Norwegian justice

K

Karky

2
So, a guy in my home town stabbed two people in all twelve times. (they didn't die though)
Now the guy is being sendt to prison for 4 years. wtf? That's nothing.
If someone stabbed me and a buddy of mine in all 12 times and got out after 4 years I'd seriously feel the need to take matters into my own hands. Gosh, the political party who actually dares to make a justice system in Norway stricter gets my vote the next election.

I don't know where he stabbed them though, but it shouldn't matter. Even if it was 12 times in the big toe, he should get more than 4 years.



Another thing about law/justice in general:
(I'll be using the word "he" here, but I really mean "he/she"
In Norway, and I believe in most other countries too, you get less time for attempted murder than murder. Now I had an interresting discussion with a friend of mine a while back about this. Why is it different? He tried to kill someone, but failed, so he gets less time. He is being rewarded for being an idiot and a faliure!
Also, if law is about justice and not revenge, attempted and murder should be the same thing. In revenge you you hurt someone as much as they hurt you, so there the actual outcome of the crime matters, since you want to put the criminal through as much pain as the victim went through.
But if you're talking about justice, doesn't what he actually intended to do count the most? Now, you would have to prove intent (which I know is hard). Not just "he stabbed him so he tried to kill him". The case would be clearer if the guy who tried to kill someone had planned it before hand.

I know people will now smack a lot of counters in my face like "so if someone thinks "I'm gonna head into that house and steal a TV" then they walk up to the door, and finds out it's locked, then figures "**** it" and splits, should he be judged for stealing a tv? No, because he never got around to doing it. However, if he got into the house, took the tv, walks out, then the owner of the house gets home and stops him. Should he be charged with "attempted robbery of a tv?"

Just some food for thought ;) :p :D
 
I can see what you are saying. 4 years is nothing! Geez...

Otherwise, you bring up an interesting topic! Here's my take at the moment:

Attempted murder and murder are not the same crime because attempt is a specific crime (wanting to do something specific, such as kill or rape and taking a substantial step toward the crime) and murder is a specific crime which requires taking a life.

I don't think that someone should be punished as if they murdered someone just because they wanted and tried to kill someone. If the punishment for murder is life imprisonment, that punishment does not match to crime (IMO) if there isn't a dead body. The whole purpose for imposing a sentence upon a murderer is that they murdered someone - someone is dead because of this person. Intending/trying to murder someone (attempt) is completely different because, obviously, there isnt' a dead body. Life imprisonment, for example, is imposed specifically to punish for the taking of a life, not for trying and failing. The sentence should match the crime. To impose the same sentence for two different crimes is crossing over into cruel and unusual punishment. Also, with sentencing, I tend to think that it should be fair, but when in doubt, it should lighter. You never know how many innocent people will be found guilty of a crime and also, legislators and judges who create laws and sentencing guidelines are just people trying to do the right thing (hopefully) - not Gods.

But, I see what you mean. I gotta think about it more...
 
Although in some crimes the intent does matter, at least in the US, what is termed a "hate" crime. If you preform a violent attack on a person and it is beleived that the reason you you chose that person to attack was because they were a member of a protected group, then the penalties are higher, so there is a precedent for "intent" being a determining factor in penaties.
 
My Brother was shot and illed by his "best friend" in a bar fight. My brothers girlfriend and his best friend were supposed to be at a AA meeting but went to a bar instead, when confronted by my brother they got in a fight and his "friend" ended up shooting him.


He received 5 years in prison.
 
I think intent and method of killing plays a big part in sentencing. A guy I went to school with got life in prison from a murder he committed at 16. He bludgeoned the victim to death and did all sorts of gruesome stuff. :( If he had just shot the person, he would have only gotten a few years.

What I'm saying is that a life is not just a life. It depends on how that life was taken.

Ah, the interesting people I know.
 
aeonteal said:
I can see what you are saying. 4 years is nothing! Geez...

Otherwise, you bring up an interesting topic! Here's my take at the moment:

Attempted murder and murder are not the same crime because attempt is a specific crime (wanting to do something specific, such as kill or rape and taking a substantial step toward the crime) and murder is a specific crime which requires taking a life.

I don't think that someone should be punished as if they murdered someone just because they wanted and tried to kill someone. If the punishment for murder is life imprisonment, that punishment does not match to crime (IMO) if there isn't a dead body. The whole purpose for imposing a sentence upon a murderer is that they murdered someone - someone is dead because of this person. Intending/trying to murder someone (attempt) is completely different because, obviously, there isnt' a dead body. Life imprisonment, for example, is imposed specifically to punish for the taking of a life, not for trying and failing. The sentence should match the crime. To impose the same sentence for two different crimes is crossing over into cruel and unusual punishment. Also, with sentencing, I tend to think that it should be fair, but when in doubt, it should lighter. You never know how many innocent people will be found guilty of a crime and also, legislators and judges who create laws and sentencing guidelines are just people trying to do the right thing (hopefully) - not Gods.

But, I see what you mean. I gotta think about it more...
Click to expand...

Yeah, thought trying and wanting/thinking about killing someone are two different things. I would never suggest the penalty for murder for someone just thinking about doing it.
 
Pacman Jones and his buddies shot up some people and I guy was paralyzed. Idk all the details though but looks like Pacman got off pretty easily.
 
Karky said:
Yeah, thought trying and wanting/thinking about killing someone are two different things. I would never suggest the penalty for murder for someone just thinking about doing it.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, generally speaking, "attempt" is (1) intent plus (2) a substantial step toward the commission of the crime (some act), not just thinking about it. So, to refer to the quote above, "trying" is the act and "wanting" is the intent so, you have attempt. So, trying to kill someone through some act and wanting or intending to do it = attempted murder. I didn't think you were saying that thinking about a crime and doing the crime were the same thing???

Anyway, for "attempt", intent is ALWAYS a required element. And, of course, the way in which someone is killed or the crime is carried out makes a difference in the sentencing as those are aggravating factors that can raise a sentence usually by raising the crime to a higher degree.

Karky said:
I know people will now smack a lot of counters in my face like "so if someone thinks "I'm gonna head into that house and steal a TV" then they walk up to the door, and finds out it's locked, then figures "**** it" and splits, should he be judged for stealing a tv? No, because he never got around to doing it. However, if he got into the house, took the tv, walks out, then the owner of the house gets home and stops him. Should he be charged with "attempted robbery of a tv?"
Click to expand...

Is this also part of your discussion or were you just making a point of how people will respond?

Well, anyway, I think the first example is attempted burglary and the second is burglary (not robbery). The intent is there and the act is complete, even if the owner catches the person and stops him.
 
Last edited:
If someone isn't competent enough to succeed at murder, even when they are trying, maybe they aren't as dangerous as someone who is actually capable of killing someone??? :11doh:
 
This is why legal systems have problems. There is different interpretation for essentially the same thing. People who commit the same crime, (say shooting and killing a person) can get anywhere from a few years to well into the double digits in years. There is no standard.

Law, for it to work efficiently, must be cut and dry. Killing someone = Punishment A. Torture = Pun B. Killing a child = Pun C.

I might be with Karky on this one. Trying to kill someone, and failing, does not make a person less dangerous. The punishment can be similar.

I also think that the punishment for violent crimes in most countries is not harsh enough.

Caning people seems like a good idea as well.

What I'm saying is that a life is not just a life. It depends on how that life was taken.
Click to expand...

That is what creates a LOT of grey area.
 
Last edited:
Every single case and situation is different. There is no such thing as "You do A, you get Z punishment," -- that's not the way the world works. There are a set of guidelines and rules (laws and precedent) that are applied to each situation so that the results are as fair as possible. If there were to be blanket laws and punishments, it would defeat the purpose of the adversarial system. I'm sure you'll all heard that defendants are "innocent until proven guilty" - well, that concept is built on the idea that a defendant has a right to a fair trial and provides that each individual defendant have the opportunity to state his/her case. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution also protects people from cruel and unusual punishment so the punishment must match each crime as closely as possible AND there are WAY too many variables in every case for the law to black and white.

There seems to be an assumption that the legal system is even capable of figuring out who is guilty and innocent. This is not 100% accurate. The only way of ensuring that every single individual situation is handled fairly is to look at the facts of each situation objectively (or, in some cases, subjectively if the mental state is at issue) and then try to assess what would be a fair and reasonable punishment in that situation - not only to punish the criminal, but to maintain order in society, provide deterrence and also protect innocent people.

The more grey area, the better -- just means that judges and prosecutors have to work harder before they can send an innocent person to prison. And, in America, the conviction rate after after a case goes to trial is 99%, so the system is already pretty hardcore.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Karks and Georgen.

Take a guy breaks into a house and his intent is to kill someone yet when he pulls the trigger the gun jams.

vs

The gun fires killing the person.

I don't care if one was attempted (but failed) and the other succeeded. They performed the same action with teh same intent=same punishment.

I think murder deserves death penalty. However, I think they should get the electric chair just a bit every day. Not enough juice to kill 'em, but just torture them for a few months and then finally off them.

I won't even delve into what I think should happen to crimes against children.
 
If someone breaks into a house with the intent to kill and the only difference is that the the gun jams, then hell yeah, that person deserves a serious sentence but it's not murder. Murder means that someone is dead and in the the jammed-gun case, a person isn't dead, so that's simply not murder. There are two definitions for a reason - they don't mean the same thing in the English language and shouldn't mean the same thing for each situation. BUT that doesn't mean that the person doesn't deserve a serious sentence.

Sentencing guidelines will focus on (1) the conduct associated with the offense and (2) the criminal's history so, just because this isn't classified as "murder" doesn't mean that sentence shouldn't be serious. As I said, the goal is for the sentence to match the crime as closely as possible.

So, here, if someone breaks into a house to commit any unlawful act, that is burglary = aggravating circumstance #1 (though burglary might merge with the overall attempted murder charge) AND then an armed weapon = aggravating circumstance #2 AND if the person has a record = aggravating circumstance #3. Of course the court would look at all the circumstances and in a perfect world, the punishment would match the crime and the person would get an extremely heavy sentence. It's not like this person hit the jackpot just because their gun jammed.

We can always b$tch about someone getting a sentence that is too light but what about all those people out there whose sentences are way, way too heavy? It's a product of the same imperfection in the legal system. But, it's inherent in the legal process BECAUSE all these decisions are determined by people and no one is perfect. You can try and try but there will never be a perfect world or perfect legal system. The only thing you can do is hope that people are trying to do the right thing and that most of the time the outcome is fair. There are always going to be instances were some people get the easy ticket and others get a punishment that is too harsh.

Finally, if there is one single innocent person on death row or has been killed by capital punishment, the cost of having this system in our society is too high. Instead of thinking of about punishing "bad" people, realize that if an innocent person is vulnerable to the system, it could be you or someone you know, too. The criminal justice system deals with a lot of people who aren't guilty and those are the people most in need of protection from the laws.
 
Last edited:
evolution said:
I don't care if one was attempted (but failed) and the other succeeded. They performed the same action with teh same intent=same punishment.

I think murder deserves death penalty. However, I think they should get the electric chair just a bit every day. Not enough juice to kill 'em, but just torture them for a few months and then finally off them.
Click to expand...

I'm with Evo here, if the purpose of putting someone in prison is to A) Protect the public and B) Rehabilitate the criminal, then why would the sentence be lower for someone who only failed in killing someone through a mistake they made during the murder attempt?
Just because they failed this time doen't mean they'll fail again when they get out after a short sentence

However, as for the 'torture them' arguement, I only need to point you in the direction of a case in the UK where last week a man was convicted of a rape/murder of a child about 30 years after the crime was committed due to DNA evidence. One of the horrific parts of this case was that an innocent man was convicted at the time and spent about 12 years in jail before dying.
 
CCR said:
I'm with Evo here, if the purpose of putting someone in prison is to A) Protect the public and B) Rehabilitate the criminal, then why would the sentence be lower for someone who only failed in killing someone through a mistake they made during the murder attempt?
Just because they failed this time doen't mean they'll fail again when they get out after a short sentence.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the purpose of putting people in prison, there is one other thing that the law is considering in a murder case -- the loss of life. This is a tangible thing. The sentence for murder isn't just concerned with rehabilitating people and protecting the public. It's concerned with taking into account that someone is dead because of another person. This is a big deal and a HUGE difference between when someone is murdered and not. I'm not saying that an attempted murderer shouldn't face a heavy sentence (depending on the facts) but in that case the law isn't dealing with the fact someone is not alive anymore. They are not the same thing.

I agree with you to a certain extent and I do believe that the law does, too. That's why every factor in the case needs to be considered. There are some people who won't try to kill again and there are people who probably will. Every situation is different. It isn't just about killing or not. There are facts and there's a backstory to always consider. But, if the situation is a simple case of a jammed gun that would've otherwise ended up in murder, then the crime should fit the punishment and the punishment should be extremely serious - as serious as life imprisonment or a long damn time in prison. But, just because the same sentence as a murder sentence is imposed still doesn't mean that the crimes are the same.

There is a huge difference between someone who was almost killed and someone who has been killed. One person is dead and that is what makes murder so horrible - that someone is not alive anymore. That's the injustice! So, it's just as much of an injustice against the murdered person and his/her family to assess the same level of punishment against someone who attempted to murder someone. In one case, the person is still living and breathing and in the other, the person will never exist again. The law has a responsibility to take this difference into account on behalf of the victims.
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying, and there probably should be a part of the sentence that's extra when a life is taken to take into account retrubution for the family of the victim.
I think though that in the case Karky brought up 4 years was far too short, the criminal had every intention of being a murderer and should have had a sentence more reflective of that
 
aeonteal said:
If someone breaks into a house with the intent to kill and the only difference is that the the gun jams, then hell yeah, that person deserves a serious sentence but it's not murder. Murder means that someone is dead and in the the jammed-gun case, a person isn't dead, so that's simply not murder. There are two definitions for a reason - they don't mean the same thing in the English language and shouldn't mean the same thing for each situation. BUT that doesn't mean that the person doesn't deserve a serious sentence.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can agree with here is their sentence should be called something differently. However, I think they both deserve the same sentence. I used the gun jamming example because had the gun not jammed the same deed would have been done.


Finally, if there is one single innocent person on death row or has been killed by capital punishment, the cost of having this system in our society is too high. Instead of thinking of about punishing "bad" people, realize that if an innocent person is vulnerable to the system, it could be you or someone you know, too. The criminal justice system deals with a lot of people who aren't guilty and those are the people most in need of protection from the laws.
Click to expand...

Fine. I understand this. Innocent people will be convicted, and guilty people will be let go. However, we can't say because a mistake is made we should remove the system. Nothing is flawless short of divinity. I remember getting in trouble for something I didn't do at school. I knew who placed the blame on me; they are the one that did it and laughed and pointed at me when I was being hauled down to the principal's office. I got severly reprimended and corporal punishment happened (paddling). Does this mean we should remove getting paddled from the schools because I was wrongly paddled?

Thankfully in law, DNA testing is getting more and more accurate and there are quite a few people who are being released after wrongly commited. But we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I say we bring back public humiliations (caning was mentioned)--stalks, caning, etc. If the crime is severe enough, let the family have at 'em.
 
evolution said:
However, I think they both deserve the same sentence. I used the gun jamming example because had the gun not jammed the same deed would have been done.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, did happen you read my last long post? Not that you have to but I basically said the same thing.

And yeah, thank god for DNA testing. It helped get over 200+ innocent people off of death row!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top