We really only have two options. Removing the convicted criminal completely from society forever - or rehabilitation. We have chosen the latter.
The horrible crime Breivik is convicted of is far beyond anything our lawmakers ever took into account, so this is a painful edge case, testing the bounds of our judicial system. Yet, apart from emotional outcries in the days and weeks immediately following the atrocities, changing the system has not been on anyone's agenda.
That said - if the authorities consider the rehabilitation to have failed, and the criminal is still dangerous after his sentence is served, they can keep him locked up for another ten years. And another ten years. And another ten years. But that is not punishment.
If he after 21 years is considered harmless he will be let out. And we must, reluctantly, accept that this is the price we pay for our low crime rates and low number of repeat offenders.
Michael Moore visited one of our minimum security prisons, where criminals may serve the last parts of their sentence. They are being slowly re-integrated into society through useful work and humane living conditions:
Be careful not to apply this to generally. American society is not like Norweigan society - we have a higher division between rich / poor, fewer social safety nets, and higher crime rates. Not only that, our prisons (because of how we run them) are basically places for criminals to mingle with other criminals and become better criminals. Not to mention we have a societal bias against anybody who came out of prison - for the aforementioned reason. We know our prisons don't rehabilitate.
I'm not sure simply applying the Norweigan solution would actually work here - there needs to be a more systemic societal change in order for that to work.
Having said that, consider me impressed with your society's level head.
Of course. The American system is in dire need of reform in the direction of actual rehabilitation, but adopting a carbon copy of the Norwegian system overnight would be a terrible idea. The current economic system of the United States pushes millions of people into a level of poverty completely unheard of in my own country. To this class, pursuing a lifelong criminal career may seem to be a reasonable option.
You face the same issues in the gun control controversy. I'm very much in favour of liberal gun laws in Europe. But there is a huge difference between giving guns to hunters and recreational marksmen - and giving guns to inner-city youth participating in organized crime, impoverished lumpenproles or xenophobic, rural jingos.
For what it's worth, the 'xenophobic rural jingos' in and of themselves don't cause a lot of gun crime. The drug trade is the primary source of gun violence in the US.
>>>> That said - if the authorities consider the rehabilitation to have failed, and the criminal is still dangerous after his sentence is served, they can keep him locked up for another ten years.
Hmm... how that works I wonder? I.e. somebody can be kept in the prison forever even if original sentence was, say, 10 years? How do you know if one is rehabilitated or not? It's not like criminal psychopath would have any problem telling whoever is in charge any words they want to hear and present as "sincere" picture of rehabilitation as he'd be required to get out.
And how keeping somebody in prison for 10 years is not punishment?
The punishment can only last 21 years. If someone is kept in preventive detention the only puropose is to protect other citizens. The best comparision would be forced treatment of the criminally insane. Once they're deemed fit to return to society, they are free to go.
So it is basically the same as a life sentence, but with possibility of parole after 10 years with yearly parole hearings. I wonder what is the actual terms served (including those dying in prison) for crimes like aggravated murder, terrorism, etc.
We really only have two options. Removing the convicted criminal completely from society forever - or rehabilitation. We have chosen the latter.
The horrible crime Breivik is convicted of is far beyond anything our lawmakers ever took into account, so this is a painful edge case, testing the bounds of our judicial system. Yet, apart from emotional outcries in the days and weeks immediately following the atrocities, changing the system has not been on anyone's agenda.
That said - if the authorities consider the rehabilitation to have failed, and the criminal is still dangerous after his sentence is served, they can keep him locked up for another ten years. And another ten years. And another ten years. But that is not punishment.
If he after 21 years is considered harmless he will be let out. And we must, reluctantly, accept that this is the price we pay for our low crime rates and low number of repeat offenders.
Michael Moore visited one of our minimum security prisons, where criminals may serve the last parts of their sentence. They are being slowly re-integrated into society through useful work and humane living conditions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGTzbj3fRSw
Yes, the system actually works.