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

[Skepticemea]

If Hitler would have been closed in pillory for two months after Beerputsch then his image of avant-garde political prisoner would diminish, and Mein Kampf couldn't have been written. These lunatics have too much time and too much freedom in a jail and they spend it to build their own influence.

That particular genocidal ****wit was no stranger to humiliation. His father was a womanising, poorly-educated bastard clerk whose own father is a matter of guesswork - hardly the most suitable progenitor of National Socialism. His own schoolwork was pretty non-descript and his time in Vienna spent chasing his unrealistic creative dreams was yet more humiliation.

I guess I'm saying that humiliation is a driver in certain psychoses. Humiliating some like Hitler would only propel them deeper into their paranoia and resentment.

 

[Alcassin]

Godwin alert.

My post is mainly cynical. I see that without smilies there are people who just can't operate. And I see some overreaction like Adolf should never be an example, so any kind of history with him should be forgotten. I admit that analogy can be weak.

Read Kershaw's biography of Adolf, he explained quite well how was the prison time used by him. But it isn't only Adolf in that case. Lenin was also a prisoner, how did he use that time, maybe I should recall? Gangsters didn't lose control of their empires while in prison. Not everyone is almost forgotten like Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski. But prison almost never breaks them.

People with enough intelligence and strong faith in their aims can use it to build their influence and prison doesn't punish nor resocialize them. I admit that in the field of resocialization and crime recidivism Norway is a great country which should be followed (but I can't explain why those ends are achieved), but I feel we have a special case here.

I think that the punishment should be adequate, and jail isn't one in case of Breivik, and I really don't know how besides public ridicule can break him. Is there really any other punishment that can be used in that case?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I find it strange that so much has been made of 'is he sane, isn't he'. As far as I recall, nobody asked that of other mass murderers, such as Bin Laden or Khalid Shiekh Mohammed. Why him?

Because Norway is a civilized country which takes due process seriously.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Update: he's now saying he did not expect to survive and viewed his operation as a "suicide attack".

If only.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because Norway is a civilized country which takes due process seriously.

Exactly. And nobody is worth forgetting that for.

Also, it seems people think he will be getting off too lightly, unless death penalty, or something even more sadistic is applied. Guys, life imprisonment is no picnic, even in Norway. You will, in a decade or two, be remided of him and think, "oh, he still sits in there", but he will be living every damn day, hour, and minute of it. Whether he regrets or not, he will be alone in hos cell, which may be fairly comfortable, but the lock is still on the other side of the door. That is no small punishment, espcially the lack of hope.

Hans

 

[eirik]

Because Norway is a civilized country which takes due process seriously.

When compared to Bin Laden and his ilks, there is a key difference: Breivik surrendered to the police.

If not, he would without a doubt have been shot by the police at Utoya.

 

[Ryokan]

Update: he's now saying he did not expect to survive and viewed his operation as a "suicide attack".

If only.

He stated as much in his manifesto, and to the police after he got caught.

My guess is that he did dream of becoming a martyr, but got cold feet.

If not, he would without a doubt have been shot by the police at Utoya.

The police has stated that they were just a second away from shooting him when he surrendered.

 

[Ryokan]

I just want to clear up something I said earlier, about his defense. I roughly translated what has been said, that Breivik will claim 'preventive self defence'. This was my translation of a Norwegian term. A lot of interpreters to foreign media has translated it the same way, but apparently that's wrong.

The correct translation of the Norwegian term 'nødrett' is 'principle of necessity'. This principle says that you can't be held responsible for committing a crime if it's done to prevent a greater crime or some other evil. An example would be breaking into a house to save someone from a fire, or even killing a person to prevent that person from killing someone else.

Breivik made a summary of how he will conduct his defence today, and there wasn't really any surprises. My guess earlier in the thread, that he will claim that his actions were justified and necessary to stop the Islamic takeover of Norway and Europe, and the 'cultural marxist' enablers of that takeover.

 

[Ove]

The only trouble as far as i see it is that if he is declared "sane" (which i will never agree that he is) he wil be sentenced to life imprisonment. UNFORTUNATELY in Norway that is only 22 years which means he will come out eventually and he will probably then start over again. IF on the other hand he is declared "insane" he can be kept untill he dies OR untill a psyciatrist declares him "cured" or what you will call it.

It is the same story in Denmark and we do have some killers (allthough not at all in the same league) locked up for good. I certainly hope that they see the obvious and declare him insane. In my opinion he should be kept in a Stray-jacket all the time and refused any right to speak other than answering questions. Giving him the right to speak in my book is equal to letting "Napoleon" from the local insane asylum tell about his plans for invading Russia.

 

[Ryokan]

No.

If after serving his 21 years he's still considered to be a danger to society, he can be given ten more years - so called custody, or security confinement. After those ten years, if he's still considered a danger to society, he'll be given another ten years. Etc, etc. So there are provisions in the Norwegian justice system for keeping someone locked up technically forever.

 

[Chaos]

Exactly. And nobody is worth forgetting that for.

Also, it seems people think he will be getting off too lightly, unless death penalty, or something even more sadistic is applied. Guys, life imprisonment is no picnic, even in Norway. You will, in a decade or two, be remided of him and think, "oh, he still sits in there", but he will be living every damn day, hour, and minute of it. Whether he regrets or not, he will be alone in hos cell, which may be fairly comfortable, but the lock is still on the other side of the door. That is no small punishment, espcially the lack of hope.

Hans

And since it is probably unlikely that the other inmates share his views about killing dozens of teenagers, we can be fairly confident that he won´t be given the opportunity to socialize with them - because if he did, one of them might take the opportunity to kill him.

 

[MRC_Hans]

When compared to Bin Laden and his ilks, there is a key difference: Breivik surrendered to the police.

If not, he would without a doubt have been shot by the police at Utoya.

Yes, he is even a bigger coward than Bin Laden.

Of course they would have shot him. What else would you suggest they do with an armed killer, if he does not surrender?

ETA: Of course, I don't really think OBL was given much chance of surrendering, so perhaps the comparison is moot.

Hans

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I just want to clear up something I said earlier, about his defense. I roughly translated what has been said, that Breivik will claim 'preventive self defence'. This was my translation of a Norwegian term. A lot of interpreters to foreign media has translated it the same way, but apparently that's wrong.

The correct translation of the Norwegian term 'nødrett' is 'principle of necessity'. This principle says that you can't be held responsible for committing a crime if it's done to prevent a greater crime or some other evil. An example would be breaking into a house to save someone from a fire, or even killing a person to prevent that person from killing someone else.

Sounds like the defence greenpeace activists and peace protesters sometimes use in the UK:

Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies.

The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six by a majority verdict. Five of the protesters had scaled a 200-metre chimney at Kingsnorth power station, Hoo, Kent, in October last year.

The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the word "Gordon" down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.
[snip]
In the last 12 years, court cases involving GM crops and nuclear, chemical and arms companies collapsed after protesters said they had followed their consciences and had been trying to prevent a greater crime.

· 2000 Norwich jury found Greenpeace director Lord Melchett and 27 activists not guilty of causing criminal damage to field of GM crops

· 2000 Five Greenpeace volunteers found not guilty of criminal damage after occupying incinerator

· 1999 Three women cleared of causing £80,000 damage to Trident nuclear submarine computer equipment

· 1996 Liverpool jury acquitted four women who caused £1.5m damage to Hawk fighter jet at British Aerospace factory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp

 

[Montag451]

Sick isn't sickness.

I have great respect for the way Norway is handling this. Horrible crime but Norway seems to be acting with great dignity. I read somewhere that after the attack only 16% of norwegians wanted the death penalty reintroduced. Way to stand by your beliefs.

I think he doesn't expect to be aquitted but wants to broadcast his 'message' to the world. Best option us to try him as a common killer and sentence him as such. Take away hs fantasy that he is some sort of prophet.Let him slowly watch his life dribble away, much better punishment IMO.

 

[Damien Evans]

No.

If after serving his 21 years he's still considered to be a danger to society, he can be given ten more years - so called custody, or security confinement. After those ten years, if he's still considered a danger to society, he'll be given another ten years. Etc, etc. So there are provisions in the Norwegian justice system for keeping someone locked up technically forever.

Could there be a provision for making him serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently, so that when his first 21 years ends he starts the next 21 and so on?

 

[Ryokan]

Could there be a provision for making him serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently, so that when his first 21 years ends he starts the next 21 and so on?

No, he will only be given one sentence.

 

[timhau]

Update: he's now saying he did not expect to survive and viewed his operation as a "suicide attack".

... which sort of fizzled when he chickened out and surrendered at the end.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I think Breivik has made some pretty insane claims that suggest he is crazy. Even if he is lying, it still makes him seem crazy. What kind of person kills this many people and exhibits his odd behavior?

 

[Ryokan]

I think Breivik has made some pretty insane claims that suggest he is crazy. Even if he is lying, it still makes him seem crazy. What kind of person kills this many people and exhibits his odd behavior?

A True Believer.

 

[timhau]

I think Breivik has made some pretty insane claims that suggest he is crazy.

I don't think that was ever in question. Any adult who leads his own, imaginary chivalric order is quite obviously nuts. The question was whether he is competent to stand trial.