« Children on Their Summer Vacations
To The Norwegians: A Tiny Nation of Stalwart Hearts… and Stalwart Trees »
On Crime and Punishment: Shining A Light On Norwegian Prison Sentences
Jul 26th, 2011 | 21 responses
It’s the outrage du la semaine: Twitter, Facebook and mainstream news sites remain a virtual maelstrom of people who are beside themselves because Norway reportedly has a maximum prison sentence of “only 21 years.” In holier than thou fashion, many of these folks believe that they know best how Norway should treat Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old man charged with killing at least 76 people.
On Twitter, Pennsylvanian David Fiorito wrote to me, after having been directed to my “meme correction” post:
@kegill The notion that mass murder could have a max 21 year term with an ill defined extension is nonsensical.
Frustrated, I responded:
@crosswiredmind respectfully, if you are not a Norwegian citizen, I do not believe your opinion of those laws, mores is relevant
Why did I feel frustrated? In short, media ineptitude combined with moral certitude.
Almost every media mention of Norway’s sentencing system that I have read has failed to acknowledge that life in prison is possible in Norway through a process called containment or custody. It’s the reason I spent my Sunday morning writing approximately 800 words on the subject, while concurrently talking with Norwegians on Twitter.
Some articles reference containment but the headline misleads. For example, NewsMax shouts Norway Shooter’s Maximum Penalty: 21 Years. FOX News rewrites the same AFP story with this headline: Norway’s 21-Year Maximum Penalty Sparks Outcry After Terror Attacks That Killed 76. In both cases, the mention of extended sentence is deep into the story.
Contrast that with this straightforward (although slightly misleading) reporting from … China’s Xinhua News Agency:
While 21 years is the stiffest sentence a Norwegian judge can hand down, a special sentence can be given to prisoners deemed a danger to society. Under such a sentence, an initial sentence of 21-years may be renewed indefinitely.
Under Norwegian law, Mr Breivik faces a maximum of 21 years in jail if convicted, although that sentence can be extended if a prisoner is deemed a threat to the public.
This concept of containment is used in Washington State to detain, indefinitely, sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences. Specifically, “commitment petitions are filed annually on roughly 10 to 15 percent of all the Level 3 offenders upon their release from prison.” Rather than being something “foreign” or incapable of offering social protection, containment is a legal concept in use in the U.S.
Then there is the MSM columnist who references containment but does so incorrectly. At SFGate.com Debra J. Saunders writes that only one 5-year extension is possible (not true) and goes on to assert, “If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s.”
Wow. She can look into the future and determine that those Norwegian judges absolutely would see fit to release him after one 5-year extension. There’s a bit of snarkiness in that column as well: “Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago.” Yes, Ms. Saunders: no other “civilized” country executes more people per year than the good old U.S.A. Your point? It’s not deterrence, is it, because U.S. data do not show that the death penalty deters crime.
By the way, it was also SFGate that ran a Bloomberg piece on Saturday that contained incomplete information (error by omission):
He could receive 21 years in prison, Norway’s toughest punishment, Deputy Oslo Police Chief Roger Andresen said yesterday.
Saunders is directly countered by Preben Walle, a Norwegian who tweeted extensively after “Friday’s events”:
@kegill I can clear up a few things: It’s not 21 years per murder, it’s collectively. But, he will be subject to containment, and (cont) will serve his whole life in prison.
@kegill I think you’ve shown that you understand the Norwegian thought-process with your writing, I agree with most of what you have written
Maybe that’s because I spent a summer in Norway during my college career. Maybe it’s because I have developed a cultural relativistic approach when trying to understand “others.”
Methodologically, cultural relativism means that while the anthropologist is in the field, he or she temporarily suspends (“brackets”) their own esthetic and moral judgements. The aim is to obtain a certain degree of “understanding” or “empathy” with the foreign norms and tastes. Morally and politically, cultural relativism means that we respect other cultures and treat them as “as good as” one’s own. [...]
During fieldwork, it is essential to bracket one’s own values and control one’s spontaneous reactions to a number of exotic phenomena. If one does not, one will simply not learn to understand the people under study. Without such understanding, it will be impossible to establish mutual trust, which is the precondition of entering into dialogue with them. Only through such dialogue may change be attempted. Without dialogue, change is impossible. What is true of fieldwork is, in this case, also true of normal, practical life, where respect and trust form the basis of all productive relations.
Or perhaps my rejection of the moral certitude that I see expressed like this — “21 years is not enough for such a cold [blooded] bastard. He executed people, should we not justly repay him?” — is the philosophy of laissez faire extended beyond economics.
Laissez faire: “let (people) do (as they choose)“.
I’m not willing to tell citizens of another country — one that has had “no reason to keep people in prison for life” because its crime rate is among the lowest in Europe — how they should design their criminal justice system. I would be unwilling to do so even if my criminal justice system looked superior on paper, and that’s certainly not the case here. Norway’s crime and murder rates are well below those of the U.S..
In the aftermath of a tragedy that surpasses that of 9-11 in per capita scope and that carries the additional burden of having been a home-grown affair, I am unwilling to either second-guess their justice system or tell them, indirectly, that they are wrong, stupid or naive. It is not my place. And neither, I believe, is it yours.
21 Responses to “On Crime and Punishment: Shining A Light On Norwegian Prison Sentences”
I find it unfathomable that someone could commit such a crime in the US and ever get out of jail. That being said he didn’t do it here and I do believe that it’s Norway’s buisness. I just have trouble with the concept of someone like that ever being alowed to rejoin society. I sure the legal system in Norway and it’s citizens will feel the same and if possible would not allow him freedom ever again.
i’m pretty sure legal systems don’t feel.
It does matter if the man is in prison 21 years or 21 days. If he gets out somebody will kill him. That is also a Norwegian thought process.
Given all the problems we have with our own courts and prison system, I’d say no American has any business judging the Norway model. In any case, it’s their own business.
Dear EElis – I feel impotent when I read something like this: “if possible would not allow him freedom ever again.”
Please re-read this article. Or read the first one.
The law ALLOWS for incarceration for life.
Just because life imprisonment has not happened in Norway in modern times doesn’t mean it will not happen this time. After all, this is the worst crime to happen in Norway since at least WWI.
Thank you for writing a follow up. It helps to see some of the thinking behind your twitter response. The limit of 140 characters can be frustrating, and often leads to misunderstandings. Perhaps I can shed some light on my perspective and further the dialogue some more.
Before I dive in, I think some background information will help. My BA degree from Temple University is in the field of anthropology. The concept of cultural relativism was a foundational element during my college education. It was during my time at Temple that I became active in promoting diversity, campaigning against racism, and participating in interfaith dialogues. For over twenty years I have continued my commitment to those efforts in my workplace and community. I say this not to stake a claim to the moral high ground, but as context for the comments on twitter that sparked this dialogue.
Cultural relativism is a wonderful tool that can be used to truly learn from those whose cultural perspectives are different from our own. However, cultural relativism can also lead to selective apologetics. It is a tool that can be used to reinforce our own ideological biases, or to undermine the feeling we get when we encounter a practice that causes our moral compasses to quiver.
The statement that my non-citizen opinion on Norwegian law was not relevant is easier to make because you see no problem with the practice of judicially enabled indefinite detention. Or at least you see no reason to express an opinion on the matter because it should be left to the people and government of Norway.
We now live in an increasingly global community. Many of us have daily contact with people spread across the entire planet. In the twitter conversation that you referenced I was talking with friends in Slovenia, the UK, and the US. Through the Net and social media we are part of a web of contacts that touches every corner of the globe.
The Arab spring is a fantastic example of Net enabled citizens and non-citizens coming together in a political discourse that has changed the world. To be clear I am not talking about the Arab spring as being fueled by American or even Western influence (though it was present to a small degree). I am talking about the communication between Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, and others in the region. People traded success stories, tips, and encouragement. The entire world joined in through facebook and twitter.
Governments notice how they are viewed by the rest of the world. They no longer need to wait to hear from foreign diplomats or the op ed page of the New York times to gauge global opinion. Global opinion matters.
If we were to apply cultural relativism to the Arab spring it may have withered on the vine. The opinion of non-citizens was a key element in social change. Speaking up became the cornerstone of social justice.
Cultural relativism used to quite outside voices, would have killed the anti-Apartheid movement before it began. It would remove the primary weapon from the hands of Amnesty International. It would have kept the situation in Tibet out of our collective conscious.
But this brings us to the problem at the other end of the ideological spectrum – moral certainty. Like cultural relativism, moral certainty has both a bright and dark side. It was moral certainty that ended slavery and ushered in the Civil Rights era. It allows us to differentiate between right and wrong. Taken to an extreme it begets extremism – the very kind of ideology that fueled the killing spree in Norway.
Should we abandon moral certainty because it can lead to horrific acts of terror? No. But it does need to be tempered and moderated. Here is where cultural relativism and a healthy respect for diversity and pluralism meet with moral certainty and belief. In interfaith dialogues, the participants are not asked to let go of their personal faith, they are not asked to leave behind what they believe to be right and wrong, rather they are encouraged to keep their beliefs strong and share in the common experiences shared by people of faith. It is a combination of cultural relativism and moral certainty.
We can speak out on injustice and remain open to difference. We can hold and express opinions on the actions of governments that are not our own and still respect the culture from which they rise. And as witnessed by the end of international slavery, the fall of Apartheid, and the swell of the Arab spring, the chorus of non-citizen opinion can change the world.
I understand that a comment on the Norwegian justice system is not the same as the end of Apartheid, but in this day and age a global village is forming around the Net, and concerns both big and small are discussed daily. In the past the course of history and the destiny of a nation was held in the hands of a few. Today it is networked, distributed, and it is global … and every opinion counts.
Great but I don’t know the legal system there and I give only so much faith to random blog authors who give no source for their claims aside from a twitter post. I would make that statement, “I sure the legal system in Norway and it’s citizens will feel the same and if possible would not allow him freedom ever again”, about a similar situation here in the States before trial also so to be honest I’m not sure why that would cause you to “feel” impotent or anything else. Really some people put way to much of their own feelings into what other people write.
EEllis – my original article links to legal opinion in Norwegian and translated using Google Translate. It also links to an article citing a Norwegian attorney. This article builds on the prior one.
I’m not “a random blog author.”
I also want to add a thought about the notion of “contaiment”. It seems to me that it violates the right to due process. When a person is convicted of a crime he or she has a clear idea of the punishment they face for the crime. To allow a judge the power to extend the sentence indefinitely would violate the 8th Amendment as it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The convicted criminal has no idea how long he or she will remain in prison. His or her fate will be in the hands of a judge. Our Judicial system never puts that much power in the hands of a single judge. The right thing to do is to establish a sentence as a part of the criminal code that matches the crime and bring the case to trial with those clear sentencing guidelines already established. Frankly I am not sure how Washington State’s law can be deemed Constitutional.
Hello, CrossWiredMind.
Thanks for writing again. When I sent you that first tweet, it was under the apparent erroneous belief that you had *read* the link that Elizabeth shared with you. I looked at the Twitter history — you said something, she shared the link to the prior article (Sunday’s work), then you said something and cc’ed me. That was when I wrote one tweet to you.
As this article, and the one that preceded it, should make clear, I do not believe that calls for vengeance by people in the US or the UK or where-ever are needed, appropriate or welcomed by the Norwegian people.
I do not equate calls for “justice” such as ending apartheid with calls for “vengeance” such as “that prison sentence is nonsensical.” On that we shall have to agree to disagree.
Re your second comment, all I can do is ask you to look at the link to the Washington State DHS website where the process for civil containment is laid out for all to see. Notice that I quoted material from it. I’m not going to get into a debate about whether or not it violates the Constitution. But here’s what I found in less than one minute in a Google search:
“Washington State’s law for sexually violent predators was enacted in 1990; since then, 14 other states have passed similar laws authorizing civil commitment for dangerous sexual offenders following their prison terms. Although the law has survived constitutional challenges at both the state and in the U.S. Supreme Court, a related set of court actions has addressed whether the treatment program is adequate. In 1994, the federal district court placed Washington’s program under injunction and appointed a special master to ensure that the state improve deficiencies in the program. As of 2003, the federal court continues to oversee the state’s program, with a threat of fines totaling several million dollars if the injunction terms are not met. Over an eight-year period, the special master delivered 19 reports to the court, documenting the program’s deficiencies as well as its successes in meeting the court’s orders. This article reviews these reports and court orders, detailing the court’s requirements for an adequate treatment program.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07327.x/full
NORWEGIAN SHOOTINGS/BOMBING !!! WHO HAVE DONE IT, WHY, AND HOW
http://stateofterror.blogspot.com/ or http://stateofterror.wordpress.com/ SAY NO TO CRIME !!!
SAY NO TO CORRUPT LABOR / CRIMINAL ZIONIST/ COMMUNIST/VIOLENT LIBERAL ANARCHISM !!!
ENOUGH OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND ITS CRIME !!! LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT NORWEGIAN STATE
SPONSORED TERRORISM OR SPREE SHOOTING/BOMBING IN 2011 NOW !!!!
STOLTENBERG(90 minutes vs 30) = BREIVIK
To me you pretty much define it. No offence but everyone and their mother thinks they are special, doesn’t mean I will. Still havent said what it was about my comment that has you all twisted up, which was my point that you ignored to go on about how good your links are.
Kathy:
Being accurate is important, therefore you shouldn’t have referrenced and linked that murder rates are the sole measure of death penalty deterrence, as it cannot be.
3) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspo(DOT)com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
Of course the death penalty deters.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
www(DOT)cjlf(DOT)org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2) “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
“Death Penalty and Deterrence”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
I am not interested in “vengeance”. When I said the Norwegian system is nonsensical I mean that quite literally – it makes no sense. Again I want to reiterate that I do not approve of capital punishment. That being said the notion that any crime would carry a relatively short maximum term combined with an ill defined period of containment determined by judicial fiat is, in my opinion, a violation of due process and a form of cruel and unusual punishment. I believe it is inhumane to convict a criminal in a jury trial and then allow a single judge to determine the actual fate of a convict. When a jury reaches a verdict it is with the full knowledge of the sentencing guidelines. How can anyone support the notion that the state can control to upper limit of incarceration on a case by case basis without needing to define the criteria that allows it to maintain indefinite custody?
Containment is a cop out. The legal system should codify the severity of the jail term for all offenses and not rely on a less than clear end point for incarceration.
Oh, and I think you missed my point comparing Apartheid to the current situation in Norway. The spark that set this off was your contention that non-citizen opinions are not relevant. Regardless of the scale or scope of injustice I hold that non-citizen opinion is critical, and in many cases it is the only way to bring about social justice. Cultural relativism is an excuse to wax apologetic or to look the other way when national authorities act in a manner that runs counter to basic human rights.
Hi, CrossWiredMind:
You write: “I believe it is inhumane to convict a criminal in a jury trial and then allow a single judge to determine the actual fate of a convict.”
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you (well, not the single-judge part — I believe both in the US and in Norway there is more than one judge but I do not know this for certain).
Re your belief that Norway’s sentence is too short — you haven’t explained what it is about it that is “nonsensical.”
And no I did not miss your point about apartheid but I believe that you missed mine.
TO dudley:
“Criminal Justice Legal Foundation” -> “Organization advocating reduced rights for accused and convicted criminals.”
Not exactly an unbiased research source.
IF the death penalty were truly a deterrent, then the US should have a lower homicide rate than Norway, which does not have the death penalty. Instead, the homicide rate in the US is almost an order of magnitude greater. Unless, of course, you want to argue that there is something inherently unstable about Americans that make them more homicidal, as a class, than Norwegians, and that the homicide rate would be even greater if we did not have the death penalty. That argument is rendered moot by the fact that the homicide rate in Texas (2009, 5.4) — where most executions occur — is greater than the rate in Massachusetts (2009, 2.6) — which has no death penalty.
An academic (peer-reviewed) analysis — Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists. Spring, 2009. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology — by Michael L. Radelet, Traci L. Lacock — http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_2_99/ai_n32093120/
Capital Punishment in America – a timeline
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/timeline.htm
1846 Michigan is the first state to abolish the death penalty. (except for treason, which was abolished in 1963).
1852 Rhode Island abolishes the death penalty
1853 Wisconsin abolishes the death penalty
The Washington State example is for civil commitment. The bar for civil commitment is very high and includes all manner of protections for the individual facing involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. That is separate from the criminal conviction and jail term.
In the case of Norwegian law it is about extending a criminal sentence based on a perceived threat to society. This is not based on mental health, and it does not have the same high bar set in the US for civil commitment.
This is the nonsensical part – in Norway the state has the power to keep a convicted criminal in jail indefinitely.
indefinitely
If we were talking about North Korea the notion that the state can indefinitely extend a jail sentence would be universally decried as a violation of basic human rights.
It is far more humane to provide a truly appropriate sentence and allow for it to be shortened through parole, clemency, or pardon than it is to provide a light sentence that can be indefinitely extended by the state.
The Norwegian system is an insult to the very notion of habeas corpus. That is what I classify as nonsensical.
Hi, CrossWiredMind –
I see the WaState “containment” conceptually the same as the Norwegian “containment.”
I don’t read Norwegian easily, and IANAL, so I’m not going to try to debate/argue with you. I don’t have a way to assess if your assessment of the Norwegian system is accurate or inaccurate.
IF your conclusion is accurate — that “The Norwegian system is an insult to the very notion of habeas corpus” — I might be willing to critique it. But I still would not call it “nonsensical” — and not just because the adjective is demeaning and superior in tone.
Given that I have not followed the debate and arguments surrounding the passage of the law (which I am guessing is related to the attacks of 9/11, given its birthdate, but that could very well be a projection), I have no way to rationally decide if the reasoning provided was “nonsense” in either the dictionary or lay meanings of the word. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense
Perhaps it was the 140 character limit of twitter that is part of the problem. It was easier to fit “nonsensical” that it would have been to fit “does not make sense”.
So I can understand part of the reaction was semantic.
What is not a semantic issue is the comparison between the law in Washington State and the law in Norway.
The law in Washington State allows a convicted criminal to serve a jail term and then immediately move to civil commitment which is based on an individual’s mental health. Civil commitment is not tied to criminal law. It is the legal means of committing an individual to a mental health facility against their will. One does not need to have committed a crime to be subject to civil commitment. Furthermore, because of a clear history of case law and Supreme Court rulings, the bar set for civil commitment is very high.
Norway’s law is not based on the notion of civil commitment for reasons of mental health. It is tied directly to criminal law and acts as an extension for criminal sentencing. The Norwegian law would not stand here in the US as it violates the 8th Amendment.
That is my problem with this law.