[Closed] Anders Breivik declared sane...

Only 21 years, could be out in 10.
Weird.
Why doesn't he get sentenced for 84 counts of murder and have a sentence for each?
Should die in prison as far as I'm concerned.

Should die in prison as far as I'm concerned.

Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK, they believe in rehabilitation rather than retribution.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.
Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

[i]Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK, they believe in rehabilitation rather than retribution.[/i]

I don't.

I don't.

And that's why you are not Scandinavia.

I believe in rehab all the way, but there are limits and a whole load of variables to consider. No way should that man be allowed to set foot outside of a jail for even one second.

[i]And that's why you are not Scandinavia.[/i]

And that's why I used the words "as far as I'm concerned" 🙄

See that thing in his hands. That's not for killing pheasants, is it? Or shooting clay pigeons. It seems to have a small sword fastened to it. Does walking into a shop and buying that not set some kind of alarm ringing?

lidl base layer compression top thingy 😯

they sell Skins in Lidl??

Scandinavia has a more liberal penal code than the UK

But, but, I thought Scandinavia was the evil place that was a puppet of US imperialism and was allowing their courts to be used to persecute Julian Assange for wikileaking...

something very similar at least

Could be out in 10????

[i]But Breivik was deemed sane by the judges and sentenced to “preventive detention.” Unlike a regular prison sentence - which can be no longer than 21 years in Norway - that confinement option can be extended for as long as an inmate is considered dangerous to society[/i]

Or maybe never.

Just read some Norwegian articles and a few Danish ones about this.
The max time they can give him is 21 years, but they can extend this with 5years again and again.
So certain ammount of years before he is to get out, they can try and get it extended which i assume that they will do, as i dont think anyone,not even in liberal Scandinavia, will like seing him getting out that "quickly"

This is utter arse.

I well remember the yorkshire rippers trial where they spent the first month debating whether he was sane or not....this, the guy who hammered bits of wood into womens bodily orifices and beat them to death with a hammer. They decided he was indeed sane. After a very short time in chokey the Prison system went .... [i]"ahem ..hes a nutter and we can't cope with him"[/i] and off he went to Broadmoor where hes been ever since.

Of course they are both loons, their actions are self evidently not those of a normal sane person are they? Or are they trying to say shooting and bombing 77 people who are at best very remotely linked to any issue he might have is in fact the action of a normal well adjusted human being. In which case if they are, why put him on trial for it?

Of course they are both loons, their actions are slef evidently not those of a normal sane person are they?

No "sane" person would ever kill anyone. That action is by definition outside any cultural norm of acceptable behaviour or rational thought.

Hence that Catch 22 quote above...

No "sane" person would ever kill anyone

ah well now, thats a big debate all on its own. Personally I don't agree with that. I watched my old chap die a very slow and undignified death in a geriatric ward. If I could I would have spared him that, and I don't think that is an insane outlook.

I would imagine, as PP says, it's more likely to be never, than 10 years. I'd go as far to say he will die in Prison.

No "sane" person would ever kill anyone

Nonsense, if someone was going to kill me, I'd kill them. it would be insane to let them kill you without trying to kill them...

....and there you go back into the perenial 3 R's argument about crime and punishment. i.e. is it about Revenge, Rehabilitation or Removal?

In this case I would suggest probably the first and third are the only genuine considerations in the outcome.

Fine with me. 21 is the max allowed by law, and they have applied that. Justice is not about revenge or retribution, or somehow "evening up" all the wrongs.

If they decide in 21 years that he's still dangerous, they'll keep him.

And the insanity argument is a load of BS. There's no "switch" up in your brain which can be set to "sane" or "insane". We're all on that spectrum somewhere.

But, but, I thought Scandinavia was the evil place that was a puppet of US imperialism and was allowing their courts to be used to persecute Julian Assange for wikileaking...

Wow, there's that clever opposing point of view again. Always impressive.

You do realise that Norway and Sweden are two different countries. Of course you do, despite your shortcomings, but don't let that stop you trying to troll the thread.

[img] [/img]

If I could I would have spared him that, and I don't think that is an insane outlook.

if someone was going to kill me, I'd kill them.

🙄 Okay perhaps it was too general a statement, aside from self-defence, euthanasia and other unusual exceptions, the act of murdering someone can be regarded as far enough outside the cultural and behavioural norm that it is "insane".

I'd say that someone spending months/years devising a detailed plan to murder lots of people and get his "message" heard is probably [i]more[/i] responsible for his actions than someone who lashed out in a furious red-mist.

It's an [i]interesting[/i] area.

If insane - unwell - requires treatment.
If sane - wrong - requires punishment.
They decided on punishment, and the maximum available.
They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts.

They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts

You're missing the Catch 22 point aren't you?

If they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

Berm Bandit - Member
They know more than anyone here ever will about the facts
You're missing the Catch 22 point aren't you?
If they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

POSTED 6 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Are you on drugs?

f they are saying he is sane, by their own definition his killing spree was a sane act. If its sane, how come they are putting him on trial for it, because by definition (theirs), its normal behaviour.

[img] [/img]

[i]Are you on drugs?[/i]

Put it to the STW judge 'n' jury. They'll know for a fact.

The definition of sane.

adjective, san•er, san•est.
1.
free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2.
having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3.
sound; healthy.

Therefore by definition, if he is sane his actions are sound, good sense and/or reasonable.

Surely that’s not too difficult to grasp?

Incidentally, I would point out I am not suggesting that I think they are, I am however suggesting that it is self evident that he is insane

They have determined that he is not a paranoid schizophrenic. As in he was able to reason that his actions were correct. Hence he is sane.

Fair enough bb. Apologies for the rude response.
I'm not suggesting either.

See that thing in his hands. That's not for killing pheasants, is it? Or shooting clay pigeons. It seems to have a small sword fastened to it. Does walking into a shop and buying that not set some kind of alarm ringing?

maybe someone from Norway should have a say here

Almost everyone here is happy with the judgement. Please do not confuse the word sane with reasonable or good sense. It means, in this case, that he is responsible for his actions and therefore can be punished by imprisonment. 21yrs is the maximum allowed. But he will never be allowed out because he will always be classed as a danger to society so his term will be extended again and again. The other option was to class him insane and therefore he was not responsible for his actions.

He was clearly very aware of his actions and very responsible for them and therefore he has to be classed as sane in this sense.

Yes, but what to the USADA have to say on the matter?

No "sane" person would ever kill anyone. That action is by definition outside any cultural norm of acceptable behaviour or rational thought.

If someone offered me a million pounds to kill you and assured me I could never get caught, would it necessarily be true that I'd have to be insane to say yes and kill you? What if I were just a selfish douchebag? Is acting outside cultural norms by definition insanity?

What about soldiers that kill other soldiers in war? What about executioners that kill the condemned? What about doctors that kill the terminally ill?

Fair enough bb. Apologies for the rude response

No need I wasn't offended, but thank you anyway.

Regarding the sane/insane argument, it matters not where the argument is made. You cannot possibly argue that his actions were those of a sane individual, because to do so makes the act sane. He is clearly a couple of stops short of a well known East London destination, however the desire for revenge does not allow for the insane judgement to be given as that would be seen as letting him off lightly. Same was true with Sutcliffe.

Incidentally, the law in Norway does allow for indefinite detention in a mental institution in much the same way as the actual sentence given allows for indefinite detention so in fact there is no real difference in outcome other than denying the obvious, and actually admitting that he might not be the epitomy of evil in the way that gives a nice clean outcome. Goodies only wear white hats and baddies black in the movies. Reality is far more complex.

So you're saying you [b]have to be[/b] a [b]paranoid schizophrenic[/b] to kill people?

Or in fact to [b]commit any transgression[/b] against the [b]normal bounds of society[/b] you have to be a [b]paranoid schizophrenic[/b]?

No "sane" person would ever kill anyone

[img] [/img]

I'm not a Norwegian criminal lawyer but

You cannot possibly argue that his actions were those of a sane individual, because to do so makes the act sane.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1102017/-Texas-Dad-Cleared-in-Molester-s-Death

If someone offered me a million pounds to kill you and assured me I could never get caught

🙄 I refer you to the [i]"..and other unusual exceptions"[/i] clause. 😀

Is acting outside cultural norms by definition insanity?

That's a fairly standard definition. Obviously we're talking [i]properly[/i] outside cultural norms, not just someone that farts in the lift.

I refer you to the "..and other unusual exceptions" clause.

😆 @ Three Fish, chapeau!

Well, seeing as murders are by nature unusual events, that's f'ing useless, isn't it?

Well no. Our prisons are not full of convicted murderers who are there because they were helping an old man die peacefully, using lethal self-defence or were paid 1 million pounds to kill someone on the promise that they'd never get caught.

They are people who stepped outside the cultural norm and killed someone.

By some definitions, they are all "insane" to some degree.

Three_Fish

Yep, that's why soldiers get a lot of training to instil the idea that they are allowed to kill and that killing is [i]within[/i] their cultural norm.

Snipers in particular are [i]interesting[/i] cases as they see the effect of their shots up close, but may struggle to psychologically justify it to themselves as self-defence.

They are people who stepped outside the cultural norm and killed someone.

By some definitions, they are all "insane" to some degree.

By whose (****ty) definitions?

Psychologists.. sociologists.. those kinds of twits.

Some people here (well one person anyway) clearly has a problem understanding that "criminal insanity" and its legal definition is a bit different from the colloquial use of "sane".

The exact definition will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but thefreedicitionary defines it as "In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed."

i.e. we say, if he IS insane, then it is not "his" fault and 'excuse' him of the wrong doing [although he may go to a mental institution for treatment]. In contrast what the court is saying, is he was not suffering from any recognised "mental illness". i.e. he was in control of his own decisions, and has a reasonable understanding of the consequences and repercussions when he acted in that way.

We must not fall into the trap of simply saying that everyone who behaves in a manner we find inexplicable must be insane.

That action is by definition outside any cultural norm of acceptable behaviour or rational thought.

Berm Bandit - Member
You cannot possibly argue that his actions were those of a sane individual, because to do so makes the act sane.

No it doesnt.

Declaring him sane simply means he is responsible for his actions, it passes no judgement on the crime committed.

An insane person can claim their actions are being controlled externally, through illness etc etc.....it absolves one of responsibility.
This was the right decision, he has been declared sane and can now be vilified for the despicable human being he is.

^^^ is what I was trying to say.

have you seen his prison cell? http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/inside-norwegian-killer-anders-breiviks-priso

Some people here (well one person anyway) clearly has a problem understanding that "criminal insanity" and its legal definition is a bit different from the colloquial use of "sane".

I assume you mean Berm Bandit?

I don't think he is the only person to have said Breivik is clearly a loon, just perhaps on this thread.

have you seen his prison cell?

Seems pretty reasonable for a country that believes in rehabilitation not revenge, as mentioned earlier.
It's not exactly luxury, but not inhumane either, just functional.

As far as I can see, while his actions look like those of an insane person, they were carried out in a rational manner, for reasons that are perfectly sane based on his own view of how his society is disintegrating from outside influences. He's a vile, racist Nazi, in the proper sense of the term, and killing people who he sees as in some way responsible for despoiling the 'purity' of his homeland doesn't make him insane. Sociopathic, and coldly rational, instead.
Which is much more dangerous, because his world view is, to him, perfectly correct, the steps he took to return his society to his perceived idea of perfection absolutely the correct ones, I see no way he could be persuaded he's done wrong, and drug therapy won't work because his actions are not those caused by chemical imbalances in his brain.
Just my take, feel free to pull my theory apart by all means. 😀
I'm not in any way trained in psychology or psychiatry, but I can look at someone's actions and make some sort of sense out of them.
Perhaps I should have gone in to that line of work, but much too late now. 🙂

sane or insane, it's all pretty irrelevant, there's no chance he'll get let out in 21 years. He'll die in prison.

I'm not in any way trained in psychology or psychiatry, but I can look at someone's actions and make some sort of sense out of them.

I've met a few definitively insane people, and they are, by and large, usually fairly confused..
this guy was far from from confused