[Closed] The trial of Anders Breivik

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

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 [s]most[/s] ALL extremists, the more they talk, the more preposterous they sound.

Why hasn't someone strangled/battered him in jail yet? What a ****ing **** 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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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?

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?

... [i][b]SHUDDERS[/b][/i]...

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!

[img] http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1p8T7phXDElxkHf62XSQ4z9y6h0JlqRXCNwgoCOczkRtPPvnkxroBhXl6s2EO-0hTR [/img]

* 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?

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 [i]our nature[/i]? 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 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.

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

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.

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

"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 [i]obviously[/i] 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?

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

By not not killing him in secret, by allowing him to appear in court, by treating him well and making sure he isn't beaten up by other prisoners the Norwegian government and by extension the people they represent are demonstrating that they are not the criminals. They are demonstrating that their society, their laws and practices can withstand the assualt of violent terrorists.

They are better and stronger than a right wing ideology thats full of hate and revenge

When he is found guilty (after his rightful due process) they will continue to demonstrate he hasn't won by not killing him and locking him up for the rest of his life instead.

Would be cheaper to kill him? In money terms yes in cost to how the Norwegians view themselves and their society, probably not

What richmtb just posted

+1

Well said richmtb.

Agreed. They also seem to have gone fishing with him, so the way they've been treating him has brought out other right wing extremists. Not sure if you know what I mean, but I do 😐

Rather like a massive 'sting'

D0NK - Member

Oh and derek and hora stop being idiots

I take exception to this old chap, what is so idiotic about 'putting down' as you probably would have subscribed to on the dangerous dog thread, an obvious psychopath who if set free would do the same again and on the grounds his government subscribes to 'multiculturalism'.

It's an opinion, I don't know this hora chap, but if he happens to hold the same views then I doubt he is an idiot either. The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.

Leftish views are all very well in a perfect world which sadly doesn't exist.

Hand wringing, publicising, massive expense, and thoughts of somehow rehabilitating a mass murderer are the acts of idiocy, where a simple quiet no fuss extermination is the logical solution.

how is it that he think he's perfectly right in killing loads of people but he is still regarded as technically sane?

I thought he'd been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic?

How are we defining "sane" here; does that mean he's free from any mental illness or merely free from thinking he's a banana daiquiri?

Ah, they reassessed him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

the Oslo district court ordered a second expert panel to evaluate Breivik's mental state... the second psychiatric evaluation was published with the conclusion that Breivik was not psychotic during the attacks and he was not psychotic during their evaluation.

Oh hey,

His manifesto promotes "the deportation of all Muslims from Europe to preserve European Christendom."

Bless him, he's doing it all for Jesus.

I agree with richmtb.

The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.

And your evidence base for this is.....since the death penalty is not proven as a deterrent either.

I don't think that life imprisonment represents either tolerance or appeasement. He may well, in the minds of some people, deserve the death penalty for what he has done, but what would it solve?

If you want to "put down" people who commit crimes due to ideology, then what's to stop society going after people who express the same sort of views, just in case they commit a massacre later?

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.

I don't think anyone has suggested his actions should be tolerated or that he should be appeased in any way.

Folk have just said that maybe killing someone without trial is not a good model for justice.

Likewise murdering someone, because they murdered, and murdering is bad, is a slightly odd moral route. Especially when it gets into the realms of slowly torturing them to death over a period of weeks.

The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.

and I asked you to stop being idiots, didn't actually call you an idiot. Killing people without trial or throwing them out of 3rd floor windows are pretty idiotic ideas to put forward.

Hora and Derek dispense justice.....

[img] [/img]

When he is found guilty (after his rightful due process) they will continue to demonstrate he hasn't won by not killing him and locking him up for the rest of his life instead.

Will he be locked up for life? I though the max jail term in Norway was 21 years, even for murder?

EDIT: Just double checked, 21 is the standard 'life' sentence, but it can be 30 years for terrorism, or indefinite if it can be proved that the criminal is an ongoing threat.

derekrides - Member

Leftish views are all very well in a perfect world which sadly doesn't exist.

Hand wringing, publicising, massive expense, and thoughts of somehow rehabilitating a mass murderer are the acts of idiocy, where a simple quiet no fuss extermination is the logical solution.

Given the absence of a smiley, I guess you are not joking here Derek? What has this got to do with Leftish views?

Breivik may have forfeited his civil rights/liberties but we are a poorer society if we take away his human rights irrespective of our political persuasions. That is the simple mark of a civilised society and thank goodness that Norway is such.

[That is not to say that I hope the media dont turn this into a circus.]

what is so idiotic about 'putting down'...an obvious psychopath

Leftish views are all very well in a perfect world which sadly doesn't exist.

Idiot.

You're letting you own political views colour the way you see the world 🙁

From my understanding, Norway is a highly conservative (small c) country, essentially Christian Democrat. Politically "Leftist" views as you put them have nothing to do with expressing the societal (and judicial) values of a views of a country like Norway.

For the record, Josef Stalin was quite keen on the approach you recommend. I believe that he was somewhat left of centre???

ETA - For everyone debating + / - of the death penalty, you need to look at the Norwegian context. Norway did briefly have a death penalty - instituted by the Norwegian Govt in exile during WW2. It was applied to a few far right wing Nationalists / Nazis / Fascists (such as Vidkun Quisling) who worked with / for the Germans during the war. I believe that is now viewed as a somewhat controversial aberation in the records of Norwegian justice...

NRK reports that in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik, not a singe person from the general public will be allowed inside the courtroom. One hundred forty (140) members of the public will be permitted to watch a televised broadcast of the proceedings in another room.

So you think he's mentally ill, do you?

Either that or is a industrious Murderer with a high work-ethic.

littlemisspanda - Member
I agree with richmtb.

The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.
And your evidence base for this is.....since the death penalty is not proven as a deterrent either.

I don't think that life imprisonment represents either tolerance or appeasement. He may well, in the minds of some people, deserve the death penalty for what he has done, but what would it solve?

If you want to "put down" people who commit crimes due to ideology, then what's to stop society going after people who express the same sort of views, just in case they commit a massacre later?

You need to read what I said, I said in cases where there is absolutely no doubt since the murderer was caught red handed, beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, clear cut, he did it. Killed 70+ young people for purely political views (They were aspiring politicians).

Why did he do it? Lots of folk have fantasies about killing politicians or bankers or lawyers, maybe even fantasising that deep down there would be an element of a grateful public.. (This is the thought process of the raving narcissist going on psychopath) Pandering to it with a public trial, endless discussion, trying to understand why it happened, is pointless, it's always going to happen. There is no solution, no political or social understanding that is going to prevent those with a personality disorder from reacting like this.

So there simply needs to be a quick and quiet solution that removes that particular problem from society if it arises.

I'm not advocating anything else for any other 'normal' circumstance, nor am I advocating the death penalty in this instance as a deterrent, more a less controversial end result for a publicity seeking mass murderer.

Derek and Hora If you think capital punishment is so bloody marvelous, I'd suggest you watch Werner Herzog's present documentary about death row inmates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/14/werner-herzog-into-the-abyss

Given the choice between the dignity presently being displayed by the Norwegian authorities, and the casual, vengeful barbarism displayed in some American states, I know where I'd rather be.

Oh... Hora... there are no exploding helicopters in it I'm afraid. Or tits. So you may struggle

The only idiots here are those that subscribe to the view that tolerance and appeasement are the answer to incidents like this, all it does is to encourage more of the same.

Because revenge and retribution worked so well in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc etc

"Your arrest will mark the initiation of the propaganda phase," he wrote in a manual for future attackers, part of a 1,500-page manifesto he posted online before the killings. "Your trial offers you a stage to the world."

Oh... Hora... there are no exploding helicopters in it I'm afraid. Or tits. So you may struggle

Ha. I still remember 28 weeks later

rkk01 - Member
Leftish views are all very well in a perfect world which sadly doesn't exist.
Idiot.

You're letting you own political views colour the way you see the world

Amazing thing about the left isn't it? Anyone who isn't is an idiot.

I've voted SNP and Lib Dem for years as it happens, it's only after the left have demonstrated their full capability over the past decade and a bit that I swung a little further to the right and went against everything I ever judged as fair and reasonable and voted Tory.

My political views are not part of this, it's purely a logical decision, a person kills 70 for publicity it makes sense to deny him that. It also makes good logic to terminate an entity that is malfunctioning as badly as this fellow seems to be, it certainly defies logic to attempt to repair..

I'm not advocating anything else for any other 'normal' circumstance, nor am I advocating the death penalty in this instance as a deterrent, more a less controversial end result for a publicity seeking mass murderer.

No, you're advocating that the law should be malleable and that the state should be allowed to withdraw the right to trial, impose media blackouts and introduce death penalties, when someone (you?) decides that this is a "special circumstance".

No thanks.

Sorry derek

I'm not "leftist" in terms of political persuasion - but neither are the Norwegians...

You are applying your own political tint to another country. Being politically left / right / centre (in UK terms) has absolutely nothing to do with the Norwegian outlook on these matters.

Today's Big Hitter Suck Pool is brought to you by Nøgne Ø, purveyors of fine Norwegian beer.

It also makes good logic to terminate an entity that is malfunctioning as badly as this fellow seems to be, it certainly defies logic to attempt to repair..

What if we could? Say we discover that his sociopathy is an actual illness and he couldn't help his actions. Then a wonder drug or treatment is discovered which could fix this.

Morally, do we give it to him, or do we still punish him for a crime which we now learn wasn't really his fault?

Moreover, if we decide to rehabilitate him, how do we do that when we've just killed him?

What if we could? Say we discover that his sociopathy is an actual illness and he couldn't help his actions. Then a wonder drug or treatment is discovered which could fix this.

Morally, do we give it to him, or do we still punish him for a crime which we now learn wasn't really his fault?

Stuff like this has already happened....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html

Though i suspect this guy is just a nutcase.

Fully agree with RichMtb though.

Let him lose on an island and release a pack of hungry Tigers.

Let him know fear before his end.

Sorry, when you kill children in cold blood theres only one real outcome. OR should we give him hot meals, warmth, security and TV/entertainment for the rest of his life?

Sorry, when you kill children in cold blood theres only one real outcome. OR should we give him hot meals, warmth, security and TV/entertainment for the rest of his life?

wow, are those the only two options? Living in a hotel vs hunting by angry tigers? what the hell are you talking about?

<DAMN IT, MUST NOT BE SUCKED INTO THIS NONSENSE>

Leftish views are all very well in a perfect world which sadly doesn't exist....

My political views are not part of this,

You have got me there Derek [even in the world of STW convoluted arguments]!

OR should we give him hot meals, warmth, security and TV/entertainment for the rest of his life?

Despite making grandiose statements while playing to the gallery, I suspect having the rest of his life, alone in a cell, to reflect on the things he's done, won't be an altogether pleasant place to be

I've voted SNP and Lib Dem for years as it happens, it's only after the left have demonstrated their full capability over the past decade and a bit that I swung a little further to the right and went against everything I ever judged as fair and reasonable and voted Tory...

My political views are not part of this

But joking apart, I thought the bit where you suggested your track record of voting for the Tartan Tories and the Lib Dems (currently in coalition with the Tories) as demonstrating your former leftist sympathies was hilarious. Peter Capaldi move over, there's a new satirist in town!

hora: your logic confuses me. You said earlier [i]"We are part of nature so drop the faux moral high ground."[/i]

Yet you want to torture Breivik to death for breaking that same moral code?

Amazing thing about the left isn't it? Anyone who isn't is an idiot.

Sorry, when you kill children in cold blood theres only one real outcome. [b]OR [/b]should we give him hot meals, warmth, security and TV/entertainment for the rest of his life

Ok so there is only one outcome then you give an alternative..again you may be helping to prove the above point also 😉

lets not get OT here as I am just mocking the pair of you as it would appear to be pointless to attempt to reason with either of you.
Many right wing people are bright but they just dont seem to be on this thread

GrahamS - Member
I'm not advocating anything else for any other 'normal' circumstance, nor am I advocating the death penalty in this instance as a deterrent, more a less controversial end result for a publicity seeking mass murderer.
No, you're advocating that the law should be malleable and that the state should be allowed to withdraw the right to trial, impose media blackouts and introduce death penalties, when someone (you?) decides that this is a "special circumstance".

No thanks.

Not someone, not me, not lawyers with the ability to plea bargain, not the state and the particular 'flavour' of government left right or tyrant even. It is a fundamental human right to live and not be terminated before your due time in a fashion like this, completely randomly.

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated. If a 'cure' is found (suggest Tony Blair be used for drug trials)then fine by all means try it, but until such time my method is logical.

This is simply about what is right and wrong, not how to prevent it, not a deterrent, just a simple and logical outcome that ought to be universally accepted and that no big show trial be part of the process, no grand standing lawyers and politicians, simple quiet extermination of a problem that none of us really want proliferating.

He's probably worth keeping hold of as a research tool.

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.

Why? Because you said so?

Why do threads like this always end up with people shouting loudly about capital punishment? Norway doesnt have the death penalty, so all the knackers being spouted about hanging / gassing and hungry tigers ( 🙄 ) is just pointless, surely?
My guess is that he'll be tried, found guilty and sentenced, then shortly after be transferred to a high secure forensic unit. People with a long memory may recall this is what happened with Peter Sutcliffe - there's little doubt that he was psychotic at the time of his crimes, but there would have been a massive public outcry if he had been found unfit to stand trial.