I turn it over to Sky News (I know, i’m asking for it) to find them covering the Anders Breivik trial……2 questions:

1. Why give this nutjob* airtime at all? I get the whole “news for the people” thing, but pointing cameras at him is just giving him a platform for his far right views

2. They were reading out the victims names and detailing graphically their wounds and how they died. Wouldn’t it make more sense to not have him in court when relaying this to the jury. I’m sure he’s enjoying hearing all bout his work and his blase attitude must be distressing to their families

* I have no education in psychology but after shooting 77 unarmed people that puts you in the nutjob column

1: why censor him? Isn’t it better to see him for he monster he is and let him do enormous damage to the “cause” of xenophobes?

2: I assume he has the right to hear all evidence that is presented against him?

I assume he has the right to hear all evidence that is presented against him?

Given he’s already entered a guilty plea one assumes he doesn’t need to hear it?

Given he’s already entered a guilty plea one assumes he doesn’t need to hear it?

Still needs to know what he is pleading guilty to. Still needs to follow normal legal proceedings, despite the nature of the crime.

In fact, given that he is already questioning the legal right of the court, Saddam-stylee, then it makes sense to do everything by the book.

Call me a liberal, woolley lefty if you must, but I firmly believe that in a just, free and open society a person has a right to be present at their own trial ??

Give him, and people like him, all the airtime they like. Just give them enough rope. As with most ALL extremists, the more they talk, the more preposterous they sound.

Why hasn’t someone strangled/battered him in jail yet? What a **** **** of a ****. He deserves to be thrown out of a 3 storey building and left in agony in the yard for 2 weeks.

Who cares what hes **** saying or wants to say. He shouldn’t be given any airtime at all. Just locked up in a dark box until he dies. How many lives has he shattered yet his grinning fat mug is up there, showing other **** nutjobs that they too could shoot a child and get exposure and attention.

Given he’s already entered a guilty plea one assumes he doesn’t need to hear it?

Thay are saying that he acknowledges the acts but does not plead guilty to them.

Feel really sorry for all those affected by his actions, can’t imagine how thay all feel seeing him there.

He deserves to be thrown out of a 3 storey building and left in agony in the yard for 2 weeks.

Always get a wee chortle at nonsense like this.

He thought people deserved to be shot and killed based on his views

You think he should be thrown from a building and left in agony based on your views

So you’re proposing solving violence with violence?

I remember a recent furore on Facebook regarding Ian Huntley and rabid, frothing at the mouth posts were condeming his crimes and then describing in minute detail the how they’d like to torture him, and I have to say the majority of their suggestions were probably far more horrific than what he did to his victims.

He has not pleaeded guilty. He admits that he killed everyone, but in defense of his country

and now that he has been declared sane then he is legally allowed to speak in court. He still has rights

So you’re proposing solving violence with violence?

If you or I had a relative killed by such a person would you change your view(s) on this?

One thing you don’t want to do is give such people a platform, glamour or some sort of celebrity as a by-product of his actions.

Say you are twisted, angry with your life and want to be remembered and famous.

I do wonder and question the so called ‘humanity’ that affords evil bastards like this the platform and oxygen of publicity. If I were a close relative of any of those who’s lives he’d taken I have to say I’d be pretty upset by all this, not to mention the apparent reasonable conditions he is being kept in.

Surely for such an obvious caught red handed and heinous crime, having him quietly ‘disappear’ at the end of a hyperdermic needle or a rope is the obvious answer, who in their right mind can argue against that?

All the protestations by Governments wanting to ‘keep us safe’ and going to war for it on hapless countries and something so obvious and solvable with the ability to dispense instant ‘justice’ gets turned into a show trial at huge expense, where is the upside in it all?

If you or I had a relative killed by such a person would you change your view(s) on this?

Hora – there are many people for whom this is not merely hypothetical fodder for internet tough guys but something that has happened in their lives, and they don’t all think the way you do.

Surely for such an obvious caught red handed and heinous crime, having him quietly ‘disappear’ at the end of a hyperdermic needle or a rope is the obvious answer, who in their right mind can argue against that?

… SHUDDERS…

If you or I had a relative killed by such a person would you change your view(s) on this?

Of course.

But that’s exactly why those people don’t get to decide on sentences.

having him quietly ‘disappear’ at the end of a hyperdermic needle or a rope is the obvious answer

Without trial? Or just with a closed trial that no one is allowed to know about?

konabunny – Nobody thinks* the way Hora does. He’s truly unique

Thank Christ!

* The word ‘think’ is used figuratively in this instance. And does not imply the deployment of any actual brain cells

Without trial? Or just with a closed trial that no one is allowed to know about?

I don’t think theres a possibility of mistaken identity or him just happening to be at the scene kitted up on this one though…

konabunny I’m neither extremes but I’m also not the liberal mindset keeper of STW either.

My point is how can such a person who ‘keeps going’ clinically shooting dead so many people be classed as ‘sane’ but also why couldn’t their judicial system decide on this case (due to the exceptional circumstances) to hold the case in camera?

On a wider level/note, no matter how ‘we’ say we are a civil society/species we most certainly are not. We are part of nature so drop the faux moral high ground.

If you or I had a relative killed by such a person would you change your view(s) on this?

My sisters boyfriend was murdered and hacked up into small bits.

So no, my views haven’t changed.

Something your not telling us?..

I don’t think theres a possibility of mistaken identity or him just happening to be at the scene kitted up on this one though…

Doesn’t matter.

You’d be setting a legal precedent that in some cases the state can hush up reporting of a serious crime, tell you that the accused said bad things against the state that you’re not allowed to hear, then sentence them to death without public trial.

To me that’s a situation far worse than letting one mass murderer publicly reveal how deranged his views really are.

On a wider level/note, no matter how ‘we’ say we are a civil society/species we most certainly are not. We are part of nature so drop the faux moral high ground.

It’s not “faux”.

e.g. Murder, infanticide, incest, rape are all common in nature.

I have no problem with trying to use our reasoning brains to rise above the “morals” of other animals.

Why? We dominate, ‘rescue’, kill and enter wars with mass murder all over land, minerals using the name of ‘God’ as a justification.

Humans are about greed and murderous in nature.

Hora: you’re behaving in a remarkably insensitive and clumsy manner with your penultimate remark.

Humans are about greed and murderous in nature.

Speak for yourself 🙄

Why?

So we should give in to our nature? Abandon society and laws?
Every man, woman and child for themselves?

Reckon that would work well?
Reckon that would be a nicer way to live for all?

Humans are about greed and murderous in nature.

We are pack animals “in nature” with natural instincts for working together, social interaction, and organisation. That’s how we got to the top of the food chain.

Laws and society are the modern boundaries that keep the pack together.

We dominate, ‘rescue’, kill and enter wars with mass murder all over land, minerals using the name of ‘God’ as a justification.

I don’t. QED?

Hora: you’re behaving in a remarkably insensitive and clumsy manner with your penultimate remark.

I’m surprised you didn’t take shock horror/offence at my grammar and punctuation.

I don’t. QED?

Don’t believe in Him either. FSM?

One of the comments on the Telegraph coverage seems to sum it up:

It will be a great sign of Norway’s civilised maturity if Breivik has his platform, is heard, disagreed with & justice proceeds

I’m surprised you didn’t take shock horror/offence at my grammar and punctuation.

I don’t criticise others’ spelling or punctuation because it’s not big and it’s not clever. The exception is when they themselves have made a target of themselves by trying to correct someone else’s words.

Without trial? Or just with a closed trial that no one is allowed to know about?

Something this bad, it should be as instant as on the spot fines for crimes at the other end of the scale, closed trial to confirm the facts and identities, into the chamber and out the back door in a body bag, within 24hours of the offence. Why they took him alive even amazes me.

The logical answer to this, is to the question: Either my method or the Norwegian method, which is more likely to encourage repeat offences?

Huge Notoriety and a life then spent as a guest of the state with a lot of hand wringers trying to reason with you why you did it, or instant death and an unmarked grave?

😯

Statistics indicate that the death penalty is not a deterrent, despte what some people claim, and it certainly isn’t a deterrent to the criminally insane, if that is what Breivik in fact is.

hels – Member
Call me a liberal, woolley lefty if you must, but I firmly believe that in a just, free and open society a person has a right to be present at their own trial ??

Well sort of it but a trial seems a bit likew a waste of time in this case

I am willing to give you very long odds on anything apart from guilty

He thought people deserved to be shot and killed based on his views
You think he should be thrown from a building and left in agony based on your views

It is based on his actions I would say rather than his views.NB I am not defending that view

You’d be setting a legal precedent that in some cases the state can hush up reporting of a serious crime, tell you that the accused said bad things against the state that you’re not allowed to hear, then sentence them to death without public trial.
To me that’s a situation far worse than letting one mass murderer publicly reveal how deranged his views really are.

I get your point but in this case it just seems a huge waste of time,effort and money.
I don’t need to hear him speak to know he is a right wing nut job…The multiple killings of mainly children gave it away for me.
I accept it is a bad precedent but I just don’t see much point to this trial…those who support his views will do so after the trial, as will those who oppose him.
Whatever is said or done in the trial he will be found guilty. Its a bit of a conundrum as I am not at Derek or hora levels of retribution/stupidity but I cannot really see much point to a trial in this case.
He will be found guilty and he published a “manifesto “ online of his views so nothing new will come to light

Of course show trials and closed/ no trials are a slippery slope but this “trial” seems a farce as he will be found guilty and he is a right wing nut job…I know this no matter what happens in the trial

or instant death and an unmarked grave

Yes “martyrdom ” does in no way add to anyones notoriety.

“String ’em up, it’s the only language I understand…”

I get your point but in this case it just seems a huge waste of time,effort and money.

I sort of agree, but if we decide to skip the trial and go straight to sentencing is that really better justice?

Who gets to decide which trials are worth having and which defendants are obviously guilty?

do they normally televise court cases over there? Don’t think it should be done behind closed doors but televising it seems a bit…dunno, wrong.

Oh and derek and hora stop being idiots

Also how is it that he think he’s perfectly right in killing loads of people but he is still regarded as technically sane? sounds pretty f***ed up in the head to me

As the guy is a right wing loon would the gas chamber be a fitting end?

He’s in the justice system now, as it already stands in Norway, and it would be very difficult for the “secret rendition” or “one bullet” option favoured above to be implemented.
He will not die a free man.
There are two possible outcomes: Life in prison or life in an asylum.
I tend to think that the “life in prison” option will be shorter and more painful for this man.

Not giving him a trial would martyr him to some people – precisely what you don’t want.

he has the right to be treated the same as anyone else, its important that this is seen to be done, and done entirely fairly and without prejudice to his views and opinions.

At the end of the process all that will be left is him and his actions and he’ll be convicted for the murdering sociopath that he undoubtedly is.

Who gets to decide which trials are worth having and which defendants are obviously guilty?

There is the rub and why we can never really [trust anyone] do this. I mean it could be Hora deciding 😯

As for better justice I am not really sure.
The outcome will be the same and one way is just quicker and cheaper I am not so not sure what “justice” is in this case tbh re the person about to be found guilty.
It may be more about giving him his last soap box tbh and I am not sure that is justice either.
Not an easy one and arguments either way re the trial and “justice”.

its important that this is seen to be done, and done entirely fairly and without prejudice to his views and opinions.

Why he will be found guilty however fiar or unfair they are to him. It is in many snenses a “show trial” as the verdict is assured.

Hard to say what i would want to happen had a mad man killed me..i suspect denying him one last public platform to spout/rant would seem an appropriate punishment as I am sure he is enjoying the opportunity