When safeguarding principles is difficult

[silverfox]

Fascinating interview on Radio 5 this morning. A Norwegian lady* made a very well argued defence of the fact that in Norway criminals serve a maximum of 21 years in prison no matter what the crime.

The 21 year limit is a proud principle, a mark of that enlightened and civilised society and the lady argued Norway should not abandon its principles because of the terrible actions that have just occurred. To do so would weaken Norway's liberal identity.

However, sticking to this principle could result in a man who has been arrested for killing more than 100 people walking free in his late 40s/early 50s, which I imagine would be an insult to the memory of the victims.

(* sorry, missed her name and position)

[Curly]

Norwegians have a socially constructed view that criminals need rehabilitation whereas here we want punishment. They would see this man as someone who needs help to live again in society. We are not so forgiving here. When two small boys stripped a little girl naked and left her to die in Norway they went back to school the next day with lots of help and supervision - what a stark contrast to Jamie Bulgers' killers. Their view of criminals is not wrong, just different to ours.

[DJKillaQueen]

The real question would be to ask is if the Norwegian approach works. Would be interested to know what their re-offending rates are and also to know how they deal with people with mental issues who are too dangerous to release (every prison has them).

[DJKillaQueen]

Found this......

an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent

Food for thought.

[mockney piers]

"and also to know how they deal with people with mental issues who are too dangerous to release"

It would seem that those deemed to still be a threat to the public can have their sentences extended indefinitely.

[david_carnell]

Ah - interesting Piers. I thought that might have to be the case. Often it would be for those who are as much a danger to themselves as to others.

I suspect that will apply here.

[DJKillaQueen]

Arnfinn Nesset murdered 22 of elderly patients and served 21 years in Norway for it. He was released in 2004 and hasn't reoffended. I don't know what kind of reaction that type of sentence would get in the UK. Norway also has an island prison which I think many people would say was more like a holiday camp, but the reoffending rate from there is only 16%.

I think it's a bit more complex an issue than just prison styles and sentencing though. Scandinavian countries have smaller populations and higher standards of living (in spite of higher taxation). I don't know what the stress levels of life are in Scandinavia or the gaps in inequality are but I would think that differences in those things between countries would affect the types and numbers of crimes committed and have some bearing on reoffending too (where inmates return to the same triggers that put them in prison in the first place).

[BB100]

Interesting statistics DJKillaQueen. Not sure that the socio-economic status and population size of the country could entirely explain such a big difference in reoffending rates though.

[mockney piers]

"this principle could result in a man who has been arrested for killing more than 100 people walking free in his late 40s/early 50s, which I imagine would be an insult to the memory of the victims"

I have to say statements like this make me feel uncomfortable.

an objective judicial system should be as free from emotive concerns as is possible.

Law should be applied as drily as possible, that's what makes it law and separates real courts from kangaroo ones, justice from rough justice.

If the the system deems someone to have served their time. that they are not a threat and to have some sense of remorse (is remorse a prior condition, I sort of think it is but tbh I haven't a clue) then i guess they should be released regardless of the anger of victims if we consider ourselves to be a culture that believes in the possibility of redemption and rehabilitation rather than one of revenge.

The Myra Hindley case was a bit of a classic in that her life tarrif was overturned in the courts and that she was going to be released. THe home secretary effectively fillibustered and tried to trump up something new to prevent her release. As far as I can see he was doing that because her release would have played so badly with the public (and who can blame them) and could have been a vote loser (or at least for Blunkett a career sinker) which meant he was abusing his power in order to interfere with due process for purely political motives, and that stinks of corruption, undermining the values this country stands for. (mind you he was the worst HS of all time and Labour did a lot of undermining of those values but that's another story).

That's why I've been so impressed seeing Norwegians who have just lost friends or witnessed the shootings or caught up in the bomb saying that Norway's values will not change as result of this. Stirringly admirable stuff!!

[Loz]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> (mind you he was the worst HS of all time and

> Labour did a lot of undermining of those values

> but that's another story).

Worse than 'Wacqui' Jacqui Smith? She was just appalling.

[mockney piers]

I thought she started well, bringing back a sense of dignity* and consideration to the office after the idiocy and excesses respectively of Blunkett and Reid. Clarke was pretty poor too, so to say she was the best of that lot isn't necessarily saying an awful lot.

Jack Straw makes my skin crawl and is a self serving shit, but he was at least a moderately capable (if deeply cynical) politician.

*up until the porn I guess.

[taper]

The 21 years can be extended if the person is considered dangerous to the public . Breivik will never be released.