Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Norway - you are in our thoughts and prayers...


gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
25 Jul 2011 6:18PM

Quote:Even in peaceable and ultra-democratic Norway, there have been calls for introduction of the death penalty. Hardly surprising when the maximum the culprit could get is 21 years....... and he'd probably be out again in much less than that, with remission.
Yes, I do sometimes wonder if there should perhaps be exceptions made to the anti-capital punishment stance. Anyway, I think this killer should be literally incarcerated for the rest of his days because apart from the punishment factor, I don't think it is remotely possible to rehabilitate such an individual. As a "good" Christian, he should have one of the ten commandments, "thy shalt not kill" piped through to a loudspeaker in his cell at regular ten second intervals...
I also noticed, that media like the Sun, with sickening predictability, initially announced that the massacre in Norway was an Al queda act of terror. Only the sort of knuckleheads that print and or read the Sun could believe that. I felt instinctively, at the time that this was a right-wing act, though it didn't take much working out as soon as we you saw the facts about the mass slaughter of Norway's young labour party supporters and the Nazi "Aryan race" thing about the killer.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

StrayCat e2
10 15.5k 2 Canada
25 Jul 2011 6:19PM
Could he not get 21 years per murder?
gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
25 Jul 2011 6:20PM
Oh, I apologise to any of you who might read the Sun occasionally, just as I read the Daily Mail, for a laugh...SmileSad
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
25 Jul 2011 6:46PM

Quote:Anyway, I think this killer should be literally incarcerated for the rest of his days


Well that's not going to happen, unless Norway changes its laws.


Quote:Could he not get 21 years per murder?


So far as I am aware, no. It's 21 years max, even for a mass killing. And according to what I have seen on the web, he could actually be out in as little as 10 years.

It's not America, where serial killers and the like can be sentenced to 400 years or whatever!
thewilliam 6 4.8k
25 Jul 2011 7:16PM
In the English and American courts, the judge can order the sentences for several crimes to be served concurrently or consecutively.

With an American sentence of 400 years, the prisoner could be paroled after serving 40 years - not as silly as it sounds. For a youngster to truly serve life, the sentence would need to be 999 years.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
25 Jul 2011 7:23PM

Quote:So far as I am aware, no. It's 21 years max, even for a mass killing. And according to what I have seen on the web, he could actually be out in as little as 10 years


they interviewed a Norwegian Lawyer about this on TV today and he said that under their laws, even though the maximum sentce is 21 years the courts can hold someone indefinitely beyond this if they were still considered to be a risk to the public. He said that because of this he thought it impossible that the killer would ever be released
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
25 Jul 2011 7:33PM
But he will be eligible for parole after 10 years, and a bit of sweet-talking and fake remorsefulness may convince the authorities he is no longer a danger. He is crafty enough, one would have thought.
peterkin 11 619 England
25 Jul 2011 7:42PM

Quote:I also noticed, that media like the Sun, with sickening predictability, initially announced that the massacre in Norway was an Al queda act of terror. Only the sort of knuckleheads that print and or read the Sun could believe that.


That's probably because an Islamic terrorist group originally claimed responsibility for the attack and also a Muslim cleric, head of an Islamist fundamentalist terror group, threatened murderous reprisals against Norway after he was charged with terror offences and was to be deported. These facts were reported by the reputable New York Times and were thus picked up and reported by many other newspapers World-wide and in the UK including The Scotsman. Are their proprieters, employees and readers also knuckleheads? You felt instinctively it was a right-wing attack? Perhaps you could get a job with the anti-terrorist squad.
gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
25 Jul 2011 9:53PM

Quote:That's probably because an Islamic terrorist group originally claimed responsibility for the attack and also a Muslim cleric, head of an Islamist fundamentalist terror group, threatened murderous reprisals against Norway after he was charged with terror offences and was to be deported. These facts were reported by the reputable New York Times and were thus picked up and reported by many other newspapers World-wide and in the UK including The Scotsman. Are their proprieters, employees and readers also knuckleheads? You felt instinctively it was a right-wing attack? Perhaps you could get a job with the anti-terrorist squad.


The anti-terrorist squad would probably classify me as a left-wing, anti-establishment terrorist! Wink Of course, they would not be too far wrong, except for the "terrorist" bit.

Who said an Islamic terrorist group originally claimed responsibility for the attack?
As far as I can see, there have been various reports put together by unknown sources and certain news media have jumped on this, including the BBC, in their determination to blame the Islamists. I don't see any actual admission or claim by the Islamist extremists.
My point is that not all newspapers jumped to conclusions like the Sun and other media like the Wall Street Journal and "reputable" papers like the New York Times. Anyway, I wonder, what is a reputable newspaper? Is there one? Has there ever been one? I doubt it...
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
25 Jul 2011 11:32PM
As I indicated much earlier in this thread the knee-jerk reaction to any violent outrage is "Al-Qaeda". (The existence of which is arguable anyway). It is easy and sloppy journalism.

Hopefully we will think more carefully about attaching labels in future. Also - and more importantly - we may have at last, vicariously, woken up to the very much home-grown threats within our midst which do not bear an Islamic tag. We are so busy keeping our eye on threats from a single direction that we overlook those coming from other directions.

Bear in mind the major conflicts of the 20th century viz. WW1, WW2, and the Korean and Vietnam wars, had nothing to do with Islam or indeed religion.
spaceman 10 5.2k 3 Wales
25 Jul 2011 11:49PM
Charlie Brooker sums up my feelings about the shocking "journalism" employed during the early hours of this terrible event.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
26 Jul 2011 2:40AM
On a slightly different note, I wonder whether Mr Breivik will actually manage to serve even the minimum 10 years, if he is sentenced to 21?

He will surely be a prime target in jail; killers of youngsters tend to be a tad unpopular with other inmates......................
saltireblue e2
4 4.3k 26 Norway
26 Jul 2011 8:39AM
Under Norwegian law you can either be sentenced to a prison term, the maximum being 21 years, or for more serious crimes, and/or where the court decides that there is real possibility of the criminal committing more crimes no matter how long he is sentenced to, then the alternative of 'forvaring' can be used. Forvaring (literally translated as custody) is a kind of 'at her majesty's pleasure' whereby the sentence can be extended beyond the initial period of 21 years if it is deemed that there is still a danger to the general public or danger of him committing other crimes. In theory - and in practise- he could end up never see the outside world again.
This is the most likely outcome in this case.
digicammad 11 22.0k 37 United Kingdom
26 Jul 2011 9:23AM

Quote:Charlie Brooker sums up my feelings about the shocking "journalism" employed during the early hours of this terrible event.


Brilliant article.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
26 Jul 2011 9:26AM
That's more or less what the Norwegian Lawyer said during the TV interview

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.