COMMENTS
There are two ways to treat terrorists. Therefore, lawsuits like this are absolutely necessary, writes Martine Aurdal.
–
Internal comments: This is a comment. The commentary expresses the writer’s attitude.
Published
–
–
The atrocities in Anders Behring Breivik’s crimes «is unparalleled in Norwegian history». The Oslo District Court’s ruling from 2012 stated that even though 21 years’ imprisonment is a very long sentence, time will hardly reduce Breivik’s willingness to commit new acts of violence.
“At the time of release, the democracy that the accused wants to abolish will continue to exist. Norway will continue to have inhabitants with different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures and different religions. “
The court therefore considered that detention was necessary.
For three days this week, the Telemark District Court processed Breivik’s request for parole. After only ten years’ imprisonment, the man who bestially killed 77 people is allowed to take such a case to court. The verdict may come as early as next week, at the latest within three weeks.
view more
–
Crushing for Breivik
There is no reason to fear that Breivik will roam freely in Norwegian streets, neither after the forthcoming verdict nor in the foreseeable future. The outcome of this case was given in advance. Telemark District Court will conclude that continued detention is necessary. An appeal to the Court of Appeal will be rejected by the Appeals Committee, it is impossible to imagine that a new treatment of the case will give a different outcome.
The July 22 terrorist is still there a very dangerous man.
This was thoroughly demonstrated in the makeshift courtroom in Skien prison this week. Only when Breivik arrived in court the first day and showed Nazi greetings with hand and arm, dressed in self-produced posters with right-wing extremist propaganda. Last in the concluding remark, which he used to spread his poisonous ideas. This is obviously Breivik’s goal with the trial. A parole is completely unlikely, but the witness box is also a rostrum. It uses Breivik to reach its like-minded people. Using the court as an arena for propaganda is a well-known strategy among terrorists and also described by Breivik himself, in the making of a manifesto that he published on July 22, 2011. Photos and video from the trial are shared in far-right online circles, and help create new attention around Breivik.
Ap shows Sp finger
The trial arouses strong emotions. Breivik’s appearance is extremely provocative. Many survivors, survivors and other affected people prefer to avoid seeing the terrorist, they react to him getting his message across and for some, the trial itself can seem retraumatizing.
The trial is still absolutely necessary. We treat serious criminals with the same dry law as we treat all other citizens in the face of the judiciary.
One of the survivors of the terror wrote to me one of these days:
“A society that creates animals like Breivik can handle this in two ways. It can ensure that they and their crimes are never forgotten, but treat them with the respect a rule of law requires. As has been done in South Africa, in Germany and in the United Kingdom. Or you can lock them in, hide them away and pretend they never happened – as they do in Russia, China and the United States. As a victim, I know which society I prefer. “
The bad sides of the vaccine
The terror of July 22, 2011 was intended to destabilize society through the use of violence. The liberal rule of law exists. That the terrorist is given the same opportunities as everyone else to try his case is proof of that.
To see and hear the terrorist is a powerful reminder of the life-threatening potential of right-wing extremist thought. As the judgment from 2012 states, it is right and important that Breivik is not released as long as he poses a danger to the lives and health of others.
An indefinite sentence such as detention is very burdensome. It is therefore important that prisoners on such terms have the opportunity to request release on a regular basis. The court’s control is a guarantee of legal certainty.
That this happens after only ten years and can happen again as early as next year, I still think is contrary to the general legal opinion. Breivik has the right to submit a new petition for release one year after a refusal is final.
Crazy men’s work
Per-Willy Amundsen proposes in NRK’s Politisk kvarter that the right to probation for the most serious criminals is therefore removed. The proposal from the chair of the Justice Committee will dramatically weaken the rule of law. Former Attorney General Tor-Aksel Busch is more cautious, he proposes to tighten the detainee’s right to request release, for example, every three years. This is a better suggestion.
Breivik will take advantage of any such opportunity. He will probably also sue the State again to get freer conditions of imprisonment. If he continues to sit on the same strict regime for years to come, he may one day also win in court.
There may be many tedious lawsuits in the years to come. They are proof that Breivik failed.
The democracy that the terrorist wanted to strike remains.
–
