Skip to main content

Breivik given prison sentence, but Norway's future appears more uncertain

Later on this Friday 24th August 2012, we discovered Anders Behring Breivik, the man responsible for killing 77 people, many of which were teenagers in Norway on 22nd July 2011, has been given a maximum of 21 years in prison for his actions that shocked the nation. It has been a court case like no other. Never has the country witnessed such atrocious crime and some think that 21 years is not enough for the 33-year-old, however the Norway justice laws suggest that the maximum jail sentence is 21 years - something that has been criticised.

It has been a complicated process to giving Breivik his prison sentence. First, there was a question whether he was deemed criminally insane or criminally sane. Last autumn, there were psychiatrc reports which said that he is a sufferer of paranoia schizophrenia. This was later denied and rumours then said he had Asperger's Syndrome. Regardless, on Friday, he was announced criminally sane and therefore by law, he is sent to prison.

This prison sentence has opened up another problem - it was something Breivik wanted. He wanted to be classed as sane and he wanted all this media attention. Did the judges do the right thing and locked him up for the logical reasons or did they listen too much to Breivik? This case has been a testing one for the judiciary system in Norway and the test to the country's government, however, I am most interested in what the far-right wing fanatic will do next. Will he have friends not mentioned in his 1,500 page manifesto which are capable of doing equally as lethal attacks? Norway was the safest and happiest country in the world, now it questions its safety. The government have to think of solutions and more answers have to come from Breivik.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Done right, digital IDs can save lives

Sir Keir Starmer has a challenge to convince people over digital ID plans (Image: The Guardian) If we're to treat survey results as gospel, I find myself in the minority on a big debate. It appears I am one of the very few in support of a 'digital ID' . It had taken me a while to come to this conclusion as, since the idea was explored under Tony Blair's government in 2005, I really wasn't sure what the point of the concept was. But 18 years later, I feel that an identification of some digital kind is necessary, and potentially lifesaving, as I'll explain here. The digital ID has been brought into the British political limelight again thanks to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He wants to bring them in on a mandatory basis, as a way of proving we have a right to work in the UK. It forms part of his cunning plan to halt illegal migration and illegal labour - similar schemes are already in place abroad and are said to be doing well. According to a government pres...

We've got the whole world, in Trump's hands

Donald Trump is cornering a willing Keir Starmer (Image: Getty Images) I yearn to visit the United States one day. I have it all planned out - seven cities across seven states, at least three nights in each. And each seven locations have meaning, influenced by my interest in TV, film, music and politics - plus a bit of sunshine and beach in the middle. In my mind, it will be the ultimate adventure, perfect for me, someone who isn't big on travel beyond European cities. However, I face two obstacles to this US trip - one, finances. I totted up how much it would cost me, and if you consider flights, hotels, food and other spending money, it will cost around £5,000, five grand I do not have and probably won't have for a good while. And secondly, the politics, which keeps reaching new levels of volatility. So much so, if its President, Donald Trump, carries on, we'll be comparing the US to North Korea and Iran.  I may sound extreme, but when you consider incidents like the deat...

The 'cancel culture' myth

Let's cancel the term 'cancel culture' once and for all (Image: Fox News) In recent months, we have seen the UK's Supreme Court declare ' what a woman is ', the rise of the 'far right' in the United States and larger parts of Europe and the centre-left being accused of echoing words which were deemed unacceptable the day before. These stories as isolated items don't seem a big deal but, through their individual merits, have become significant societal shifts. That's largely thanks to the campaign groups who led them. For a long time, they have been playing cry wolf, sharing viral sop stories about how their 'plight' has resulted them being on the verge of 'losing everything', including relevance. With victories heading their way, and their crocodile tears turning into money eyes, it is fair to say that 'cancel culture' is officially over. Let's be honest, 'cancel culture' never existed. The myth has brainwashe...