8 Years For Stabbing Sister 100 times Is "Harsh"?

30 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Swedish court sentences teen to 8 years for 'honor' killing of sister - UPI.com
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Honor killing? In Sweden? Since when do the Swedes do that? You expect a defense attorney to whine about anything stronger than a slap - but stabbing someone 100 times doesn't deserve jail - it deserves either execution or a permanent trip to an asylum for the insane. That's not a mentality you want on your streets -ever.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785392].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Honor killing? In Sweden? Since when do the Swedes do that? <snip>
      They don't. They wouldn't be ethnic Swedes.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785438].message }}
      • Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

        They don't. They wouldn't be ethnic Swedes.
        A Swede would use an axe for that sort of thing...*






        *jk Swedes
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785470].message }}
    • Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Honor killing? In Sweden? Since when do the Swedes do that? You expect a defense attorney to whine about anything stronger than a slap - but stabbing someone 100 times doesn't deserve jail - it deserves either execution or a permanent trip to an asylum for the insane. That's not a mentality you want on your streets -ever.
      Though the Swedish press seems to shy away from it, I think we all can surmise where the concept of 'honor killing' comes from...and who would force their 15 year old daughter to marry...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785453].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

        Though the Swedish press seems to shy away from it, I think we all can surmise where the concept of 'honor killing' comes from...and who would force their 15 year old daughter to marry...
        Indeed.

        He's only 17, so he'll be only 25 when he gets out (and that's if they don't have "parole" or some equivalent)?

        Possibly not a danger to anyone else, given the peculiar circumstances of the case? And maybe in Sweden that's relevant to sentencing?

        Easy to feel that it's a light sentence and that it's not a good thing to "encourage this sort of behavior", of course, but custodial sentencing for criminal court convictions all over the world has always been shown (very contrary to many people's expectations and "gut feelings") not to have any measurable deterrent effects at all, so possibly the courts there don't consider that legitimately relevant to sentencing. I'm "just saying".

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        anyway, it was certainly what americans would consider LIGHT!
        Yes - over here, too - that would certainly be considered "light". In fact, it works differently over here, because for "murder" (rather than "manslaughter") there's a statutory "life sentence" but in itself that means nothing, and the length of time actually served before parole elgibility is more or less laid down by the judge (sometimes publicly, sometimes not). I may be wrong but I'd guess it would typically be 15+ years, here, in a case like this.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7786429].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          Yes - over here, too - that would certainly be considered "light". In fact, it works differently over here, because for "murder" (rather than "manslaughter") there's a statutory "life sentence" but in itself that means nothing, and the length of time actually served before parole elgibility is more or less laid down by the judge (sometimes publicly, sometimes not). I may be wrong but I'd guess it would typically be 15+ years, here, in a case like this.
          Over HERE, they have like 2 main types of murder, and about 4 subclasses in each one. If you committed the murder, it is a "harsh" sentence. Lighter if you helped in a direct way. Lighter if you helped in a less direct way, and lighter if you helped cover it up later. Each have recommendations that can be overriden by the prosecution or judge in some way. It is generally worse if it is premeditated. ALSO, thanks to P.C., etc... It can be harsher if you are white and the one killed is not, or if the one killed is a cop. A murder here can get you anything from like a slap on the wrist to staying in jail until you ROT. Usually though, you get out.

          OH, and they have the minors deal here as well. Almost anything, you get off when you are like 18, and get your record cleared. Though they ARE moving away from that now.

          In the article about sweden, the guy almost got FOUR years!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7786538].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author taskemann
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Honor killing? In Sweden? Since when do the Swedes do that?
      It's not etnic Swedes who do that. It's muslim immigrants.

      But left-wing media tend to make it sound like it's etnic Swedes to "shield" the muslims... They do exactly the same here.

      God what I hate socialism. And people wonder why?!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788819].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by taskemann View Post

        It's not etnic Swedes who do that. It's muslim immigrants.

        But left-wing media tend to make it sound like it's etnic Swedes to "shield" the muslims... They do exactly the same here.

        God what I hate socialism. And people wonder why?!
        Yeah, I think most here realized that. I think a lot of scandinavian behavior there is like english or american culturally, and much of western europe. It is the middle east and fareast where you start to get to things we may see as odd or improper.

        Unfortunately, as you indicated, a lot of the middle east is coming to our doorsteps, and PC forbids us to mention it.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788927].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          <snip>

          Unfortunately, as you indicated, a lot of the middle east is coming to our doorsteps, and PC forbids us to mention it.

          Steve
          The West imposed itself on the Middle East, engaging in lots of looting, and doing "improper" things, eg Britain's Bomber Harris (of Dresden bombing notoriety) experiments with bombing chemical gasses on Arab civilians. If, say, New York was bombed, the population would be radicalized (speaking theoretically of course).

          "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." ~ Winston Churchill
          Signature

          Project HERE.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7789810].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

            The West imposed itself on the Middle East, engaging in lots of looting, and doing "improper" things, eg Britain's Bomber Harris (of Dresden bombing notoriety) experiments with bombing chemical gasses on Arab civilians. If, say, New York was bombed, the population would be radicalized (speaking theoretically of course).

            "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." ~ Winston Churchill
            WOW! I heard that gassing was ILLEGAL, as of WWI! It was HEAVILY used in WWI, but I didn't think it was EVER used in combat in WWII. The Allies And The Use Of Gas In WWII

            Frankly, EVERYONE has the ability to make gas and, contrary to belief, gas masks aren't that great. They have to be made in a certain way to seal properly, and some gasses EAT THROUGH such materials.

            I agree that the west, and likely mostly the US, went to the middle east and created some problems. I wish they had never gone. But almost all the good that happened to middle east societies has been due to that as well. If not for all that, the middle easterners would likely have no planes, no real buildings, and still be nomads. And the bad that has happened to them has happened to EVERYONE!

            HECK, the catholics(which are often confused with protestants) did things nearly a thousand years ago that they STILL get blamed for. Of course nobody blames THEM, they blame CHRISTIANS(taking catholics and protestants TOGETHER).

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7789924].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              <snip>

              I agree that the west, and likely mostly the US, went to the middle east and created some problems. <snip>
              I was just pointing out that it isn't a one-way-street. Frankly, the main authors of propaganda know that and deliberately obfuscate historical facts that counter such hogwash as, "They hate us because of our freedom." They have many legitimate grievances caused not only by past events but by ongoing ones (almost everyone here would know what I'm referring to, I'm sure).

              Do they have their problems? Yes, and we don't want to import them. Don't get me wrong. If they come as immigrants, it has to be with the understanding that they'll abide by local laws and if they have a problem with that, they're not welcome. Canada has actually had to write new laws to deal with such savage customs as female genital mutilation.
              Signature

              Project HERE.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7790008].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Kurt,
                Please define "innocent".

                Is someone that is convicted of drug possession, sent to prison, then murdered in prison getting justice? Was the person killed "innocent", "not guilty" or "guilty" relating to his death?
                Fair correction. I happen to think that putting people in jail for drug use is ridiculous, but that doesn't negate the correction.

                Seriously violent offenders should be housed completely separately from non-violent folk. But, like most systems with limited resources, there are unfortunate compromises that need to be made.

                Alexa,
                I think you'd have to agree that the wife who's guilty of the euthanasia murder of her aged husband with ALS pretty clearly isn't a danger to society in that she's going to "kill innocent people" if not in prison?
                I already did agree. In the part you quoted.
                But it's still legitimate to discuss whether the ideology that predicates that sort of killing is putting other people in society at risk, I think?
                Of course it's legitimate to discuss it.

                Here's my take on it: Anyone who is willing to use one ideology to rationalize killing someone (who is not an imminent physical threat) is capable of using another ideology to rationalize killing other people.

                I don't see this instance as being all that different from abortion clinic bombers or other religious terrorists. The target is not the actual victim, but the other women who are the focus of the intended "social pressure."

                The likelihood of a repeat performance should factor into some sentences, sure, but something like this? I don't personally believe it's relevant here. Terrorism is terrorism.


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7790138].message }}
  • 1 year per stab wound seems fair to me - 6 months per wound if you want to be lenient about it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wlasikiewicz
    I would have given him a year for every stab wound
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785459].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Swedish Honor Killing: Brother jailed for stabbing sister 107 times | AAJ News

    "The names and nationalities of the brother and sister were not disclosed, but media described the family as being of Iraqi origin."
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7785739].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
    Since they termed it an honor killing, they're gonna go light probably for political reasons. You can get away with practically anything as long as you say that it was in the name of religion.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7786302].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    That IS pretty harsh! I think Sweden is one of the most lenient of all. I heard of someone committing a premeditated murder against TWO people, as I recall, and I believe she got like 16 years. anyway, it was certainly what americans would consider LIGHT!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7786391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lucian Lada
    The meaning of prison is not to make the public happy (although that sometimes happens - see USA, where they still have capital punishment in some states), but to rehabilitate the author, and send him back into the world. You can call it a hospital.

    Regarding whether the sentence was harsh or not, I can't say anything because there are so few details we know, and although I'm a law student, I have so little experience, that I can't honestly say if it was enough or not. Also, what matters is how the Swedish see the problem, not us, because it's their country, so one plays by their rules.

    You could say the Swedish are lenient, but look how well they get along and what a great quality of life they have. Some people who visited the Nordic countries actually refer to them as the 1st World, the West as the 2nd, and the rest as the 3rd, in terms of quality life, so they must be doing something right.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7787947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      custodial sentencing for criminal court convictions all over the world has always been shown (very contrary to many people's expectations and "gut feelings") not to have any measurable deterrent effects at all
      That may be true as it relates to recidivism rates, but there's one "deterrent" effect that's inarguable, and often ignored by the folks who think light sentences should be the rule:

      They don't kill innocent people while they're locked up.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7787981].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        They don't kill innocent people while they're locked up.
        Perfectly true.

        It's also true that there are different "sorts of killers", in the sense that some are clearly a risk to society while others equally clearly aren't. In other words, some aren't going to "kill innocent people" anyway, even while they're not locked up, because of the specificity of circumstance of their original crime.

        Nobody can seriously suggest that the wife who's guilty of the euthanasia murder of her aged husband with ALS is going to "kill innocent people". Some people might even say that the same is more or less true of the "honor killing" of a sister?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788002].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
          The Barrister John Mortimer - of Rumpole fame said that the nicest people he ever came across were murderers...

          ...because they had solved their problem

          Dan
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788016].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Nobody can seriously suggest that the wife who's guilty of the euthanasia murder of her aged husband with ALS is going to "kill innocent people". Some people might even say that the same is more or less true of the "honor killing" of a sister?
          The first falls into the same realm as the idea that we can put our dogs out of their misery, but not ourselves. Never made sense to me...

          The second is very different. It involves forcing one's own ideology onto another person, at knife-point.

          Not buying that last one, either.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788348].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            The first falls into the same realm as the idea that we can put our dogs out of their misery, but not ourselves. Never made sense to me...
            I hear you. But whether that makes sense to you or not, I think you'd have to agree that the wife who's guilty of the euthanasia murder of her aged husband with ALS pretty clearly isn't a danger to society in that she's going to "kill innocent people" if not in prison?

            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            The second is very different. It involves forcing one's own ideology onto another person, at knife-point.
            I agree. But it's still legitimate to discuss whether the ideology that predicates that sort of killing is putting other people in society at risk, I think? (And I don't pretend that it's as clear-cut as my euthanasia example above).

            Mostly, I was making the point that in some countries, the extent to which there's a risk of someone re-offending after release (premature though it may be to predict this) is considered (i.e. by the openly stated sentencing laws/policies) relevant to the length of their custodial sentence. I'm guessing that Sweden is actually one of those countries, but I don't know this for sure and can't quickly discover it. That might possibly be a reason why this sentence appears "light" to some of us, because they've actually taken into account something which we perhaps don't instinctively take into account in "such cases"? This is all I was saying, really ...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788574].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Mostly, I was making the point that in some countries, the extent to which there's a risk of someone re-offending after release (premature though it may be to predict this) is considered (i.e. by the openly stated sentencing laws/policies) relevant to the length of their custodial sentence. I'm guessing that Sweden is actually one of those countries, but I don't know this for sure and can't quickly discover it. That might possibly be a reason why this sentence appears "light" to some of us, because they've actually taken into account something which we perhaps don't instinctively take into account in "such cases"? This is all I was saying, really ...
              I think you and paul, and I, all agree here! Wikipedia says:

              Life imprisonment in Sweden (livstids fängelse in Swedish) is a sentence of indeterminate length. Swedish law states that the most severe punishment is "prison for 10 (18 in case of murder)[1] years or life",[citation needed] and so life imprisonment is, in practice, never shorter than ten years. However, a prisoner may apply to the government for clemency, in practice having their life sentence commuted to a set number of years, which then follows standard Swedish parole regulations. Clemency can also be granted on humanitarian grounds; however, the number of granted clemencies per year has been low since 1991, usually no more than one or two. Until 1991 few served more than 15 years, but since then the time spent in prison has increased and in 2007 the usual time was at least 21 years. Offenders under the age of 21 when the crime was committed can not be sentenced to life imprisonment.
              So HEY! Commit a murder when you are 20, and be out before you are 39!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788882].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        That may be true as it relates to recidivism rates, but there's one "deterrent" effect that's inarguable, and often ignored by the folks who think light sentences should be the rule:

        They don't kill innocent people while they're locked up.


        Paul
        Please define "innocent".

        Is someone that is convicted of drug possession, sent to prison, then murdered in prison getting justice? Was the person killed "innocent", "not guilty" or "guilty" relating to his death?
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788527].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Lucian Lada View Post

      The meaning of prison is not to make the public happy (although that sometimes happens - see USA, where they still have capital punishment in some states), but to rehabilitate the author, and send him back into the world. You can call it a hospital.

      Regarding whether the sentence was harsh or not, I can't say anything because there are so few details we know, and although I'm a law student, I have so little experience, that I can't honestly say if it was enough or not. Also, what matters is how the Swedish see the problem, not us, because it's their country, so one plays by their rules.

      You could say the Swedish are lenient, but look how well they get along and what a great quality of life they have. Some people who visited the Nordic countries actually refer to them as the 1st World, the West as the 2nd, and the rest as the 3rd, in terms of quality life, so they must be doing something right.
      Gee, we could do LOTS to make the open societies life better, but there should be a balance. That is the reason, in the US, for juries, etc.... They determine not only if the person is likely guilty but ALSO the degree. And that ALSO dictates the sentence.

      MANY murderers probably wouldn't murder again. A "honor killing" like this isn't likely to happen again, unless they had more such relatives they felt that close to. EVEN serial murderers may stop. After they have done the pattern, maybe to play games with the cops, what would they do? But we may not be hearing the whole story, and murderers for the most part are probably more likely to get locked up for other things. Stolen cars, drunk behavior, fights, abuse, handling a gun improperly, etc.... My FAVORITE is the BETRAYAL murderer, where a spouse is caught betraying another, by having an affair and the other spouse murders. THAT is unlikely to happen again.

      Now I don't know much about ALS really, but I can tell you of one likely cousin to it.... Alzheimers! They BOTH apparently are related to amyloids! With alzheimers, typically, the person IS dead. The short term memory is GREATLY impaired, and all other memories unravel. That changes their perception and personality. The perception, mixed with the short term memory impairment causes them to be psychotic, and paranoid. A pattern, that may have been there for YEARS may SEEM to them to be another pattern, and their subconscious will make up a theory.

      My mother, for example, saw cutlery that hadn't changed for over a decade, and said I changed them to a middle eastern pattern to scare her. She also thought I had someone come in to whisper to her to scare her. She may have simply heard the sump pump or heater.

      Anyway, ***I*** certainly wouldn't want to live like that.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788494].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lucian Lada
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Gee, we could do LOTS to make the open societies life better, but there should be a balance. That is the reason, in the US, for juries, etc.... They determine not only if the person is likely guilty but ALSO the degree. And that ALSO dictates the sentence.
        I'm not particularly fond of the jury trial system. It's outcome can be easily manipulated by a skilled lawyer. A judge is harder to trick. Plus, a judge has legal education and experience, whereas a juror doesn't, so he's more subjective than a judge, which is not a good thing when dealing with one's life.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788536].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Lucian Lada View Post

          I'm not particularly fond of the jury trial system. It's outcome can be easily manipulated by a skilled lawyer. A judge is harder to trick. Plus, a judge has legal education and experience, whereas a juror doesn't, so he's more subjective than a judge, which is not a good thing when dealing with one's life.
          TRUE, but there are typically 12 jurors! They have to AGREE to pass a criminal sentence. I don't trust JUDGES either!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788812].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zakhar
    Disgusting.
    Signature
    Stay Humble
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7788551].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
    Here's my take on it: Anyone who is willing to use one ideology to rationalize killing someone (who is not an imminent physical threat) is capable of using another ideology to rationalize killing other people.
    Truer Words Were Never Spoken.

    War Crimes and Peace Movements come to mind.

    Jeffery 100% :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7791190].message }}

Trending Topics