Can't believe I'm about to type this, but I agree. But from hearing the things he's said, whilst in full control of his faculties while saying them, I'd say there's a slim chance of that. Pretty sure I remember him saying in open court that he'd do the same again.

If the man had truly reformed then to keep him inside is nothing but vindictive. FWIW I don't think he will turn the corner but to keep him inside simply for the sake of the families is not something that a free a liberal society should be doing.



Do you think he could be released if granted anonymity?

It's very unlikely he'll change and he's shown zero regret so far.

And for this reason he won't get out, no court would risk him re-offending.

On the basis of what you and John D say, no, but even if he was he'd have to be shipped out of Norway imo. Various people in the UK have served their time and been given new identities only to have them uncovered, so I'd guess it would unlikely that the anonymity would last.

Do you think he could be released if granted anonymity?

Where would he go though ? That's the problem.

Especially as he's one of the most recognisable faces on the planet right now.

He's been sentenced in Norway though.

Precisely, but hats off to the Norwegians for not making a special case out of it all and treating him just as they would anyone else detained at King Harald V's pleasure.

My point was on the minimum sentence. The rest of it is all just their system, but let's say he did repent, regret, whatever, and was totally reformed, and would never do the same again, even so, in my opinion, 10 years for shooting 77 people dead is nowhere near enough.

Given the Norwegian (!) maximum is 21 years - what do you have to do to be told that is what you must serve? I would have thought that randomly killing dozens of innocent people to protest at government policy would be a banker for being told, "Soz, that's a s bad as it gets, you win the 21 year full stretch".

I think when anyone considered sane did as he did I do not know how you could trust any remorse they show to be genuine. If he had been diagnosed as mentally ill, received treatment and as result any remorse could be linked to an improved mental state that would be different.

As he is perfectly sane I really do not know how you could decide any remorse was genuine and not just a ruse to get out to go and do it all again. So in the interests of public safety I would have to say killing 77 people means he doesn't ever get the benefit of the doubt.

With any luck he may spare the Norwegian authorities the trouble and carry on maintaining he has no remorse and was right to do as he did.

For the first few years he will, after that he'll say anything to get out.

[url=http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/24/cold-clinical-and-sane-the-only-thing-anders-breiviks-terrorist-attack-must-change-is-far-right-racism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterThis[/url, basically.

I think we're all in agreement on this. Yes, in this specific case it looks unlikely, at best, that he'll ever be rehabilitated, but it's also absolutely right to allow for the possibility.

An interesting tweet on the subject: J[ion Wessel-Aas ‏@jonwesselaas To those ridiculing #breivik's preventive detention sentence ( www.ilafengsel.no/preventive_detension.html ); how are crime rates in your countries, in comparison? [/i

An interesting tweet on the subject: J[ion Wessel-Aas ‏@jonwesselaas To those ridiculing #breivik's preventive detention sentence ( www.ilafengsel.no/preventive_detension.html ); how are crime rates in your countries, in comparison? [/i

Quote ="cod'ead"An interesting tweet on the subject: J[ion Wessel-Aas ‏@jonwesselaas To those ridiculing #breivik's preventive detention sentence ( www.ilafengsel.no/preventive_detension.html ); how are crime rates in your countries, in comparison? [/i'" Thanks for that link, it explains my question: Quote The law demands a minimum period to be established which cannot be longer than 10 years. The court may extend the time-frame by up to five years at a time when the risk of serious re-offending is still considered to be present. This implies that preventive detention in principle may lead to a life-time in prison'" The reason for the minimum of 10 years is that in fact under Swedish law it is a maximum. In this particular case it indicates that after 10 years he'd be back up before the Court every 5 years for them to add another stretch. It still does, however theoretically, leave a [ipossibility [/i- however remote - that he would be released in as little as 10 years but but hey ho, their country, their law.

Quote ="cod'ead"An interesting tweet on the subject: J[ion Wessel-Aas ‏@jonwesselaas To those ridiculing #breivik's preventive detention sentence ( www.ilafengsel.no/preventive_detension.html ); how are crime rates in your countries, in comparison? [/i'" Thanks for that link, it explains my question: Quote The law demands a minimum period to be established which cannot be longer than 10 years. The court may extend the time-frame by up to five years at a time when the risk of serious re-offending is still considered to be present. This implies that preventive detention in principle may lead to a life-time in prison'" The reason for the minimum of 10 years is that in fact under Swedish law it is a maximum. In this particular case it indicates that after 10 years he'd be back up before the Court every 5 years for them to add another stretch. It still does, however theoretically, leave a [ipossibility [/i- however remote - that he would be released in as little as 10 years but but hey ho, their country, their law.

With Norway having a (per capita) prison population less than half that of Great Britain, I doubt we're in any position to criticise.

Interesting also to note that in the ten years to 2008, the prison population in the USA increased by over half a million.

That won't prevent the likes of Priti Patel demanding that Breivik be killed 77 times though

[url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statisticsSOURCE[/url

OTOH if even for 77 murders you can get out in 10 years - is that surprising? I bet if the maximum prison term in England was 24 hours, we'd have the smallest prison pop in the world

It also means every five years the relatives have it all dragged up again as they also consider the remote possibility he may be released.

The likes of Jon Wessel-Aas can tweet what they like but I bet they have not considered that.

I will readily accept the the likes of Norway and Sweden generally have better penal systems that we do but this five year review thing says to me those systems aren't well suited to dealing with the aftermath of a crime like this.

I'd suggest that few countries' judicial systems are "suited to dealing with the aftermath of a crime like this".

And you only make bad law if you make law on the basis of a single case.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"My point was on the minimum sentence. The rest of it is all just their system, but let's say he did repent, regret, whatever, and was totally reformed, and would never do the same again, even so, in my opinion, 10 years for shooting 77 people dead is nowhere near enough. Given the Norwegian (!) maximum is 21 years - what do you have to do to be told that is what you must serve? I would have thought that randomly killing dozens of innocent people to protest at government policy would be a banker for being told, "Soz, that's a s bad as it gets, you win the 21 year full stretch".'" You have to kill Euronymous and burn down four wooden churches ala Varg Vikernes (although he got let out after 16 years on parole). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"My point was on the minimum sentence. The rest of it is all just their system, but let's say he did repent, regret, whatever, and was totally reformed, and would never do the same again, even so, in my opinion, 10 years for shooting 77 people dead is nowhere near enough. Given the Norwegian (!) maximum is 21 years - what do you have to do to be told that is what you must serve? I would have thought that randomly killing dozens of innocent people to protest at government policy would be a banker for being told, "Soz, that's a s bad as it gets, you win the 21 year full stretch".'" You have to kill Euronymous and burn down four wooden churches ala Varg Vikernes (although he got let out after 16 years on parole). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes

I confess to knowing next to nothing about their legal system, but from what I have read in the papers Breivik is going to do 21 years (the maximum) and then some, at the Court's discretion.

There is no realistic possibility this guy is going to be out and about in 10 years.

eeeeeeeeeeeeer he is a self confessed child killer. only option available is to extinguish his own life. no loss to anyone except the people who have his own warped sense of life.

" my only regret is I never killed more."

Except it clearly is not the "only option".

As illustrated by what has actually happened.

Do you reject the possibility that he might change his mind in the future and be truly sorry for what he has done?