I find it an interesting question. I thought that under Norwegian law, if he's not deemed insane, he'd have to serve 20 years? It's bizarre in this case that his punishment won't be to some degree cumulative (as in, x number of years per dead person multiplied by n persons), but I guess it's typical of overconfident countries like Norway who think they created a near-perfect state and don't have reason for concerns about mass-murder. Before Breivik, they probably derogatorily referred to these kinds of events as "American". The problem is the "insane" part. I'd hate to see insane redefined as "suffering psychological conditions A, B and C and/or being called 'Anders Breivik'". I really hope the psychiatrists arrive at the insane verdict objectively. The question I keep asking myself is whether anybody shooting 70 children can somehow be "not insane". But then again, how many people that killed a kid are in prisons around the world and have been diagnosed "evil" rather than "insane".
(b) see PE

"but I guess it's typical of overconfident countries like Norway who think they created a near-perfect state and don't have reason for concerns about mass-murder. Before Breivik, they probably derogatorily referred to these kinds of events as "American"."

I'm not sure America is better of having such high sentences.

I agree and it's probably not better, but to exclude the possibility of life-long prison sentences (or >20y) prison sentences is, IMHO, a form of arrogance that says "we're so cool and nice, we don't need that." In my country, the Netherlands, which is relatively peaceful and certainly more peaceful than America, we still need these kind of sentences just in case. The Norwegians shouldn't be too shocked about seeing Anders Breivik roaming the streets of Oslo in 20 years, it's the system they created.

Redhouse, what has you so convinced that the Dutch are better than everyone else?

I'm not, it's just the only country I know a lot about since I'm from there so it's my only point of reference, but I'll tone it down now. :-)

"Dutch"? Are you on the same page/planet as the rest of us, ghug?

I vote for (b) with 69 kids with AK47s hunting his ass down.

Just in:

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian court found Anders Behring Breivik sane on Friday and gave him a maximum jail term (...) "In a unanimous decision ... the court sentences the defendant to 21 years of preventive detention," said judge.

Sorry, ghug, seem to have missed a post.

My vote still stands. Torture might also be appropriate in this case. Guess 69 kids could come up with something spectacular.

Thanks, Zmaj. How on earth could anyone call this beast sane?

@redhouse: 'evil' is, by definition, 'insane'.

I think the Norwegian judge just disagreed with you there Timur, but I have to go do some work :(

"'evil' is, by definition, 'insane'"

Now there's a topic for a huge thread... but I don't feel like starting it.

Anyone advocating anything other than a jail term, what possible benefit is it, other than being vindictive?

@Redhouse, you seem pretty patriotic in many of your postings, and you seem to enjoy badmouthing America and now Norway. It just struck me as odd.

As for the topic at hand, I find it disgusting that this guy doesn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison.

TheGhostmaker, vengeance is the only benefit to be gained now. What else? Tell me, please.

@ghug, I think you're referring to a comment I made earlier about Americans not having to be too concerned about being overeducated? That was in reference to a stupid comment by an American adult to an American kid about how he shouldn't be doing his math homework. So I'm not apologizing for being crude there.
And I don't enjoy badmouthing Norway. It just seems that the absence of a simple "life" imprisonment in their criminal justice system suggests overoptimism on the good of their nation and people, and now I guess we see how naïve that was.

Lol redhouse is gloating.

@redhouse, I fully agree that that particular American was completely idiotic, but that's no reason to insult all of us, and the comment about how Norwegians would consider the shooting "American" shows further prejudice. As for Norway, I think I may have gotten confused and thought that Zmaj's comment about Norwegians not having the balls to assassinate Breivik was yours, so my apologies for that one.

@ghug,
Okay. Ehm, apology accepted.
"...the comment about how Norwegians would consider the shooting "American" shows further prejudice."
Nope, at best, it shows that I'm prejudiced about Norwegians being prejudiced, but it's a quality I ascribe to Norwegians, so logically that addendum makes little sense to me.
If I insulted Americans, I profusely apologize. I do insist that Americans don't have to worry about being overeducated. Just like Dutch people don't need to be worry about having a too healthy diet. (<- you extracted self-deprecation from me there).
Also, I have good reason to believe that this kind of shooting would be deemed "American". We had a similar shooting in Holland last year and many people called it an "Amerikaanse toestand" ("American mess"). I'm simply saying such a shooting is not typically American. It can happen everywhere and our societies need to be viglant. Policemen need to train for this kind of situation regularly. People need to be cautioned about bags hanging around airports and train stations. Gun permits should be issued only in certain very specific cases and strongly regulated.

*be worried
*exacted, not extracted
*(...) My English requires further polishing.

In Norway they have this lovely little system where if they believe a prisoner is likely to re offend after release they can add another five years to their gaol term, followed by another five, and another etc etc. As such Breivik will be locked away until he dies. This whole '20 years' maximum crap is merely an illusion that Norwegians have to convince themselves they're more civilised than the rest of us.

I think the main question which needs answered is: What is do people/court wish to achieve in the Breivik case?

1) Try to change Breivik's behaviour to prevent the same from happening
2) Set an example for society
3) Safeguard society from Breivik while he acts the way he currently does
4) ..?

I think the Norwegean court made a good call. 21 years achieves #2 and #3. And as I understand it, Breivik gets an additional 5 years jailtime if he's not ready to go back to society, meaning #3 is secure as long as #1 isn't achieved.

GTwist, the main reason why murderers are convicted is to make the victim's relatives more or less satisfied, so that they don't exact revenge. Paradoxically, the prison safeguards Breivik from society, not the other way round. Of course, nobody will openly say that. We've lived in a civilized society for so long that we tend to forget how things work when there is no law.

"TheGhostmaker, vengeance is the only benefit to be gained now. What else? Tell me, please."

I don't see any benefit in doing anything other than keeping the deluded man locked up.

I genuinely don't see any reason to want to enact vengeance. I don't think it will actually make anyone feel better (even if they self report that they do/would feel better for it).

TheGhostmaker, when I said vengeance, I meant imprisonment. See my last post. The state exacts vengeance in the name of all the wronged parties. "Vengeance is mine": that phrase applies to the State nowadays exactly as it applied to the Lord in times past.

From now on, the Norwegian justice system will pull both Mr. Breivik and the entire Norwegian people through a cruel revision process every 5 years, of which the outcome is known beforehand (that's an interesting concept of a fair trial) that will only cause old wounds to be opened again and again. It will give Mr. Breivik the chance to dominate the international news cycle again and again to put forward his insane agenda.

The Norwegian penal system is truly a victory of civilization over barbarism.

Zmaj, if that is indeed the reason, then why allow the death-sentence?

GTwist, when I said that the prison safeguards Breivik, I was talking about his concrete case because I find it amusing that he's actually protected in prison. In other cases and other countries, the state decides that the criminal must die. But death sentence is the same as any other sentence: revenge exacted by the state, not by the citizen. That was my point.

If all that prison did was revenge, I wouldn't be at all for it. There is some reason to believe it acts as a deterrent, and strong reason to believe it will reduce crime being committed by or against the imprisoned person.

I will just point out that Norway's second offense rates are significantly lower than the USA and they carry more lenient sentences and rehabilitating prisons that prepare you to go back into society rather than here's-your-public-toilet-don't-drop-the-soap prisons that we have.

Here's an article I read awhile back that hits it perfectly. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1