I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge. It will be extremely telling if he does... I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other. :( -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he strike you as someone entirely sane?
Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Genuine question here for our Euro friends -
Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ??
Saint Jiub · Member since
Holly2003 wrote:
Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term. The above are organizations. Anders seems to be a lone wolf. Whether the political violence against civilians is sponsored by an individual or an organization, it is still terrorism. However, an organized band of lunatics is more of a constant threat than an isolated one trick pony like Anders.
YourValentine · Member since
Bob, I do not know how the insanity bargain works in Canada - I believe in Norway it works similar as in other Euopean countries: mentally ill people are not jailed but put into mental hospitals. Security in mental hospitals can be stricter than in a jail when the mentally ill person is considered dangerous. In Norway the highest possible jail time is 30 years for crimes against humanity (murder is 21 years, therefore crimes against humanity will probably be the charges). A dangerous mentally ill person will probably never get out of the hospital again which will certainly be the aim of the trial: to put him away for life. I believe there is another possibility to jail him for life if the judge finds there will be an ongoing danger after 30 years. In this case he would be held in security arrest after the usual jail time.
I agree that the sanity of a murderer does not make much of a difference for the victims. Often people feel better to think that such a "monster" is not a "normal" member of our society. For the outcome of the trial it should not make much of a difference: the idea that someone with such an insane "ideology" can be resocialised in the next 30 years is pretty far away from everybody's minds imo.
I have the highest respect for the Norwegian people and govenment. While in my own country the tragedy was already used to promote stricter "preventional" control of citizen phone data and stricter laws etc in Norway the government makes it clear that this person will not win in a sense that Norway will take away anything from their open society and democratic way of life. This is probably the only good thing in this whole senseless tragedy.
catqueen · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: catqueen wrote:
I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge. It will be extremely telling if he does... I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other. :( -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he strike you as someone entirely sane?
Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term.
He doesnt strike me as sane, but neither do any terrorists. Or murderers. I think to get to a point where you can plan and carry out any murder, there has to be a lot going wrong in your head. (unless its in self defence or something, when it just happened). But then again, cold blooded violence of the Taliban, IRA, etc... i agree, yes, they are horrible, violent, evil organisations. On one hand i do think you couldn't be fully sane and do that. On the other, few people condemn soldiers as insane, and they also kill for an ideology. And ok, they generally are supposed to kill other soldiers, but if you look at stuff that happens in Iraq (or any war), many (not all, but it happens) are cruel, and kill/harm/do other stuff that they shouldn't, also for an ideological reason. One is socially sanctioned by the majority, one is not. And i'm not saying that an 18 yr old kid who is sent off to the front line is the same as an IRA member who blows up kids, but also, if someone is on the front line and does kill unnecessarily or kill civilians, why is this seen as 'sane' and the other not? There was an experiment done once which had to be stopped, which involved a group of people, some were made 'prisoners' and some 'prison guards.' the experiment had to be stopped because the guards became so extremely cruel. So maybe it is human nature to play god and harm others when we feel we have power. I do believe in an insanity charge, it is necessary, and if someone can be helped by psychiatric treatment, then they should be. But i also think that should go for everyone, not just people who happen to not be muslim.
It would definitely make a lot of people feel a lot better if we could just say the guy is crazy, but maybe he isn't. Maybe we just don't want to admit what we are capable of. I certainly do not want to think that i could ever get to a point where i would be capable of doing something like that, but if this guy is found to be sane, then that means that any one of us could. The same thing happens when people look at people who join extreme cults-- there must be something wrong, how could they do that, how could they feel it was ok to make their families drink cyanide or whatever... and yet, they were probably 'normal' people who met the wrong person at the wrong time, and ended up in a situation they could never have foreseen.
And please understand, im not saying the guy ISN'T insane, i'm just saying that maybe we aren't as civilised as we like to think. And really its just ideas, i have no 'basis' for it, i'm just trying to make sense of the world in my own head. And i have enough muslim friends that i would be extremely sad for the muslim world if the white european guy gets off on an insanity plea when half the islamic world has been invaded over similar acts.
catqueen · Member since
Sir GH wrote: Genuine question here for our Euro friends -
Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ??
I did part of my law exam relating to the insanity plea in ireland in third year. It isn't as easy to plea insanity as people think it is -- you do need to have a fairly strong basis for it. There are several main factors (which i presume are fairly standard). There is a 'rebuttable presumption of sanity.' (people are presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise) The person must have been at the time of the act suffering from a 'disease of the mind' which CAUSED a defect of reason or prevented him from knowing the nature or quality of his actions. If the accused is suffering from partial delusions, but knows that his actions were illegal, he will NOT have an insanity defense. Someone suffering from a partial delusion must be treated as though the delusion were real. (eg, if person a has a mental disorder and suffers from delusions, and thinks that person b is trying to kill them, and person a kills person b first, they should be treated as though they were actually under that threat.) The accused is unfit for trial if BECAUSE of a mental disorder he is unable to understand the nature or course of the proceedings and so is not able to: plead to the charge, instruct a representative, elect a jury, make a proper defense, challenge a juror or understand the evidence. If the accused BECAUSE of a mental disorder did not know that the act was wrong, or were unable to refrain from committing the act, they are not responsible. A person accused of murder may have diminished responsibility (sentence reduced to manslaughter) if they had a reduced ability to refrain from the act because of a mental disorder (this can happen in cases of domestic violence as far as i know, where someone is held down and held down for years and finally lashes out and kills their partner, and can be used in cases of infanticide carried out by the mother.)
In Ireland, there is an issue though about this, because if someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are basically acquitted, and therefore come under civil law, rather then criminal law. And the civil definition of mental disorder is more specific then the criminal definition, and doesnt include some (newer) disorders, such as personality disorders. So basically, if you are given an insanity plea on the basis of this, you come under civil law, and you can't actually be involuntarily detained under civil law on that basis. (for most mental disorders you can, but personality disorders and some others you cant). There were also issues with the older legislation regardiing this, as people got off on the basis of epilepsy and stuff, as it was a 'disease of the mind.'
FriedChicken · Member since
Yet again, my opinion about politics and religion have sunk to an even lower point.
Mr Mercury · Member since
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Genuine question here for our Euro friends -
Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ??
[/QUOTE]
Technically it does - its classed as "diminished responsibility". Our courts insist on medical records to be obtained first before this plea can be entered.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
catqueen wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote:
The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank.
Really??? On what basis? I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer?
====== Disturbing as it is, they did so on the basis of him killing social-democrats. The hate towards social-democrats in Europe is just plain scary. The far-right have actually managed to convince large segments of the population that, despite the fact that coalitions between classical liberals and Christian-Democrats have ruled the countries in question (Holland, Belgium, Germany) for almost the entire post-WWII period, the social-democrats are responsible for everything that is wrong with these countries.
The hatred of the new far right towards socialists and social democrats is in no way less than the hatred of nazi's or McCarthyists (whom these new far-right freaks most resemble) towards the left. There are likely to be more murders the next year or two.
The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank.
Really??? On what basis? I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer?
====== Disturbing as it is, they did so on the basis of him killing social-democrats. The hate towards social-democrats in Europe is just plain scary. The far-right have actually managed to convince large segments of the population that, despite the fact that coalitions between classical liberals and Christian-Democrats have ruled the countries in question (Holland, Belgium, Germany) for almost the entire post-WWII period, the social-democrats are responsible for everything that is wrong with these countries.
The hatred of the new far right towards socialists and social democrats is in no way less than the hatred of nazi's or McCarthyists (whom these new far-right freaks most resemble) towards the left. There are likely to be more murders the next year or two.
So scary that normal people can be convinced into crazy stuff like that. WHY can't people just work together :(
catqueen · Member since
What the heck!!!!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14372038 I quote: The far-right extremist admits killing eight people with a bomb in Oslo and shooting dead 69 on Utoeya island. Meanwhile, the leader of the right-wing Progress Party has warned that Norway still faces a serious Islamist threat. "All the debates that we had prior to 22 July will come back. All the challenges that Norway was facing and the challenges that the world was facing are still there. Al-Qaeda is still there," Siv Jensen told the AFP news agency. "The new thing is that we have been in a horrible way reminded of the fact that terrorism can come in many different forms, with different rhetoric behind it, with different crazy ideas behind it."
