The now 17-year-old girl who in October 2014 killed miljøarbeideren Anna Kristin Gillebo Backlund on barneverninstitusjonen Small units in Asker, is once again sentenced to forvaringsstraff.
Borgarting court of appeal confirms the judgment from Asker and Bærum district court on detention for nine years, with a minimum time of six years.
Is the judgment enforceable, it is the first time a child is sentenced to custody here in the country.
Still a child
She was only 15 years and one month old when she committed a deliberate murder against a person who had the task to help her to cope in life. She had been one month younger, it would never have been any criminal case – the criminal age of consent is well known that the 15 years.
the Girl is just filled to 17 years of age. She is still a child. Of the penal code states that children may be imposed unconditional imprisonment when it is particularly required, and his imprisonment cannot exceed 15 years.
the Un convention is a part of Norwegian law. Here it is that prison should only be used “as a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time”.
This applies to i.e. timed imprisonment. What with custody – tidsubestemt punishment?
Very narrow access
According to the criminal code, there must be “completely exceptional circumstances” that children under the age of 18 years may be imposed detention. It passed the Parliament, despite the fact that Straffelovkommisjonen recommended that no one under the age of 18 should be able to be sentenced to detention.
the Freedom to idømme a child custody is in other words extremely narrow. In the preparatory works to the act states that detention almost never to be used on offenders who were minors at the gjerningstidspunktet. The reason is the strain such a punishment could inflict on a child.
Un convention
the Girl’s defenders, lawyers, Cecilie Nakstad and Marianne Darre-Næss, argued in court that the child convention is an obstacle that children can be sentenced to detention.
This reject the the right. Barnekonvensjonens prohibition is directed against “life imprisonment without possibility of release”, while a person who is sentenced to forvaringsstraff can petition itself prøveløslatt when minstetiden is out. It tidsubestemte item is located in that court under the petition from the prosecuting authority may extend the prescribed time frame of up to five years at a time.
Dangerous years
Objectively, there is little doubt that the 17-year-old girl meets the conditions for detention.
Completely from the time she was little, she was exposed to significant neglect from her mother’s side. Already in the age of 11 she showed increasingly aberrant pattern of conduct, which among other things consisted in self-harm and desire to kill. In april 2012, she attempted to light the guy on the bed where his father lay asleep. Since that time she has been to psychiatric treatment in the various institutions.
Also in the time afterwards, she has made herself guilty of several outrages.
She has since she was 11 years has been rated as dangerous, and they rettspsykiatrisk experts are of the same opinion. They believe the risk is high that she will commit new serious acts of violence should she be released.
Long time
The experts concluded that she suffers of several severe personality disorders. Psychiatrists suggests a need for treatment which at least extends over ten years, probably even longer.
It is with this backdrop that the court of appeals concludes that the ordinary term of imprisonment is not sufficient to protect society against new acts of violence. Gjentagelsesfaren will in the court’s opinion be large over a considerably longer period of time than an ordinary prison sentence will be.
the Decision to condemn a child to the custody of, can not have been easy for the judges of the court of appeal. Access to this is as mentioned very narrow. Ultimately, it is judges discretion determines.
Should the Supreme court
Even if it is done conscientiously and well work both in the district court and the court of appeal, should this matter end in the supreme court’s table.
There are several reasons for this, for example, the relationship to the child convention and what lies in the statutory formulation “completely exceptional circumstances”.
Then there was this with discretion. In previous cases in the Supreme court, we have seen that the discretion may vary with the different judges when it comes to custody or not, but then, there have always been adults, people who are convicted of serious crimes.
Not a child.
Should a child be sentenced to custody, should the judgment have the supreme court stamp.
Additional comments about the Ground-killing:
It rettskommentator Inge D. Hanssen has previously commented on Rampart-murder:
No comments:
Post a Comment