Fuck Anders Breivik!

[ArthurWilborn]

There seems to be an odd assumption at work here - that a person who is mentally ill is necessarily incompetent. Crazy does not equal stupid - crazy people are completely capable of formulating and carrying out elaborate plans. Heck, there are many psychotic people who use their desire for control to become effective leaders.

The question is more about when an odd or not commonly accepted belief crosses over from an opinion to symptomatic of an illness. Humans are, at their base, irrational creatures. Thus, having a few unusual beliefs which do not square with reality is the expected norm. Believing in violence as an effective solution to a problem is equally common, as any peek into history will tell you. That this person was thoughtful rather then impulsive in his actions speaks more to his personality then to his sanity.

I tend to draw the line at organic defect or injury. Run him through an MRI and see if there's any damage - that's the most objective indication of his mental capacity that you're going to get. If there is severe damage, then he moves from being a murderer to being a natural disaster. Tragic, but not evil.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Apparently, Breivik's been found "sane", based on the current legal definition of insanity.

Personally, I think this is the wrong decision.

Someone who's insane is deemed to be a "fantasist": a person who suffers from occasional episodes of delusions and hearing voices.

My contention is that Breivik is living in a fantasy: he views the world from within a fantasy.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

Depends on the legal defenition of sanity I suppose. If he knew and understood that his actions were against the law he's pretty much sane, legally thinking. It's a small victory to Breivik though, he's always mainteined that he was sane in the fear of loosing his message if he was declared insane.

On a more morbid note: Legal experts here in Finland think that he would have gotten life sentence here with the possibility of getting out after about 20 years ("life" sentence here in almost never that, lifers can ask for release after 12 years and very rarely are in prison for over 18). Just over 3 months per life taken. At times all I can do is wonder about the sentences my "justice" system gives.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Personally, I'd have preferred him to be found insane - that way, he could be kept indefinitely and studied. He also indicated that it would be "a fate worse than death".

[The word "amok" came into use when young Malay men ran amok killing people in the market-place during British rule. The British, instead of killing them, captured them and put them on trial. The shame associated with this resulted in the spate of such incidents diminishing and ceasing to occur.

There's a interesting - and a propos - section in the right-hand column, which sounds very much like Breivik's crime.]

This verdict gives Breivik what he wants: affirmation.

He will be seen as a "hero" to like-minded individuals, and he can have contact with - and power to control - others in the outside world.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Interesting points, Dragan Glas.

 

[Visaki]

For Dragan Glas:

In all likelyhood he won't get out, and he will be studied. Norway has a 21+ sentence where time can be added 5 years a time if the person is seen as a danger to public if released. I have no reason to believe that he'll ever get out. Or at least letting him out will be a political suicide to any party in charge then.

Yes, Breivik got affirmation. He seeked from the start to be seen as a sane person with rational greavenses and deeds. But I can not see how that could be a good, let alone legimate, reason to declare him insane. He was going to be a hero to some very disturbed people anyways (since an insane verdict would only have been seen as a conspiracy to discredit him).

All in all Breivik has revealed the unrealistic optimism in the criminal law of Norway.

 

[Frenger]

Greetings,

Personally, I'd have preferred him to be found insane - that way, he could be kept indefinitely and studied. He also indicated that it would be "a fate worse than death".

[The word "amok" came into use when young Malay men ran amok killing people in the market-place during British rule. The British, instead of killing them, captured them and put them on trial. The shame associated with this resulted in the spate of such incidents diminishing and ceasing to occur.

There's a interesting - and a propos - section in the right-hand column, which sounds very much like Breivik's crime.]

This verdict gives Breivik what he wants: affirmation.

He will be seen as a "hero" to like-minded individuals, and he can have contact with - and power to control - others in the outside world.

Kindest regards,

James

Ach! I remember feeling a sense of rejoice when I read that that prick was deemed sane. Now Dragan you have made me rethink that whole thing!

I suppose I never thought that people would deem this twat a martyr but yeah, that makes sense.

Just out of curiousity, is there an upper limit on how long they can keep a person institutionalised? And what if the boundaries of sane and insane changed so say 15 years down the line he was deemed sane?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

When I posted the above regarding "amok", I'd actually wanted to say ...

The word "amok" came into use when young Malay men ran amok killing people in the market-place during British rule. The British, instead of killing them, captured them and put them in asylums. The shame associated with this resulted in the spate of such incidents diminishing and ceasing to occur.

I'd seen a article at the time but had lost it - I've now found it again:

Inside the Mind of Anders Breivik - The Norwegian on Trial for Mass Murder

In colonial times, in that particular region of the world, there was a well known syndrome of young men running 'amok' and killing others in a spree. The British colonial masters of the area actively pursued a policy of avoiding killing these perpetrators in apprehending or sentencing them. Instead they were consigned to asylums for the insane. This was such an ultimate humiliation, for that culture, at that time, that this denied these young men status and death, so depriving the mass killer, argues Mullen, of their raison d'àªtre.

Mullen's argument is that if perpetrators of massacres are predominantly awkward, obsessive individuals overwhelmed by resentment at their own powerlessness, actively attempting to portray them as they are, is a much more helpful prevention strategy, at least when compared to the inadvertent global media attention which reinforces an idea that in death they achieve the power, which always eluded them in life.

This is particularly significant, as it affects how the modern world should treat terrorists - particularly the religiously-inspired ones - instead of consigning them to a legal-limbo like Guantanamo, with all that that entails regarding international law and justice.

I'd also mentioned to Prolescum, during a chat, that I was working on a post for my blog - "Breivik, Norway's Oswald" - which has been held up due to this mislaying of the article - as the article is central to my argument.

I've also been trawling for the article to which the authors refer - Mullen's COiP one - which I think is this one, as it's the only one I can find by Mullen in relation to "amok" - but as it's pay-to-view, I'm not sure.

If anyone can confirm this by finding it elsewhere - if you don't have access to it already - I'd be much obliged.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Another mental-health sufferer, like Breivik, who may have been inspired by him - which is why Breivik should have been committed to an asylum.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[atheistcatman]

In my opinion the globalist ideal for the future is a failure. Part of this radical idea is to "have a world without borders". We see this with the mass influx of "migrants" from the third world, most are lacking in modern civilized behaviors. We need to mandate stable Islamic theocracies in the middle east to take them in. On the other hand with the Syrian crisis, it is sadly The United States doing with poor forieng policy and "Nation building and setting up free democracies", I say that in quotation, which it is actually a move to build American Empire, and to secure oil assets in the region.
With that said I feel my nation has to bear responsability, but only take in women and children, not military aged healthy men. These individuals should be temporary moved to functioning Arab nations in region. Once the war is over in Syria, and the nation is in decent functioning order, we can get plans to reasymilate the individuals back home to Syria. That is my answer to the Syian question, which has been a topic here in the States that is heavily debated among the people and the presidential canadates. In closing what this individual did is very heanous and is no better than the attrosities carried out by Islamic radicals.
I once heard a CIA operative say in an interview that getting on the ground and dealing with deplomacy works wonders. These people may not have our views, but put your selves in their shoes. They have a massive military invading their homelands. How would we react if say Russia invaded Western Europe or even the United States. Well it would be very much the same, for I been around gun enthusiests, to put it mild, and even talked to members of the Militia. We would have an insurgency led by all walks of life. We must realize that in order to progress, we need to evalulate very deeply the value humanity puts on human lives.