dave the caveman Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 Definitely not insane. He believes what he did was justifiable as an act of war. If killing people for the sake of or in the defence of extreme beliefs make you insane, then you could put some interesting names on the insane list. The problem with that is if he is deemed sane the maximum sentence he can receive is 21 years.
Zingari Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 Definitely not insane. He believes what he did was justifiable as an act of war. If killing people for the sake of or in the defence of extreme beliefs make you insane, then you could put some interesting names on the insane list. The problem with that is if he is deemed sane the maximum sentence he can receive is 21 years. surely that makes him insane because he's delusional
Daggers Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 What do you all think? I need to know what his opinions are with regards the chocolate wars.
21st Century Fox Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 I need to know what his opinions are with regards the chocolate wars. Milky Bar surely.
Zingari Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 I need to know what his opinions are with regards the chocolate wars. definitely fruit and nut , i'd say
21st Century Fox Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 He won't be backing the call for Turkish Delight, that's for sure.
Zingari Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 He won't be backing the call for Turkish Delight, that's for sure. or Black Magic
Guest MattP Posted 16 April 2012 Posted 16 April 2012 Sane. Calm, calculated, ruthless efficiency and still maintains what he did was correct. Not that much difference from any sort of political activist who will use death as a weapon against a state.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Has anyone else been following today? I say I've been following it, but have been dipping in and out of the story as the major points have been brought out - but I have to say there is a bit of a paradox as to his sanity. Different psychologists have been giving different answers and their points are sound, which are basically as follows. Sane - he must be sane because he meticulously planned all this for years. Insane - surely only someone who was mentally unstable could contemplate such actions. Seeing him sit emotionless through most of the trial most of the trial, only to start crying when his propganda video was shown suggests to me that he is nothing more than a crackpot. The unfortunate thing about that is, if he IS a nut-job, then he'll get a softer sentance. Which is something I've never understood. I'd rather have someone who killed one person for a premeditated reason having the possibilty of rehabilitation, then someone who indescriminately killed many on a nonsensical whim. What do you all think? I read something to the contrary, he is pleading Sane as the Maximum sentence he can get is 21 years (can be extened if he is considered a threat to society). Whilst being found Insane he could spend life in a confined physc ward. Agree it is an interesting case as it was meticulussly planned and the statements, whilst being a bit loopy they do seem quite well thought thru. For instance pleading guilty to the acts but not the criminal responsibility. They don't sound like the sort of statements you would here from an insane person. In saying that there is definetly something a bit left of centre about him but is that enough for him to be classified as insane?
ozleicester Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 But this is what those who are qualified to say are saying... they're contradicting themselves (within their fraternity - for want of a better word.) Is psychology just a load of bollocks? That's another question entirely I guess. Yes. However on the overall question of this case we need to look at it individually, as someone mentioned, it seems that "insane" people get lesser sentences and i can see the rational to that. But what we need to do is take each case on its merits and assess the risks the person poses and the need for punishment. There are some that will say the only appropriate punishemnt is death, others who say life in prison is the minimum, still more will say lock him up until he has been punished and has been rehabilitated and made "sane". I cannot ever forsee him being released and that should be the case whether he is sane or not.................. ahh bugger but then i think, if he was insane and now he is sane, is it fair to keep him locked up? ...tough world in the legal system, its no wonder Geoffrey Robertson is one of my modern day heroes.
OzFox Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Yes. However on the overall question of this case we need to look at it individually, as someone mentioned, it seems that "insane" people get lesser sentences and i can see the rational to that. But what we need to do is take each case on its merits and assess the risks the person poses and the need for punishment. There are some that will say the only appropriate punishemnt is death, others who say life in prison is the minimum, still more will say lock him up until he has been punished and has been rehabilitated and made "sane". I cannot ever forsee him being released and that should be the case whether he is sane or not.................. ahh bugger but then i think, if he was insane and now he is sane, is it fair to keep him locked up? ...tough world in the legal system, its no wonder Geoffrey Robertson is one of my modern day heroes. was in fine form on Q & A last night wonder if it's possible to be sane but absolutely bonkers at the same time? Breivik seems to fit nicely into that category
Rincewind Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 To be insane is not conform to societies set of rules and moral guides depending on who has set them up at the time. There was a bloke recently who went everywhere naked and refused to put clothes on. Is he insane? In Britain maybe but in the deepest jungle in Borneo they are very scantily dressed and in prehistoric times they had no Marks and Spencer to get clothes from.
dave the caveman Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 surely that makes him insane because he's delusional If holding extreme beliefs makes you delusional and that makes you insane then a hell of a lot of people are insane. Insanity for me in this context is killing a bunch of people because a unicorn told you to do it. Breivik is perfectly entitled to his views and beliefs and they may or may not be correct. He is entitled to try and change society to reflect his beliefs within the established political framework. What he's not entitled to do is just start killing people. The fact that he did doesn't make him insane, it makes him a terrorist.
Zingari Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 If holding extreme beliefs makes you delusional and that makes you insane then a hell of a lot of people are insane. Insanity for me in this context is killing a bunch of people because a unicorn told you to do it. Breivik is perfectly entitled to his views and beliefs and they may or may not be correct. He is entitled to try and change society to reflect his beliefs within the established political framework. What he's not entitled to do is just start killing people. The fact that he did doesn't make him insane, it makes him a terrorist. Isn’t what he did more like they describe in eastern culture as “running amuk” or an uncontrolled killing spree madness. Yes he may have used his political views as a trigger for these actions . Actually though I think it’s probably very hard to decide at what point extreme views become insanity, so I’ll just say on this that I’m in no way qualified and I doubt whatever qualifications anyone else has that they would be able to give an unshakeable definition.
Mack Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Attention seekers come in all shapes and sizes. He's quite sane, and has had a whole court room built just for him.. he must be in paradise. The Norwegians are clearly totally out of their depth dealing with such a character, the old bill should have blown his brains out on that island.
Zingari Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Attention seekers come in all shapes and sizes. He's quite sane, and has had a whole court room built just for him.. he must be in paradise. The Norwegians are clearly totally out of their depth dealing with such a character, the old bill should have blown his brains out on that island. That's quite an extreme form of attention seeking !
Mack Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 That's quite an extreme form of attention seeking ! Of course. He has read his history and has realised he can write himself into the history books for a very long time with this act. And unless they see sense the Norwegians are providing him with Worldwide notoriety.
Guesty Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Of course. He has read his history and has realised he can write himself into the history books for a very long time with this act. And unless they see sense the Norwegians are providing him with Worldwide notoriety. I agree with this. It does annoy me when someone commits an act like this and the media give them exactly what they wanted. Take Mark Chapman for example, killed Lennon because he wanted to be famous/attention, then got exactly what he wanted. I doubt its possible but it would be nice when horrible things/indivduals like this happen there was a media blackout on his name. Of course it would get out on the internet somewhere but not the mainstream media.
21st Century Fox Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 To be fair this whole thread is pretty academic as none of us have spent any time with him and are basing our opinion on media reports. Psychology isn't a waste of time, it's just not a perfect science and this would appear to be an extremely complex case. With regard to the media exposure of the case, the Norwegian authorities don't really have much choice. On average the murder rate in Norway is 30 a year, this man killed 77 in a day, that isn't exactly something you can draw a curtain on and carry out sentencing behind closed doors, the Norwegian public expect answers. They aren't televising any of his testimony so as not to give him a platform but they owe it to the victims to help explain and attempt to rationalise why they died.
shen Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 ahh bugger but then i think, if he was insane and now he is sane, is it fair to keep him locked up? ...tough world in the legal system, its no wonder Geoffrey Robertson is one of my modern day heroes. He would be re-evalued every 5 years in that system. I.e. if he is dangerous to society or whether it is dangerous for him. Either way, my guess is that in practice he'll be locked up for life. Which isn't too bad for him considering that prison has to live up to stricter comfort rules than rest homes...
Saxondale Posted 17 April 2012 Posted 17 April 2012 Not knowing the actual medical definition of insanity (which I'm sure is a big, grey minefield anyway), I don't want to pass judgment either way. He's obviously very intelligent but with a slightly deluded perception of reality and very, very extreme views and a moral compass formed accordingly.
BoneDog Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Have they arrested any of his backers and accomplices yet? Or are the lunatic fringe still claiming that he acted alone? lolz
ADK Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 I voted insane but actually he probably isnt "insane" but definately suffers from mental disability.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.