• Blog Stats

    • 74,490 hits
  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 156 other followers

  • Copyright notice

    This blog entry and all other text on this blog is copyrighted, you are free to read it, discuss it with friends, co-workers and anyone else who will pay attention.

    If you want to cite this blog article or quote from it in a not for profit website or blog then please feel free to do so as long as you provide a link back to this blog article.

    If as a school teacher or university teacher you wish to use content from my blog for the education of students then you may do so as long as the teaching materials produced from my blogged writings are not distributed for profit to others. Also at University level I ask that you provide a link to my blog to the students.

    If you want to quote from this blog in an academic paper published in an academic journal then please contact me before you submit your paper to enable us to discuss the matter.

    If you wish to reuse my text in a way where you will be making a profit (however small) please contact me before you do so, and we can discuss the licensing of the content.

    If you want to contact me then please do so by e-mailing me at Chalmers University of Technology, I am quite easy to find there as I am the only person with the surname “foreman” working at Chalmers. An alternative method of contacting me is to leave a comment on a blog article. If you do not know which one to comment on then just pick one at random, please include your email in the comment so I can contact you.

Hard cases make bad laws

Dear Reader,

I have seen on the news that the gun thug from Norway has chosen to justify his actions, in some ways this makes it even worse than it was already. To me that is a new aggravating factor in the crime.

If we apply some of the legal reasoning from the USA regarding murder then using the law on murder taken from a state chosen at random (Wyoming) then we can see that several aggravating circumstances are present within the crime. Using those from the Wyoming statute I think that the following apply. (For details of other states see here)

(iii) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons;

(vii) The murder was especially atrocious or cruel, being unnecessarily torturous to the victim;

(ix) The defendant knew or reasonably should have known the victim was less than seventeen (17) years of age or older than sixty-five (65) years of age;

(xi) The defendant poses a substantial and continuing threat of future dangerousness or is likely to commit continued acts of criminal violence; (His justification of the crime suggests to me that if given the chance he would do it all over again)

I would add to the list the fact that he impersonated a police officer during the shooting spree.

Now I think it should be clear to all my readers that using this check list that it is clear that this murder is more serious than the average murder. Some people right now may be calling out for Norway to change the law to permit the use of capital punishment.

I have to admit that if capital punishment was available in Norway that Anders Behring Breivik would be a likely candidate for such punishment, the extreme gravity of his crimes should single him out for special punishment. I hold the personal view that legal reasoning similar to the american law should be applied, but instead of considering the question of “should the sentance be death ?”, the question should be “should the sentance be prison for the rest of the person’s life without any hope of release ?”.

But as the death sentence was not on the statue book on the day of the vile murders then I strongly think that he should be not executed for his crime. The great problem is the injustice of retrospective laws. In Victorian england the phrase “Hard cases make bad law” was coined.

Here I see a clear possibility that our rightful disgust at the murders could lead to a bad law being created.

The problem is that if we allow law to be applied retrospectively then we create a series of injustices, if today we allow retrospective law to change the penalty for murder to death then what will be next. After accepting the retrospective law on murder it could for argument’s sake be extended to speeding.

Imagine

One monday I drive along a road which has a speed limit of 60 mph at 55 mph, and a police officer observes my driving and measures my speed with his radar gun.

On tuesday the law of the land is changed to make the top speed on that road 40 mph, this is the result of a horror crash on monday afternoon on the same road.

It would be wrong on thursday for me to be dragged to court and fined for breaking the speed limit imposed on tuesday by driving on monday.

I hope that all of my readers can see that the hypothetical speeding case which involves retrospective law that it will lead to a series of injustices.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. There is an interesting article on Wikipedia about ex post facto or retrospective laws. The US constitution prohibits them. Surprisingly, the UK does allow them and has made some ex post facto laws.

    • I think that retrospective criminal law is a bad idea. Thanks for the tip about the wikipedia page. I have had a look and it seems OK but I never like trusting wikipedia.

      • I agree, wikipedia is banned in my classrooms!

Go on, Have your say !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: