Jailed for 'prison break' (Norway)

Aftenposten ^ | May 4, 2005 | Kjetil Olsen

[franksolich]

A 37-year-old petty criminal has received a six-month sentence after pulling off the masterstroke of breaking into the city prison.

The six-month sentence was handed down for a series of offenses, newspaper Romsdals Budstikke reports.

The prison is 160 years old, and has seen several jailbreaks, but this is the first time anyone has broken in.

The invasion took place on December 2 last year. The convicted man smashed a window and padlock to gain access to a cellar door. Inside the prison courtyard he smashed another window and caused damage costing NOK 18,000 (USD 2,850) to a car belonging to Criminal Care.

The man, who has a record of drug-related offenses and crime for personal gain, received consideration during sentencing for his efforts to end his dependency on narcotics, and for a complete confession.

[franksolich]

Well, given his criminal record, and state of mind, perhaps he got confused, and thought he was getting back into his own home.

[franksolich]

Ping for the Norway ping list.



There probably won't be any news from Norway until next Tuesday, because today (May 5) is a national holiday in Norway (Ascension Day).

Which means no one will be at work tomorrow, so as to make a long weekend of it, and probably won't be at work until Tuesday, because they need to "recover" from the long weekend, on Monday.

Just like state employees here in Nebraska.....

I am still working on a "tour of Harstad" for later today, but the volume of photographs has been, uh, somewhat overwhelming. A lot of things up there in Harstad.....and interestingly, the best photographs come from a web-side dedicated to.....collie dogs.

[dennisw]

Only in Norge

[franksolich]

You know, I'm trying to imagine what a 160-year-old prison looks like.

Yeah, sure, I've been around, been all over, but I just never paid any attention to buildings or "scenery," concentrating instead upon paying attention to people.

A prison 160 years old sort of blows the mind; the oldest structure (still standing) here in Nebraska dates from 1854, and one can't find more than a dozen or score buildings (still standing) in this state older than circa 1880.

[mollynme]

God Kristi Himmelfartsdag!

[franksolich]

"God in Heaven?"

Or

"Good heavens!"?

[Tamberlane]

The other day, a friend and I worked out a promising scheme to end this flow of heroin junkies conducting petty crime to finance their addiction.

The thing is, heroin is dirt cheap to produce. Were it legalized, an addiction would be easily affordable on any budget. Legalize it.

Anyone convicted of a crime under the influence, or as a side effect of addiction, is sentenced to treatment. Anyone convicted a second time is also sentenced to treatment.

Anyone convicted a third time is sent to a prison colony on a distant island, for life.

So it's 'three strikes and you're out,' but with a difference. It can hardly work any worse than the futile War on Crime.

[Tamberlane]

War on Drugs, that is. Not that there is much of a difference at this point.

[franksolich]

Well, I am two different ways about this.

However, I do not accept this silly "libertarian" notion that there is such a thing as a "victimless" crime.

A woman who becomes a whore does not, really, become a whore of her own free will; it is an act of desperation, insecurity, futility, undertaken because in her limited vision, she sees no alternative.

"Victimless" crime?--bah, humbug.

So even if some stupid guy "voluntarily" shoots up the heroin or glugs down the aquavit, he is not, really, making a decision of his own free will NOR is he making a decision that affects ONLY himself.

Social and moral constraints upon behavior exist for a purpose, and they evolved naturally. "Taboos" are not the inventions of a bunch of bone-haired tribal chieftans sitting around a fire or red-capped cardinals in Rome--"taboos" are expectations that evolve naturally as humans and society evolve.

They evolve because, in the beginning, man was created by God to "survive," and all of our further instincts are based upon this elementary instinct, the instinct to survive.

Taboos, moral constraints, social constraints, all have a purpose--to help both the individual and a society to survive; to grow, to flourish.

[Rodney King]

I'd love it if you could do a tour of Ada, which is where my family is from. The problem is that it is a tiny little town. The closest town of any reasonable size is Grimstad.

[Tamberlane]

Well, we have to disagree then. For me, doing wrong is harming others, and freedom involves the right to make mistakes - and the duty to face the consequences (personal responsibility).

Anyhow, the great advantage of legalization is that, with heroin costing pennies, becoming addicted doesn't necessarily ruin your life as it does under prohibition. Opiates aren't physically detrimental (unless you OD) and most addicts will be able to function normally, with jobs and all. The rest can be offered free rehabilitation for a fraction of what society saves on giving up the War on Drugs. Only the few that maintain a criminal lifestyle in spite of all this will have to be removed for the good of society, and even that may be to their benefit. Everybody wins - except the druglords, of course.

[wizr]

Thank God. At first I thought there were Mexican illegals in Norway, too, and they were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

[franksolich]

I will check on Ada and Grimstad later today, and if possible (if I find anything), will feature it this weekend, Friday or Saturday.

I was going to do Kristiansand, but what I found was rather disappointing; for such a charming city (one of the major cities in Norway, by the way, with, I think, about 75,000 people), there are not many good photographs of Kristiansand.

And I do not want to make my "Alesund mistake;" that first "travel thread" was abominable, and I am sure to be tarred-and-feathered by the good citizenry of Alesund.....but one learns by doing, and sooner or later I will return to Alesund and give it a better treatment.

And now I have to mail a check to Free Republic in the name of tamerlane (or someone else, from Bergen), who had discovered an error in another "tour".....

By the way, other requests for tours of little-known places in Norway are accepted.

[Tamberlane]

And now I have to mail a check to Free Republic in the name of tamerlane (or someone else, from Bergen), who had discovered an error in another "tour".....

I don't believe I objected to any 'tour' but the first one, so probably someone else. Are there more Bergeners here? Ah yes, Somewhat Centrist is one, isn't he?

[franksolich]

Well, nothing wrong with disagreeing.

Disagreeing is the "friction" that causes people and societies to move forward; an elementary law of physics.

But what happens with a drug addict who has children, and because of his addiction, does not support them?

The rest of us must then support his children, and we (the taxpayers) become victims of his "voluntary" "victimless" crime.

Or what happens with a drunk who takes the steering-wheel of an automobile, and crashes into someone else?

[franksolich]

Somewhat Centrist is from Alesund, I think.

Somewhat Centrist has not been around ever since that abysmal "tour" of Alesund; I hope he (or she) is not humiliated by MY mistakes.

There are others from Bergen on the Norway ping list--which is always growing longer and longer--but if I remember correctly (and I always do not remember correctly), most of them are Americans living in Bergen.

[franksolich]

Yeah, that one photograph I had said was a long-distance view of Alesund; you pointed out it was Bergen, and I checked.

The original web-site alleged it was Alesund, but then when I looked at photographs of Bergen, it became OBVIOUS it was a photograph of Bergen, not of Alesund.

Apparently I am not the only one who misidentifies.....

[Tamberlane]

Disagreeing is the "friction" that causes people and societies to move forward; an elementary law of physics.

No disagreement there... ;-)

But what happens with a drug addict who has children, and because of his addiction, does not support them?

That problem exists even under prohibition and is probably far worse now, since addiction is a financial mill-stone around the neck. Under legalization it would be much easier for an addict to support his children. If he is unable to, society should offer him treatment - as noted, for a fraction of the expenses saved. If he refuses, he was probably unfit to be a parent in the first place, so society couldn't, and shouldn't, avoid the cost of taking over. Not that the cost of foster parents is all that great.

Or what happens with a drunk who takes the steering-wheel of an automobile, and crashes into someone else?

Here you are talking about alcohol, inherently a far more dangerous drug. Of course, any sort of driving under the influence should be strictly forbidden, just as it is now. Controlling two tons of mobile steel is a privilege granted only on strict conditions.

[Tamberlane]

I hope the turn will come to my fair city sooner or later - I have no lack of arresting photos.

[franksolich]

Well now, see, we're slowly coming to agreement here.

I don't dispute your arguments thus far.

This is like one discussion I had once with one Norwegian; he is against capital punishment, while I am for it.

But by the time the dust had settled, and the argument was over, he had a few gentle doubts about not having capital punishment, while I was taking the "stand" that I do not like capital punishment, but I like the idea of at least having it in the law.

Not total agreement, but closer agreement.