The trial of Anders Breivik

He is a common criminal

Because killing 77 innocent people in one day is a common crime, yeah right.

Besides, I thought you said he was a nutjob – make your mind up ffs.

Night.

Ernie – so what triggers this secret trial? How do you decide who gets a secret trial? Saying commonsense is a cop out and yo must realise this. Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret? Brady? Teh unabomber? the World trade centre bombers?

You are effectively deciding their guilt beforehand are you not?

As for the oxygen of publicity – a secret trial would create as muchinterest in the nutjobs like you quote above – then it would be ” “conspiracy to silence patriot” to them.

Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret?

I asked you earlier if you understood the concept of commonsense, I now have my answer – you don’t.

Commonsense dictates that it would not have been necessary or in the public good to have had reporting restrictions on Fred West’s trial (he never received a trial). He did not commit the murders to receive publicity or inspire others.

Most of all, most of all, you show the world that violence, even of the most abhorrent, low, disgraceful kind, is not the answer.

You demonstrate that you are better than that.

Are you sure you put yourself in that position when you thought about the situation?

If you did and were able to think of that moral decision having just had your child and others killed in front of you, you are a different make up to me and I imagine many others.

Sounds more like you want to state the “proper” way to behave but not the actual way you would behave. Or am I wrong?

Or am I wrong?

Yes. Yes you are.

Ernie – I understand that “commonsense” is subjective and variable. I am trying to get you to give some objective standards to this ” commonsense” decision to hold trials in secret that you want

What yo consider to be commonsense others do not – thats clear from many debates on here.

Even that a good few folk disagree with you on this shows that there is no such thing as a commonsense line on this that can be shared.

So -= can you actually put some criteria together to say when you would draw this line? Or do you think a subjective decision should be made before any evidence is heard that a trial should be held in secret. Who decides?

@crikey

Fair enough.

I salute your super-human stoicism.

No, really I do. Honest. Oh yes. Indeed.

***does Mutley laugh***

Er not wanting to butt into ‘big hitter’ thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as ‘Dereks Law’ it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated, no trial (they are an industry in their own right, don’t get me started on human rights lawyers).

It should be a universal response, until such times as a suitable cure is found.

Put them down as you would a dog.

In reality in lots of similar circumstances the perpetrator self eliminates, but in this instance his whole strategy was leading to this trial, he surrendered, asked to be taken into custody by the ‘Delta Force’ but whilst he waited he calmly popped a cap into a couple more… Knowing all along there would be no serious repercussion for him pain wise, which illustrates the point I’m trying to make to the naive lefties..

open court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of

just to clarify what is being referred to as ‘Dereks Law’

Put them down as you would a dog.

You should get the Sun to back your ‘Dereks Law’ campaign.

Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.

Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.

derekrides – Member

Er not wanting to butt into ‘big hitter’ thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as ‘Dereks Law’ it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated,

scraprider – Member

open court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

ernie_lynch – Member
just to clarify what is being referred to as ‘Dereks Law’
Put them down as you would a dog.

You should get the Sun to back your ‘Dereks Law’ campaign.

Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.

Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.

Well you’ll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because it had damaged some Coves fine anorak, yet here we are with a genuine reason to remove something truly dangerous, not dumb, but scheming, and we have veritable hands bleeding they are wrung that dry..only in STW could this be, there should be a verb about it.

And the very thing he wants is being achieved right here, he’s being talked about, his views are being discussed, he’s not just winning, he has won probably more than his wildest fantasies ever suggested to his addled persona..

So GrahamS resume of what happened, “78 killed? Did they get someone? Yes instant justice under Dereks Law, he’s dead now, good pass the beer nuts..

Is what it should rate, then he loses.

TandemJeremy – Member

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

No, don’t you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt, caught red handed, smoking gun in hand, everything else remains as is, hypocrisy, plea bargains, human rights and all..

Just instances like this where there is mass slaughter the perp is caught in situ..

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

I’m sure ‘Dereks Law’ would not include the right of appeal, public inquires, or any other sort of nonsense like that.

So they would in fact all remind guilty. Which is much more tidy.

I love this place… Seriously. It’s like a trip to Bedlam for those Victorians must have been, but without the smell… 🙂 🙂

Well you’ll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because ……

I know someone who’s dog was legally destroyed because it bit someone, but it did have to go to court for that to happen.

So unlike your claim that Dereks Law would “put them down as you would a dog”, it wouldn’t – dogs would have more rights.

Or are you going to extend Dereks Law to also include dogs ?

derekrides
No, don’t you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt,

So how do you prevent the like of the birmingham 6 then? Are you prepared for oinnocents to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?

You appear to be proposing a new level of guilt. at the moment we have guilty beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof. Lots of folks get off because it can’t be proved. you want a higher standard? guilty beyond any doubt at all even in the mind of the most loony person in teh UK

Are you prepared for oinnocents to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?

Is that guilty of being Oirish then TJ? 🙂

Dereks Law states where there is no doubt

So no different from the Legal System that found those 10 innocent people Guilty then ?

…Beyond all reasonable doubt:…The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I generally don’t believe in the death penalty, but every rule can have exceptions. I’d put him down.

Reasonable? Introduce words like that and you create an entire Industry for the well educated better than the rest of us, to decide for us, at not inconsiderable expense I might add.

What I’m saying is that in examples of irrefutable guilt shall we say, maybe that word irrefutable would suffice, be capable of translating into enough languages for it to be universally accepted.

Where they did it, no question, there they are on the scene even admitting to it.

It’s a no brainer, we don’t need a trial, long drawn out expense, opportunity for theatre, acres of newsprint, reels of news video…

Simple instant justice, just like an on the spot fine.

I just don’t get it with any argument against this, it’s pure logic, a simple answer. Maybe it won’t happen as often, whereas right now, you can’t tell me there’s not some other Norwegian nut job looking at all this and wondering… Or another Jap thinking about another gas attack, it’s bad enough we have religious zealots promising multiple virgins in exchange for the loan of a vest, not much can be done about that, but this type of slaughter is a little easier to understand and deal with imv.

And as i said before, I do accept all your human benevolence and views, but have to call them into question and once more beg to differ and try to depart this thread unbowed.

Simple instant justice, just like an on the spot fine.

But obviously a little more severe than a fine.

I think I’m starting to understand what you’re saying.

So then derek. at the moment we find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You want a new higher standard of irrefutably guilty who can be executed without trial. Who decides they are irrefutably guilty? Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

I just don’t get it with any argument against this, it’s pure logic

You must be right then.

The fact that many many people disagree with the death penalty, for varying different reasons is irrelevant to your “pure logic” is it ?

Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

I don’t know why you keep banging on about the Birmingham 6 TJ, I get the distinct impression that derekrides isn’t the sort of person to overly worry about the odd innocent person getting gunned down in the street by police implementing Dereks Law. After all, no law is perfect.

Am I right derekrides ?

Derek, your solution?

Shoot him in the head without a trial much like Ernie’s idol, Che

TandemJeremy – Member
So then derek. at the moment we find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You want a new higher standard of irrefutably guilty who can be executed without trial. Who decides they are irrefutably guilty? Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

Er hello.. The Birmingham 6 were not caught in situ, hence reasonable doubt.

And yes exactly that a higher level of irrefutable guilt punishable instantly by either death or cure should one be found, but at the moment death will do. Proof of a cure would take some convincing.

Now there are other crimes where this could work, Padeo’s, rapists someone mentioned earlier, castration could work and be instantly applied, if the higher guilt level were available.

So how do you prove irrefutable ?

Perpetrator at scene, Key legal witness(es) at scene, perpetrator confesses at scene. All present in the Breivik case.

Would that do it for you? Assuage your sensibilities?

It’s a fair cop gov, I need to die…

enfht’s turned up 😀

hehehe which part of that was wrong El Che?

Are those dreads, like the ones in my photo I posted, are you being racist as well as stupid?

tut tut

nealglover – Member

You must be right then.

Thank you yes, I generally am, good night all.

Derekrides – I suggst you look into the Stefan Ivan Kiszkocase. He confessed. But was innocent

Or Stephen Downing Found at scene, had victims blood on him, confessed, found guilty, did 30 years, now known to be innocent.

TandemJeremy – Member
Derekrides – I suggst you look into the Stefan Ivan Kiszkocase. He confessed. But was innocent

Or Stephen Downing Found at scene, had victims blood on him, confessed, found guilty, did 30 years, now known to be innocent.

Irrelevant, Dereks Law only applies in mass murder scenarios, had you read the thread, you would be aware of that essential point, now I really must depart, early start tomorrow, kids back at school.

Are those dreads, like the ones in my photo I posted, are you being racist as well as stupid?

😀 I take it you don’t know Terry ?

Let me help you :

He is understatedly captioned as “the unintelligent cartoon character”. He is a brainless, notionless, mindless imbecile who mistakes gas bills for exam results and his neighbor for his mother. Terry looks the part as well: he is cross-eyed and has wild black hair sticking up ludicriously from his misshapen head in a style which appears to be dreadlocks. He also wears platform shoes, for no discernible reason. He is quite foul-mouthed and when he realizes that he has just done something stupid he will declare “**** me, I’ve got shit for brains, me.” His frequent appraisals of his lack of intelligence are Terry’s only correct statements.

racist and marxist, a heady mix

interesting that a thread about a mass murder in norway, committed by a norwegian, being tried in a norwegian court should elicit so little in the way of actual reference to the norwegian legal system, the effects on the political system or, heaven forbid, the victims themselves.

those norwegians tho, i just bet if you asked those who were on the island and survived, they’d be well up for an stw style death penalty
oh except, maybe not…
http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/norway-massacre-survivors-all-we-want-is-justice

norwegian’s not so difficult to read but, seeing as loads of norwegians speak english, the trial and the surrounding issues aren’t hard to follow.

maybe it might be interesting to see how another country, another culture does things. or perhaps it’s better to rely on our own certainties, prejudices if you will. and who does that make us more like?

I’m only butting in cos’ it’s on BBC2 now.

So GrahamS resume of what happened, “78 killed? Did they get someone? Yes instant justice under Dereks Law, he’s dead now, good pass the beer nuts..

And you really think that’s how people would react?
No one would be remotely interested in who killed these people and why?
Not to mention the minor issues of did they get the right man and was he definitely working alone?

Personally I think if people are killed for political/ideological reasons then these are things to discuss. That are better off uncensored. I hate the idea of the news saying “77 people died today, somehow, in an undisclosed incident. The unnamed suspect was executed by a Derek Squad at the scene. We know why he did it, but we can’t tell you. The government say it is nothing for you to worry about. Just some nutter. Here’s Carol with the weather”

So how do you prove irrefutable ?
Perpetrator at scene, Key legal witness(es) at scene, perpetrator confesses at scene. All present in the Breivik case.
Would that do it for you? Assuage your sensibilities?

Right. So you don’t want a trial. But you would like evidence and witnesses to be presented and a chance to verify these to the satisfaction of others. Maybe say 12 peers. And THEN they should be executed without trial?

🙄

ernie: your point (as I understand it) is just that he should not be given media coverage, yes? The trouble is see with that laudable approach is that it basically impossible to implement as the super injunctions fiasco showed.

Instead the story will be underground through blogs, forums, twitter etc and corrupted by those that have an agenda. The extreme far right would get MORE time to put their nonsense across and paint him as a martyr to the cause.

ernie: your point (as I understand it) is just that he should not be given media coverage, yes?

I think there should be reporting restrictions and that he shouldn’t be allowed to use the trial as a platform to disseminate his hate-driven murderous agenda, something which he clearly relishes doing.

Whilst the overwhelming majority of people will obviously just be simply repulsed by it all, and more than likely will be even more determined to oppose intolerance having seen what it can eventually lead to, it’s not them I’m worried about. There is a significant amount of people in the world who share Breivik’s deep hatred and welcome the killing of innocent people based on their colour, culture, and/or creed. I have no wish to see him inspire them.

Furthermore there will be people in the world who are still at various stages of developing equal levels of hatred and aspirations of ethic/cultural violence, specially young people, it is particularly dangerous that he should be an inspirational figure for them, something which I have no doubt he fully recognises.

Finally it is imo totally unnecessary for him to be given such extensive publicity. It is perfectly possible for him to receive a completely fair trial without giving him that level of publicity. The murders and the determination to be caught alive so that he would stand trial was all part of a publicity stunt for his “crusade”. This is not a normal murder trial.

BTW I’m also unimpressed that although he has freely admitted to the killings that he should apparently be given the opportunity make a case of self-defense. The prosecution case should simply rest on the evidence that he has admitted to the killings, no jury should be allowed to consider whether this was self-defense – it makes a complete mockery of justice imo, again, something which I have no doubt he is acutely aware of.

Still, let’s see how the trial pans out and whether he actually gets everything he hopes for. Although it’s not looking particularly encouraging at the moment imo.

EDIT :

Instead the story will be underground through blogs, forums, twitter etc and corrupted by those that have an agenda. The extreme far right would get MORE time to put their nonsense across and paint him as a martyr to the cause.

I’m unconvinced that making hate based propaganda which encourages and glorifies murder easily available somehow makes it less effective or easier to control.