Justice, Scandinavian style

[Slargos]

I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing

Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force.  He just did not mean to kill her...maybe.  But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?

If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows). Norwegian law, obviously, is different.

I'm still trying to find out who was the lay-judge in this case and what political party he/she belonged to.

Have you been watching Castle? 

[Ideologue]

I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing

Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force.  He just did not mean to kill her...maybe.  But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?

Norwegian Law /= American Law, remember? Pre-meditation in comitting the kidnapping does not result in premeditation in the death that comes as a result of the kidnapping. Khan's defense was basically that he payed the guy to kidnap her, not kill her.

Personally, I think Norwegian law's got it right here.

If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows). Norwegian law, obviously, is different.

It depends (I guess?) on the jurisdiction.  I know of no state or territorythat does not have a felony murder provision.

'm still trying to find out who was the lay-judge in this case and what political party he/she belonged to.

Does that matter a great deal?

[dps]

If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows).

That's essentially correct, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., though technically they're not guilty until convicted.

Depending on the details of the case, it wouldn't be unusual for the prosecutor to arrange a plea bargain with the actual killer whereby the hitman would plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for his testimony against the person who hired him--the idea being to avoid what happened here, with the "mastermind" (so to speak, it doesn't sound like either of these guys would really deserve that title) of the crime getting a lighter sentence than the hireling.

Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.

[Viking]

Does that matter a great deal?

Basically, the jury pool is the political party election lists and the weight of the proportions from which the jury pool is selected is by representation on the county/city council. Basically, they get picked just like the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, with some exceptions.

Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.

The case here was that the defense argued that the intention was not to kill her, but rather just kidnap her. Had the prosecution proved that Khan had solicited Nystøl to kill her he would be found guilty of murder. So the reason Nystøl got a greater sentence was that he killed her during the kidnapping, while Khan was just sentenced for comissioning a kidnapping.

[Ideologue]

If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows).

That's essentially correct, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., though technically they're not guilty until convicted.

Depending on the details of the case, it wouldn't be unusual for the prosecutor to arrange a plea bargain with the actual killer whereby the hitman would plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for his testimony against the person who hired him--the idea being to avoid what happened here, with the "mastermind" (so to speak, it doesn't sound like either of these guys would really deserve that title) of the crime getting a lighter sentence than the hireling.

Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.

Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it.  Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).

They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal.  They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.

[Ideologue]

Does that matter a great deal?

Basically, the jury pool is the political party election lists and the weight of the proportions from which the jury pool is selected is by representation on the county/city council.

Whaaat?  That's a crazy way to do juries.

[Viking]

Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it.  Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).

They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal.  They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.

Not Husband, STALKER.

[Viking]

Whaaat?  That's a crazy way to do juries.

That's what I said. In small and medium sized counties a politically active person probably knows every single potential juror personally.

[Ideologue]

Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it.  Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).

They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal.  They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.

Not Husband, STALKER.

Sorry.  Lines probably crossed with the domestic violence case from this morning.  (My client: innocent. )

That's what I said. In small and medium sized counties a politically active person probably knows every single potential juror personally.

We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe.  It's randomish.

[Norgy]

Ironic? No. More like "typical".

It's typical policing, yes. May I point out that your right-wing police force never bothered to look beyond foreigners or drunkards for Olof Palme's killer?

In this case, they found that a girl with immigrant parents was missing, hence it must've been an honour killing. So they followed your logic.

As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.

[Viking]

We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe.  It's randomish.

Your system is much better imho. Technically the rules say that anybody can serve, but you have to apply to serve and be of sound financial status, not appointed to a government job and not a harbor pilot. The selection is made by the county political majority and selects based on proportion (as tradition) of votes.

The problem here is that the system requires honest and honourable people to function. Fortunately the system does have these people afaik. The real problem arisises (as will happen in sweden soon enough) when a political party which has racist policies/members gets to select lay-judges and jury members for a trial of a non-western immigrant or asylum seeker. With a random jury this bias might be there, but it is not obvious, but with this system bias is out in the open. Faith in the system will be harmed since either a racist might get off because of a declared racist on the jury or a racist which gets off might still be considered guilty because there was a racist on the jury.

Not to mention the likely swedish solution, basically don't allow them to pick for the jury pool. Permitting the minority parties to participate is not fixed in law, it is just custom.

[Berkut]

Note that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!

But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.

[The Brain]

Norway is a hellhole.

[dps]

I gotta ask:  Why no harbor pilots?

[Viking]

As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.

Drammen has 6/49 FrP members, so a 2/7 chance of at least one of the judges being FrP. 21 Høyre btw, so at least one, possibly both, were conservatives.

Note: USAians, Conservative in Norway means Normally Raging Social Democrats that think they may have gone a bit to far this time.