexhamfox on August 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Try reading that chart again. It’s taking the rate of violent crimes/100k people and then adjusting them by population density. The more dense the population, the lower the number is likely to be because of the division. So Alaska has less than half the violent crime rate than DC, however, since all those crimes are happening over a large area the number is higher.

You don’t seriously think this chart is saying DC has a lower violent crime rate than Alaska…do you? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2012 at 1:57 AM

If I ever lose my marbles and need a place to go and shoot up do to my life’s upending like all these shoot em up mopes do, I’d either find myself an American “Gun Free Zone” or now it looks like fly to THAT place to do it.. :(

chicagoray on August 25, 2012 at 7:57 PM

“If I ever lose my marbles and need a place to go and shoot up do to my life’s upending like all these shoot em up mopes do,” ”DUE TO” ..oops ;(

chicagoray on August 25, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Wow, this is what passes for justice in Norway? Remind me to never go there!

Dollayo on August 25, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Justice and injustice are not dependent on pragmatism.

Imrahil on August 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Here’s ‘justice’, you pinhead: Murderers being sentenced to death.

MelonCollie on August 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3