Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Friends in amurka report that the media there says the maximum sentence for the killer is 16 years, and report that Norway has no death penalty. This seems to be one angle on how to get around that it wasn't islamist terror.

Is there a maximum sentence for murder there? If so, couldn't each count be additive?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 05:34:01 AM EST
What they should be talking about instead is gun control. For what reason could he keep an automatic weapon at home? Not for hunting, nor for self-defence. There is no reason to keep sports weapons at home (from what I know, the main loophole for madmen in Europe).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 06:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why the hell would ANY CIVILIAN have permit for automatic weapon ANYWHERE?
And while I am at this first of all I do not think that he was alone. Why? To kill 92 people (do not know if this is a final number) in such a short time one have to be very well trained. Was he ex army man or something? Even the fact that island is small is not good enough and one would have to be very precise to KILL all those people. Not to mention that it takes a lot of nerves. Looking at his face he does not look like a lunatic to me...not even like sociopath...
Then the bomb...if that was a bomb in usual sense. How easy it was for him to plant it? And in that district where leading political party has headquarter? Do not tell me there are no cameras around these buildings! It would need to be very well organised and organisation takes "organisation" (group). No...For me there are a lot of questions here...
And did you see how Prime minister in his first speech that they addressed attacker as "group" as if he knew whom he is telling that "they will not take our democracy away"...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 08:35:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems to have been a car bomb. In that case, as long as parking was legal outside the building, there would have been no reason to suspect anything.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 09:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To kill 92 people (do not know if this is a final number) in such a short time

85 were killed in 90 minutes: one a minute. That's not so fast. But yes he was reportedly well trained.

Looking at his face he does not look like a lunatic to me

How does a lunatic look like? And from what experience do you know? If looks would give away all lunatics, they would never get the chance to prepare and execute amok runs.

How easy it was for him to plant it?

This is Norway, not the USA.

Do not tell me there are no cameras around these buildings!

Those are of no use in prevention if you don't plan to get away with it.

It would need to be very well organised and organisation takes "organisation" (group).

In movies yes.

With all that said, I wait and see if accomplices will be found or only evidence of his own claimed years of preparation work.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 01:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
85 were killed in 90 minutes: one a minute. That's not so fast
---------------
Oh c'mon...one a minute is NOT fast?

But yes he was reportedly well trained.
---------------
Where exactly he had his training?

I already explained about eyes and lunatics. Most of the mentally sick people are diagnosed sooner or later. It's hard to hide madness. Problem is that there are no facilities or money in the states budgets or simply will or political directions to keep them in hospitals. Most of them are even aware of demons they are fighting and usually before they commit some horrific murder they actually call the hospital and ask for help...and they do not get it.
I wouldn't really know about those militant lunatics but people around them has to be aware that something is definitely wrong. They may not take it seriously enough...
As for him doing everything on his own, maybe... but as I said he would then be very talented man... and wouldn't be practically without income (as tax returns shows).To make car bomb (remotely activated) successful one also needs some technical skills. He seems to be studied commerce...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 06:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not so hard to misdiagnose it either.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 25th, 2011 at 01:26:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hah...knowing few psychiatrists looks like psychiatrist should be assessed and diagnosed first, haha

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Mon Jul 25th, 2011 at 05:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why Most of the mentally sick people are diagnosed sooner or later. It's hard to hide madness. Problem is that there are no facilities or money in the states budgets or simply will or political directions to keep them in hospitals gives me the creeps.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 25th, 2011 at 05:20:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of the mentally sick people are diagnosed sooner or later.

Unless they're rich and/or powerful.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 25th, 2011 at 05:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah...you may be right, haha.
Unless in the end they kill someone or themselves...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Mon Jul 25th, 2011 at 05:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They aren't, AFAIK, allowed automatic weapons. But as we've seen in this case, semiautomatic weapons will work just as well (if not better) when you have an isolated, target rich environment where your victims can't shoot back.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 11:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gun control  and can prevent off-the-cuff attacks such as the University of Iowa shooting.  It will not, cannot, prevent a functional, organized, person from acquiring military style weapons.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 01:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Saw someone saying that the maximum sentence for anything in Norway is 21 years, however, for someone who is still considered a threat to society, there is a five year renewable extension on the end, so effectively a life term

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 07:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And in fact, according to wiki:

Murder (Norway law)

that's the case.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 12:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But a 2008 law on crimes against humanity carries a 30-year sentence. They may be thinking of charging him under that law.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 04:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I was the defense attorney I'd go for "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" ruling.

Personally, I think this is a clear-cut case for the death penalty.  The guy committed mass murder.  He is almost certainly somewhere in the sociopathic-psychopathic spectrum, for which there is no known cure.  He cannot be released from incarceration for the term of his life as he is a clear and present danger to society and individuals.  He is going to have to be guarded and supported by society ... at colossal expense for the next 50 years, or so.  Kill the bugger off and be done with it.

But I've never claimed to be all that Civilized.

 

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 02:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You do realize that in the US at least, it's far more expensive (for the state) to deal with death penalty law than to incarcerate him for life.

And who are you to say anyone, including him, must die?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 02:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No matter the situation, the death penalty is wrong,

not because of anything to do with the person who is being executed, but because it says things about us. Do we really want to lower ourselves to their level?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 02:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More to the point, do you really want to create a government bureaucracy whose mission statement includes killing off their own citizens?

If you do, I have two words for you: Mission creep.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 02:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or creepy mission.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 03:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You said it better than i, but that was my intent.


"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 03:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think we have the right to decide collectively, in cold blood, to put someone to death.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 03:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure about this, to tell the truth.
I rationnally understand that it is not a good thing to put someone to death, nevertheless, I'm not entirely convinced that this could/should apply to politically oriented crime, in the sense that the criminal here wishes to destroy the country in which he is living, included its laws.

This guy has as objectives to overwelm democracy in a european country. Would this happen in France, I believe it would qualify as organising an insurrection (attempt to destroy the institutions of the Republic by violence), crime that would involve the maximum prison time (death penalty before 1981): 30 years, no reduction.

by Xavier in Paris on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 05:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can find contrived scenarios that make very nearly any punishment or investigation technique at least ethically debatable.

The more important question is whether you ever going to find yourself in a situation where you have enough armed revolutionaries that finding prison space for them becomes a genuine logistical problem? If so, you are already experiencing an armed revolution, during which the whole "rule of law" thing, judging by historical experience, tends to go out the window anyway.

As long as you're only looking at a couple of political assassins every decade, scattered all across the EU, I can see no justification - in simple practical terms - for establishing a whole bureaucracy dedicated to killing them off legally. A bureaucracy that will, in all the time it does not have any political assassins to kill, have to justify its existence by dreaming up ever broader categories of crimes that might make it ethically palatable to treat people to a bullet in the back of the head.

So even sidestepping the question of whether it is ethical to put revolutionaries to death - I would still argue that it isn't - such a penalty would either be an expensive boondoogle or an invitation to broaden the penalty to more pedestrian crimes, in order to satisfy the needs of petty bureaucratic empire building.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the question of whether it is ethical to put revolutionaries to death - I would still argue that it isn't

Depends on whether the regime is legitimate. If so, then during an insurrection, shoot-to-kill, or even summary execution up to a point, is fine by me. After the fact (with due process), certainly not.

Borderline case : mercenaries captured during coup attempts. Tidiest solution: accidental extra-judicial death.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 11:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't trying to make the case that it's unethical to shoot hostile irregulars before they surrender, only after they have done so.

Of course, in practise during a serious insurrection (and even during a not-so-serious one - see, e.g., the alleged suicides of German RAF members in prison) rebels are going to get summarily executed. And while nobody will complain very loudly about that, it still doesn't make a good legal precedent.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 12:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And in cold hard realpolitik terms, a regime that will not kill to defend its existence cannot survive in the long run.

But this guy is no threat to the Norwegian regime. He organized no insurrection, and even if he had, the regime would have handled it easily. If you execute him, you open the door to execution of the silly black b(ol)locs who smash windows, shrieking "Paris, lève-toi!".

If a regime gets near the tipping point, insurrectionaries will logically be shot on sight. Executing them after the fact is not very effective really.

In practice anyway, Norway has a law that enables them to renew his lease on a prison cell every five years. So logically he'll never be free again.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I was the defense attorney I'd go for "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" ruling.

That will get him locked up just as tightly, only in a mental ward instead of a prison. The rules for releasing the (by then hopefully formerly) criminally insane patients grant a lot more discretionary power to the wardens of such facilities than the rules for probation from prison sentences. Which usually means that rich and well connected murderers are released after much less time than swarthy poor ones.

But it's a moot point, because Scandinavian murderers have experienced a veritable revolution in their mental state over the past fifty years, to such an extent that they are almost universally declared to be sane in the eyes of the law. Whether this has something to do with political pressure to be "tough on crime" is a judgement I will leave to the reader.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 02:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am also against death penalty...generally.
But if, God forbid, someone would kill one member of my family, I would be able to kill him. Simple as that. I would not wait for government to do it.  I do not see how one can be "civilised" in this kind of situation...ever. But hey I may be just a wild and " primitive" Serb, haha.
I just hope God will spare me of those kinds of temptations...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 07:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series