What does this mean exactly? That people usually get paroled after 16 years? Or does it mean that the average sentence is 16 years when life is requested?
Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment serve an average of 16 years, more for cases considered to be particularly grave. The only example in modern times of an individual serving significantly more than 16 years in prison is Palle Sørensen, who served 33 years for a quadruple police murder.
So I guess it's a parole, then (which cannot happen until 12 years into the sentence).
>Despite being a peaceful prisoner, he was considered the most dangerous convict in Denmark for many years, and police unions pressured the authorities to grant him neither parole nor pardon.
In Scandinavia cops get their own separate justice system too.
The averages very strongly suggest that he spent an unusually long time in prison because he killed cops, of course I may be missing out on some key details here.
> Danish inventor Peter Madsen has been sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of the Swedish journalist Kim Wall on his submarine.
So I'm not sure he will be paroled after ~16 years?
So no parole but a pardon.
The queen can grant a pardon, but that is separate from the parole hearings. Pardon means the convicted is absolved of the crime, parole just means the convicted is released before time. Or do I have it backwards?
It should be noted that that if you kill a police office and get a life sentence, the you will stay in prison for a VERY long time.
On one occasion, they used one of the submarines to drag a rocket launch platform into the ocean. How cool is that! Using your self-built submarine to launch your self-built rocket into the stratosphere.
That said, the case seems pretty clear from the outside. I have no idea why he thougt he could get away with this.
Aside from the vehement distaste I feel towards these abominations, they're also fascinating, in that they seem alien to me.
How does one come about? Does it feel and think as I do? How different is its experience of the world as compared to mine? Is it different on the same level as the hypothetical difference in perception between the sexes? Or is it further removed—as the perception of the world would be different for a bat, say.
Does it have a purpose in nature to perform some kind of function? Or is it a failed experimentation (mutation) on nature's part; over-optimizing certain things leading to "unintentional" suboptimization of other things? Or has it more to do with nurture rather than nature?
The fascination is directly proportional to how hard it is to comprehend this.
Trying to understand why a sane person would commit such crime is impossible, so I personally consider that what we have heard and seen is not the behavior of a sane person. Trying to frame it like a video game is trying to impose rules of sanity to explain insanity.
I got the impression that it was a poorly covered up accident, or possibly the covering up of a failed sexual advance on her in the heat of the moment. I think he panicked after it had happened, or more likely after she was injured, and decided to cover it up by finishing her off and disposing of her body. I'm not sure he would have thought he could get away with it.
I agree with the sentencing, but I don't think this is as simple as him being a psycopath who wanted to kill someone. I don't think we have the full story.
He is up to something like three or four different explanations for an accident, and they have all been refuted by experts. Also his psyc evaluation concluded that he is a danger for others.
I'm sorry but I find your apologetic tone uncomfortable.
I remember it being unclear in the first week or two whether it had been an accident or not, followed by some sketchy details that implied it might have been a cover up. I have not heard much since.
Thanks for the heads up, I of course don't mean to be apologetic at all for the crime, I was surprised at what seemed to be a significant change from the direction the case had been progressing, but this sounds like I was misinformed.
> They [the jury] heard how he had joked about “a murder plan” involving tying up a woman on his submarine and slitting their throat with a knife in a set of messages sent to a friend, which he had subsequently tried to delete.
He also changed his story multiple times. Beginning with dropping her off on shore alive, to dropping a hatch on her head and finally carbon-monoxide poisoning.
I'm not sure how you determined that? The article is light on details and it is not clear what Madsen defense is.
So he will not be imprisoned for life, as is rare (unheard of?) in Scandinavian countries.
You do have a point though, the only reason that some many is interested, is because the whole thing happened in a submarine. I doubt that it would make the headlines around the world if he killed her in the back of a van.
Let’s not make this about engineering. This is a psycho that deserves to be isolated from society for what he did.