Court Declares Oslo "Game Addict" Killer Breivik Sane
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Only 21 years? That's bullshit. I'm hoping thy'll still keep him behind bars afterwards.
'Cause what's worse? A crazy person killing for no reason? Or a sane person who is perfectly control of his actions?
'Cause what's worse? A crazy person killing for no reason? Or a sane person who is perfectly control of his actions?
Norwegian. And as others said, it's highly unlikely he'll be getting out after those 21 years.Toilet said:
Don't assume prisons all over the world work the same way they do in the movies/the United States. Most prison systems in the developed world don't have prison rape to the degree it happens in the U.S. (it's actually quite an anomaly compared to other similar countries). Also, there's solitary confinement in prisons too, and Breivik seems like a prime candidate for that.The Plunk said:
Actually, that depends on the Norwegian legal system's attitude and traditions regarding retroactive laws. I doubt they allow them but you never know.The Lunatic said:
Wandered over to the Guardian to read the original article. One aspect that bothered me, as a layman, was this idea that he was "sane". How can one be "sane" and commit these sort of acts? Apparently, although this isn't stated explicitly, had he been judged insane, then he wouldn't have been considred responsible for his actions and may have avoided prison time altogether.
From the Guardian:
Most Norwegians, including the victims' families, had wanted Breivik to be found sane so he could be held accountable for what they view as a political crime.
While on the face of it, 21 years seems a very short time, the Guardian also notes:
Breivik is almost certain to end his life in prison. Although Norway has a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, Breivik could be sentenced to "preventive detention", which can be extended for as long as an inmate is considered dangerous to society.
So it seems that Norway will ensure Mr. Breivik never walks free again. Some small confort to the survivors and the loved ones of the victims, I hope.
From the Guardian:
Most Norwegians, including the victims' families, had wanted Breivik to be found sane so he could be held accountable for what they view as a political crime.
While on the face of it, 21 years seems a very short time, the Guardian also notes:
Breivik is almost certain to end his life in prison. Although Norway has a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, Breivik could be sentenced to "preventive detention", which can be extended for as long as an inmate is considered dangerous to society.
So it seems that Norway will ensure Mr. Breivik never walks free again. Some small confort to the survivors and the loved ones of the victims, I hope.
How i see it, he is NOT sane. No one their right mind would kill this many people, nor plan it for that long. I refuse to believe that a sane person could do that.
Then again, my definition and the experts definition of the word "sane" might differ...
Breivik did not win. The court was never a game of "how to punish him the most" and it never should be.
Then again, my definition and the experts definition of the word "sane" might differ...
Breivik did not win. The court was never a game of "how to punish him the most" and it never should be.
"Sane" is not the same as "logical, rational, and justifiable". Saying that he was "sane" just means that the court doesn't think that there he has a *medical* condition that caused his actions. In other words: he's crazy in the colloquial sense, not in the medical sense, and as such he's fully responsible for his own actions.
Technically yes. Instead of being sent to prison for 21 years and then possibly forever he'd have been sent to a mental institution and possibly still forever if they didn't consider him safe to reenter society.Jhooud said:
To quote a reference from before the verdict:
"If they deem him insane, and the judge concurs - he does not have to - Breivik would be sent to a medical institution. He would remain there until he is considered to no longer pose a threat to society". So either way I think we'd have seen the same result he was going to end up locked away for a very very long time. Lets face it if the mental health people let him out the penal system would as well. The only real difference was whether he goes down in history as a mad man or not and whether he spends the rest of his life in a prison or a mental ward.
The survivors, the families of the victims, and the Norwegian justice system has impressed the world with their calm, objectivity, and lucidity throughout all these ghastly proceedings. The chance of Mr. Breivik being released are near zero, let us remember: his manifesto, his demeanour, and his actions have shown that his ideology precludes any peaceful existence in a 21st century society.
Mr. Gauntlett, I also would like to ask you to amend your article; there were two psychological reports on Mr. Breivik; the one you mentioned that claimed he has paranoid schizophrenia, and another that ruled him completely sane. The judges in the court took this into account in their long deliberations, so I would hope that we would be able to stick by their very informed verdict.
Mr. Gauntlett, I also would like to ask you to amend your article; there were two psychological reports on Mr. Breivik; the one you mentioned that claimed he has paranoid schizophrenia, and another that ruled him completely sane. The judges in the court took this into account in their long deliberations, so I would hope that we would be able to stick by their very informed verdict.
That's because the legal and medical/psychiatric concepts and definitions of 'sanity' are different... or I should say the legal concepts and definitions are much narrower, mostly having to do with a person's capacity for reasoning and ability to judge moral/ethical/legal actions.Jhooud said:
They have a murder rate seven times less than the states.Ukomba said:
It's so low, in fact, that this single man is enough to quadruple their murder rate for 2011.
I hate to criticize a system that actually seems to work. Maybe they're not the ones that are messed up.
I was really interested to see which way the Norweigan court ruled on this. It has a lot of connotations for their view on what happened. If they had ruled him insane, it would void any political reasons for his actions; they would be saying that he wasn't responsible and had no coherent motive. By ruling him sane, they're acknowledging the existence of a political faction that actually wants to commit atrocities like this -- Breivik definitely has supporters, hard to believe as that is -- and they're saying that he was in control of his actions and thoughts.
Breivik definitely wanted to be ruled sane for that reason, but that doesn't mean they should declare him insane if he isn't, just to spite him -- as someone mentioned, he was analysed by two psychiatric teams before the trial and only one of them concluded that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. His sanity is a factual matter, not one to be decided according to an agenda. (Although the relatives of the victims were also very much hoping he would be declared sane, since he would probably have appealed against an insanity verdict and that would have denied them closure.)
I've gained a huge amount of respect for Norweigan society and justice from this trial. Their measured, rational approach in the face of barbarism is the perfect way of showing that they haven't allowed him to win by making them behave the way he does.
I've kind of written more than I meant to.
I've been following this story for a long time so I guess I had saved up a lot of things to say!
Breivik definitely wanted to be ruled sane for that reason, but that doesn't mean they should declare him insane if he isn't, just to spite him -- as someone mentioned, he was analysed by two psychiatric teams before the trial and only one of them concluded that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. His sanity is a factual matter, not one to be decided according to an agenda. (Although the relatives of the victims were also very much hoping he would be declared sane, since he would probably have appealed against an insanity verdict and that would have denied them closure.)
I've gained a huge amount of respect for Norweigan society and justice from this trial. Their measured, rational approach in the face of barbarism is the perfect way of showing that they haven't allowed him to win by making them behave the way he does.
I've kind of written more than I meant to.
I've been following this story for a long time so I guess I had saved up a lot of things to say!Well if he is not insane then I guess it would be wrong to actually say he was. Not that it really matters since the rest of his life will likely be spent in solitary confinement anyway. In most countries criminals who kill children or use religious motivations are separate from other criminals to prevent prison murder. Like the Canadian Military Base Commander who got thrown in jail for raping and killing some women. because of who he was they would not let him in with the rest of the prisoners because they would have killed him for both his government position and the fame of the killings.
And just because there is a possibility of him to get out does not mean he will if they believe him to still be a danger to society. And even if he is not they will still keep him in prison. Charles Manson has had his parole denied 12 times and he is 77 and probably not going to cause any more deaths out of jail than he is now.
And just because there is a possibility of him to get out does not mean he will if they believe him to still be a danger to society. And even if he is not they will still keep him in prison. Charles Manson has had his parole denied 12 times and he is 77 and probably not going to cause any more deaths out of jail than he is now.
I always think it's interesting the ways that we define sanity.
I would consider anyone that is even capable of killing over 70 people, especially doing it individually instead of through a bomb or other form of impersonal killing, to be insane, no questions asked. I don't like to imagine that a normal human mind is capable of doing something like that. In self-defence, maybe, but to do it of one's own volition I think is an automatic guarantor of madness.
However. I also think that while his logic may have been twisted and for lack of a better word evil, he has always seemed to me to have been in possession of his faculties, and aware of his actions. This isn't someone who suddenly snapped, manifested a split personality and can't remember a single detail of his rampage, this is someone who with extreme malice of forethought planned the systematic murder of 70+ people, and that takes a degree of sanity.
Personally, and I'm not a psychologist, I would say that Brevik is insane, however, in the eyes of the law insanity doesn't matter in the same way. What matters is whether he did it with intent, and I believe that he did.
I would consider anyone that is even capable of killing over 70 people, especially doing it individually instead of through a bomb or other form of impersonal killing, to be insane, no questions asked. I don't like to imagine that a normal human mind is capable of doing something like that. In self-defence, maybe, but to do it of one's own volition I think is an automatic guarantor of madness.
However. I also think that while his logic may have been twisted and for lack of a better word evil, he has always seemed to me to have been in possession of his faculties, and aware of his actions. This isn't someone who suddenly snapped, manifested a split personality and can't remember a single detail of his rampage, this is someone who with extreme malice of forethought planned the systematic murder of 70+ people, and that takes a degree of sanity.
Personally, and I'm not a psychologist, I would say that Brevik is insane, however, in the eyes of the law insanity doesn't matter in the same way. What matters is whether he did it with intent, and I believe that he did.