Anders Behring Breivik found to be sane and fit to stand trial

[ddt]

It's his defence. He can conduct it as he sees fit.

There's also something as wasting the court's time. I'm reminded of Wilders' trial: he presented a list of 10 "Islam experts" as witness to the court, and the court basically said: "That's a bit too much of it, pick 3". I think that's entirely reasonable.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the court that is handling Brejvik's case would throw out a number of his witnesses. I haven't seen the list, but from the characterization here it seems their testimony would not really be germane to his murdering 80-odd people.

(and I'm using the word "expert" in a very loose sense, what with people like Pam Geller and Robert Spencer on the list).

 

[Lamuella]

in a fundamental sense, whether he was aware of his actions and did them anyway, or unaware of his actions and did them anyway, he is a person who cannot safely exist within socity. He should therefore be put somewhere secure where his witting or unwitting actions will not hurt anyone else.

 

[eirik]

Can the presiding judge say no to that? He's not contesting his guilt there, and I assume Norway is like the rest of the Nordic countries in that self-defense only applies in cases where your own life is in imminent danger. Therefore, it should have absolutely zero legal relevance.

The judge can deny testimony that does not contribute to the case.

He/she does so in a preliminary hearing, were the lawyer have to explain what the witness will testify on, and it's relevance to the case.

If it is deemed unneccecary (e.g. because the statements is not argued, or many other witnesses will say exactly the same etc.) OR merely irrelevant to the legal proceedings, the judge can deny ("cut off") the testimony.

I have a strong feeling that will happen a few times in the Breivik case. He wants a circus.

 

[eirik]

in a fundamental sense, whether he was aware of his actions and did them anyway, or unaware of his actions and did them anyway, he is a person who cannot safely exist within socity. He should therefore be put somewhere secure where his witting or unwitting actions will not hurt anyone else.

Obviously. But it will not be irrelevant to Behring Breivik (whether he knows it or not) nor the integrity of the Norwegian court system whether he is deemed legally insane or not, and on what grounds.

For the record, I think he is as sane as the next conspiracy crazed killer out there. Fit for punishment, in other words.

 

[timhau]

The judge can deny testimony that does not contribute to the case.

He/she does so in a preliminary hearing, were the lawyer have to explain what the witness will testify on, and it's relevance to the case.

If it is deemed unneccecary (e.g. because the statements is not argued, or many other witnesses will say exactly the same etc.) OR merely irrelevant to the legal proceedings, the judge can deny ("cut off") the testimony.

Thanks, I figured it'll probably work that way.

I have a strong feeling that will happen a few times in the Breivik case. He wants a circus.

Let's just hope the presiding judge will not be remembered as the Lance Ito of Norway after the trial.

 

[Damien Evans]

You will. Once the trial starts, I'm guessing there will be a media frenzy and that every little detail of what is said in court will be scrutinized.

From the list of witnesses the defence wants to use, it's obvious that Breivik's defence will be that Muslims really are trying to take over the world, with help from the political left, so his actions were necessary and justified.

I suppose that's slightly more palatable than outright denial. But not by much.

 

[Ryokan]

Breivik's defence lawyer says today that he will plead not guily, by reason of 'preventive self defence'.

 

[timhau]

Breivik's defence lawyer says today that he will plead not guily, by reason of 'preventive self defence'.

Does that concept exist in Norwegian law?

 

[Ryokan]

Does that concept exist in Norwegian law?

Yes. He's invoking § 48 of the Norwegian Penal Code.

No person may be punished for an act committed in self-defence.
It is a case of self-defence when an otherwise criminal act is committed for the
prevention of or in defence against an unlawful attack if the act does not exceed what
appeared to be necessary for that purpose, and it must not be considered absolutely
unfitting to inflict so great an evil as is intended by the act in view of the dangerousness
of the attack, the guilt of the assailant, or the legal right assailed.
The above provision concerning the prevention of an unlawful attack is also applicable
to acts performed for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or preventing a prisoner
from escaping from prison or custody.
If any person has exceeded the limits of self-defence, he shall nevertheless not be
liable to a penalty if such excess is due solely to emotional upset or consternation caused
by the attack.

Relevant part bolded. His lawyer hasn't said exactly how he's going to argue it, but I assume it'll be that his actions were done to prevent an Islamic takeover by Norway, and that what he did was justified and necessary because it was done to prevent a greater evil.

 

[keyfeatures]

I'd like to hear what he has to say in court.

I wouldn't. It will just be more vileness and he clearly relishes the attention. He's already had much much more than his fair 'say'. I say just let him free. And announce where and when. Let him live in the society he so despises. You've got to ask who is being protected by incarcerating him.

 

[timhau]

Yes. He's invoking § 48 of the Norwegian Penal Code.

How is that part about prevention usually interpreted in courts? I'd kind of assume it is prevention against an immediate attack as per Dirty Harry criteria ("When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross"), not prevention in the sense of "If I don't kill these kids now, Norway will be a caliphate by 2040".

I guess what I really want to know is whether the court has a legal way of saying "Oh cut the crap already, you may be fit for trial but you're still nuts".

 

[Ryokan]

How is that part about prevention usually interpreted in courts?

I really have no idea, and finding out would take a bit more research than I'm willing to do at the moment.

Hopefully the media will ask the same question, and do some reports on it. But as it stands you would have to interpret the law in quite wide terms to make it fit.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Is being called as a witness mandatory? Because I would image even a Fjordman loon would say "Oh, sorry, I have yoga that afternoon..."

I'd like to hear what he has to say in court.

You should try reading his manifesto. I gave up very quickly and used the search function for key words.

ETA: Oh wow, I just read Fjordman is actually a witness!

 

[Ryokan]

Is being called as a witness mandatory?

Not unless a judge mandates it. Some of the witnesses on Breivik's list have already said they have no intention of appearing.

 

[eirik]

How is that part about prevention usually interpreted in courts?

Every cicilized legal system has an exception for the prohibition of hurting/killing somebody, in Norway and US and most other western countries the theories of this is developed from Roman law. The concept is therefore very similar in many countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

See some discussions about the the Trayvon Martin case. (not the SYG-law, which is special, but the general right to self defence)

But the invoking of self defence in this matter, is clearly the ravings of a madman, and not some tecnical judicial issue the lawyers has concocted.

 

[Ryokan]

But the invoking of self defence in this matter, is clearly the ravings of a madman, and not some tecnical judicial issue the lawyers has concocted.

Yes, pretty much. He doesn't outright say it, but it's obvious from reading between the lines that this defence goes against the advice of his defence lawyer. He has no choice, he says, than to follow the wishes of his client.

 

[marplots]

Marplots: I'd like to hear what he has to say in court.

I wouldn't. It will just be more vileness and he clearly relishes the attention. He's already had much much more than his fair 'say'. I say just let him free. And announce where and when. Let him live in the society he so despises. You've got to ask who is being protected by incarcerating him.

I don't much care if he feels good about it or not, I'm assuming he'll eventually get what's coming to him by way of prison. But his thinking ought to be exposed. I read his manifesto -- well, I did skip a lot of the political stuff -- and found it fascinating (and scary) to see the single-minded purposefulness of it.

It was vile and toxic. But I think it's important to show people that such stuff exists in the world. Only he can express what's going on in his head and I'd like to see what that is. And, along with the gawking, I'd like to do a bit of mocking as well.

 

[Damien Evans]

Yes, pretty much. He doesn't outright say it, but it's obvious from reading between the lines that this defence goes against the advice of his defence lawyer. He has no choice, he says, than to follow the wishes of his client.

Which is true, and he could get in quite a lot of trouble with the local bar if he went against them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. He's invoking § 48 of the Norwegian Penal Code.



Relevant part bolded. His lawyer hasn't said exactly how he's going to argue it, but I assume it'll be that his actions were done to prevent an Islamic takeover by Norway, and that what he did was justified and necessary because it was done to prevent a greater evil.

And he must be crazy if he imagines that will hold in court. But probably he doesn't. It just gives him a chance to spread his drivel.

I think that the question of Breivik being sane or not is more a question of whether or not we have a name for his insanity; no truly sane person could do what he did.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as they lock him up and throw the key away.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I wouldn't. It will just be more vileness and he clearly relishes the attention. He's already had much much more than his fair 'say'. I say just let him free. And announce where and when. Let him live in the society he so despises. You've got to ask who is being protected by incarcerating him.

I'm sorry, but that would be coming close to the sociey he wants. And what would you do to someone who went and killed him, or even beat him up?

- This is a matter for the courts.

Hans