on the other extreme, across the pond you have a guy who murdered 77 teenagers and kids, and is chilling in a hotel-like facility with a good chance to be out in 2033. I'm really not sure what's worse.
And he's not walking free. For some reason conservative US media loved the "he'll be out after 20 years" idea, which is, in plain terms, a lie. Norwegian law mandates a court hearing after 21 years of a sentence to decide whether the sentence has to be extended. There's no question that it will be and the killer in question will most likely die in prison or perhaps be released in the final days of his life. Having a mandatory additional hearing seems like a great safety feature built into the law.
Hotel-like facility? I haven't seen many hotels that lock you inside your room and don't allow a minute's unsupervised interaction with another person. We don't think it necessary to design prisons to be intentionally cruel to the inmates, we don't think torturing people accomplishes anything. The killer is provided with enough to meet basic human rights and that is overwhelmingly supported by public opinion. I've never been able to take anyone who says "Scandinavian prisons are like a vacation" seriously because nobody who claims that will admit to wanting to spend time in there.
He can also fake repentance any time he feels like it, so I'm not sure why you are so convinced about the outcome of some future hearing 10 years from now.
Making rhetorical make points to make people outraged over shadows is harmful.
If he has absolutely no chance to repent in the next 10 years, what is the purpose of that hearing?
Even Treebeard eventually let Saruman go, so we can't predict what may occur in the future.
However, in this case, since he likely sees himself as a "freedom fighter", he'll never try to admit wrongdoing to get out because that would ruin his image of himself.
In such extreme cases especially, it wouldn't be a judge making their mind up after a two-minute statement from a convict. The hearing will have prison personnel testifying about years of interaction with the person. There will be psychologists providing their perspective. There could be a repeated psychiatric evaluation.
Can that process be fooled? Certainly, as there exists no certain way to tell whether someone is being truthful. But successfully faking your way out of a continued sentence requires more than putting on a convincing act for a few hearings.
If he repents the murders, if he renounces his ideology, and if he spends a couple decades as a repentful man would, he will, just maybe, get released when he's old, frail and not expected to live long.
Source needed. From what I've read he will probably never be free, which makes sense since he is actively dangerous.
No science we have can say a person won't do the same thing again.
The emotional answer is that some people serve no practical purpose. I don't understand why society would care so much about the life of someone who values life so little that they can repeatedly kill dozens of people.
We have no problem as a society putting down a deranged dog, even though we could totally lock it up in a cage and let it live out it's days there. Heck, maybe it won't be deranged when it is 9 years old.
Let's consider this hypothetical: I am just really curious what it is like to kill someone, so I go out and randomly kill someone you love very dearly. After I do it, it turns out I don't like killing at all and never want to do it again. The rest of my life will be devoted to peace and love.
How much jail time do you think I should serve?
Maybe give some more info about the case then? Such as why they 'only' (in your eyes) got the sentence they got?