Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News2 mins ago
Anders Breivik
"attacks were preemptive to protect Norway. I acted to defend my country and my people. I ask that I be acquitted."
Is he mad or is he sane with very far fetching beliefs?
Is he mad or is he sane with very far fetching beliefs?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EvianBaby. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Insanity is relevant in trials here when 1) the defendant is suffering from such disorder or illness of the mind that he is unfit to plead, that is he does not understand the nature of the proceedings.
or 2) the defendant did not understand the nature of the act he committed or, if he did know it, he did not know it was wrong.
Breivik would, supposedly, fall into the second category here. He knew exactly what he was doing but did not know what he was doing was wrong. That's somewhat debatable; he himself testified that his killing was evil but a necessary evil. That acknowledges that the world at large saw it as wrong, and that he did too, but thought the wrongful act was excusable . It would not be a defence for normal person to say that they did a murder or burglary but they thought their crimes were all right because the victim deserved to die or lose their property.Why then should the defence of insanity succeed because the defendant justifies his actions only by his political beliefs (however extreme)?
or 2) the defendant did not understand the nature of the act he committed or, if he did know it, he did not know it was wrong.
Breivik would, supposedly, fall into the second category here. He knew exactly what he was doing but did not know what he was doing was wrong. That's somewhat debatable; he himself testified that his killing was evil but a necessary evil. That acknowledges that the world at large saw it as wrong, and that he did too, but thought the wrongful act was excusable . It would not be a defence for normal person to say that they did a murder or burglary but they thought their crimes were all right because the victim deserved to die or lose their property.Why then should the defence of insanity succeed because the defendant justifies his actions only by his political beliefs (however extreme)?
Many people justify extreme violence by citing political beliefs, but they are perfectly aware that what they do is morally wrong and illegal. The man is as sane as the rest of us.
I think there is a problem however in that if he's sane, then the far right have a martyr and a really eloquent, self assured martyr at that that can verbally get his point across. Evil though he is, this man is no knuckle dragger and will be a beacon for right wing nutcases the world over before this has finished.
If he were found to be insane however- he's just a nutter who ran amok.
I think there is a problem however in that if he's sane, then the far right have a martyr and a really eloquent, self assured martyr at that that can verbally get his point across. Evil though he is, this man is no knuckle dragger and will be a beacon for right wing nutcases the world over before this has finished.
If he were found to be insane however- he's just a nutter who ran amok.
As i said before i don't think he is mad, nor do i think that this will be the last of this type of crime. He seems the sort of man that many would look up to, and he has his days in court, five according to the news, so that should be ample time to put his side of the story, appalling as that is.
He made it clear that he was also taking his lead from someone in the UK, so assume that we have far right extremists who could carry out atrocities here at the same level. Why have governments ignored this problem for so long, it's been staring them in the face long enough. Extremism on both sides, which could well escalate in the near future. He should go to jail and not be locked up in a mental hospital, but how long he goes away for is debatable. Life imprisonment with no parole, but do that have that in Norway.
He made it clear that he was also taking his lead from someone in the UK, so assume that we have far right extremists who could carry out atrocities here at the same level. Why have governments ignored this problem for so long, it's been staring them in the face long enough. Extremism on both sides, which could well escalate in the near future. He should go to jail and not be locked up in a mental hospital, but how long he goes away for is debatable. Life imprisonment with no parole, but do that have that in Norway.
21 years is the technical maximum sentence in Norway but they have a proviso which means they can deny him his freedom if he is still deemed to be a threat- so in terms of how long he'll serve it doesn't eally matter whether he's sane or not but from a propaganda point of view it matters tremendously.
>>>>>>The man is as sane as the rest of us.
Not true.
How many of us, even if we are very very upset about something, would go out and murder one person, let alone dozens and dozens.
He seems to be paranoid, with a twisted view of the world, having a "fear" of these young people growing up and "ruining" his country, so by killing them he is stopping that happening.
This is hardly the view of a sane and rational person.
More on Paranoia here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
Not true.
How many of us, even if we are very very upset about something, would go out and murder one person, let alone dozens and dozens.
He seems to be paranoid, with a twisted view of the world, having a "fear" of these young people growing up and "ruining" his country, so by killing them he is stopping that happening.
This is hardly the view of a sane and rational person.
More on Paranoia here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
VHG- I disagree strongly- humans are capable of immense cruelty and violence without being insane. Working on your logic almost all of the members of the SS of 1930's Germany would have been insane. They clearly were not. There are countless other things one could cite as well, which points to the fact that actually cruel and unusual behaviour is not actually that cruel or unusual for many people. They can't all be mad, and I certainly don't think this man is.
>>>>Working on your logic almost all of the members of the SS of 1930's Germany would have been insane.
Insanity can cover a wide spectrum of behaviours. People can be "whipped" into a state of insanity (paranoia) by all sorts of methods.
The Nazi party spent years before the war running down the jews in Germany, linking them to the idea of rats, polluting the country.
This constant drip feed of propaganda against the jews made many people (including the SS members) paranoid about jews, seeing them as nothing more than rats to be exterminated.
We have all seen film of SS officers cooly and coldly shooting jews (and others) in the head and seeing them fall into pits full of dead bodies.
I think you have to be insanse (even if only temporarily) to be able to do this sort of thing.
Or is the murder by Breivik the work of a sane man?
Insanity can cover a wide spectrum of behaviours. People can be "whipped" into a state of insanity (paranoia) by all sorts of methods.
The Nazi party spent years before the war running down the jews in Germany, linking them to the idea of rats, polluting the country.
This constant drip feed of propaganda against the jews made many people (including the SS members) paranoid about jews, seeing them as nothing more than rats to be exterminated.
We have all seen film of SS officers cooly and coldly shooting jews (and others) in the head and seeing them fall into pits full of dead bodies.
I think you have to be insanse (even if only temporarily) to be able to do this sort of thing.
Or is the murder by Breivik the work of a sane man?
he says that the court should either acquit him, or sentence him to death, neither is possible, so what will they be able to do. A Long prison sentence, can't see them every letting him out, and i still do not think he is insane. Watching this on the news, he is very calm, collected, and has certainly been able to put his views in a coherent manner, no matter how vile that seems to us. Jail for life should be the only option.
Well,VHG, we are venturing into law here.In layman's terms, this man could be thought insane, and not even temporarily, because his actions are not supported or justified by any fact, but are irrational. And he shows psychopathic tendencies in being utterly cold in killing people who he regards as enemies to his cause, and in coldly giving evidence about it. But, to lawyers, his actions do not make him 'criminally insane', since he knew what he was doing and that that was wrong by any normal standards.
The first murderer I ever defended was, in law, just like that. He lured a child to a gravel pit, where he strangled her. He had , weeks before, done the same but the child survived. The psychiatrists said he (quote) "showed clear psycopathic tendencies". In interview with us, asked to describe the events, he said "as I was doing it, it suddenly started to rain, it was very cold, which was annoying". He attached far more importance to his own sudden discomfort at the time, than to anything else. Strangling a child was dismissed in brief, matter of fact terms, as though that was perfectly ordinary. Insane? Well,the lower court didn't find so, and nor did the Court of Appeal. The defence of insanity failed at both levels. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, as any normal murderer.
The first murderer I ever defended was, in law, just like that. He lured a child to a gravel pit, where he strangled her. He had , weeks before, done the same but the child survived. The psychiatrists said he (quote) "showed clear psycopathic tendencies". In interview with us, asked to describe the events, he said "as I was doing it, it suddenly started to rain, it was very cold, which was annoying". He attached far more importance to his own sudden discomfort at the time, than to anything else. Strangling a child was dismissed in brief, matter of fact terms, as though that was perfectly ordinary. Insane? Well,the lower court didn't find so, and nor did the Court of Appeal. The defence of insanity failed at both levels. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, as any normal murderer.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
News28 mins ago
