ABB moved to tears at first day of trial

  • News
  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date
  • Tags
    trial
In summary, Anders Behring Breivik, the man responsible for the horrific bombing and shooting attacks in Norway, showed no remorse for his actions and instead seemed proud of himself during his trial. He even claimed that he would do it all over again if given the chance. His defense team, including his main attorney Geir Lippestad, have the difficult task of defending such a delusional and narcissistic individual. The prosecutor, Inga Bejer Engh, has handled the case professionally despite the immense tragedy caused by Breivik's actions. If Breivik is deemed sane and guilty, he faces a maximum of 21 years in jail, which he himself deems a "pathetic punishment." There is the possibility of
  • #1
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,123
137
For his victims? Nope. He remained calm, impassive during the 30 minutes bare recount of the horrific damage he made (seeming rather proud of himself when he saw pictures of himself right after planting the bomb, and right after his arrest at Utøya).

but, when his 12 minutes long propaganda film was played off, where he regards HIMSELF as a victim, he was seen wiping tears from his eyes...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535

In Norwegian mythology, the draugr was just about the nastiest creature around, a rotting corpse sailing in a leaky boat, portending yet another death of fishermen.

now, ABB ups the ante..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Disgusting. It's too easy to just say he's crazy. Evil is so hard to fathom.

I'm hoping some deeper insight will come of this whole ordeal.
 
  • #3
Reading through today's BBC report is full of what you would expect. He pleads not guilty as he doesn't think what he did was a crime, he doesn't recognise the authority of the courts because they abide by multi-cultural policies, he claims self-defence as a justification for what he has done...

It would be a hard task being his defence team and having to legally defend such a person.
 
  • #4
Ryan_m_b said:
It would be a hard task being his defence team and having to legally defend such a person.
His main attorney, Geir Lippestad, is himself involved in his local political faction of the Labour Party (in the sub-urbia of Oslo known as Nordstrand).
Most likely, he personally knew some of the victims, but he has handled this case very professionally (for example, by NOT revealing whether he personally knew some of the victims or not, that would be out of line relative to his task as defence councel).

I was also impressed by public prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh, who had the thankless job to read up the bare facts of ABBS manifold crimes, knowing within herself that each victim represents an immeasurable tragedy.
She managed to keep the correct, professional attitude we expect in a prosecutor, and that alone is no small feat in a case like this.
 
  • #5
According to this article in The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/04/breivik-court
One daily, Dagbladet, has inserted a button on its web edition that removes all mention of the trial from screens.

Interesting idea...there are frequently stories on news sites that I wish I could "opt out" of.
 
  • #6
This man is obviously delusional, and from my impression of him, a very narcissistic individual. I bet he sees himself as some lone revolutionary fighting for his beliefs, who is unmoved by any remorse for his actions and always sticks to what is "right", so in no way am I suprised that he chooses to act this way. He cares deeply about his image, probably imagining that in time he will eventually be seen as being some martyr, a leader of some future revolution, or a hero later on in history, probably even years after he is gone.

Its suprising that he is even given a case at all in my opinion, and being treated the way he is in court. But that speaks more to the Court itself though.
 
  • #7
Reports in US media quote the monster as saying that he "would do it again". No remorse.
 
  • #8
Looks like he wants to be made a martyr http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17752189

Letting him rot in jail as the years go by would be far better than giving him the satisfaction of a quick ending and a final point in history. By the last point I mean that if he was to live on for years and years then his story will be diluted by his punishment and anything that happens in future rather than a quick thing.
 
  • #9
From your bbc link: "If Breivik is judged sane and found guilty of murder, he faces a maximum of 21 years in jail, although that can be extended if he is deemed a threat to the public."

After Breivik claimed that he would do it all over again, isn't that ample evidence to warrant extending his sentence? If not, perhaps the judges' panel can declare him insane and institutionalize him indefinitely. Serving one concurrent 21-year sentence for all those murders is a pathetic "punishment" IMO. I can see Norway's desire to limit lengthy sentences, but perhaps there should be an option for consecutive sentences...
 
  • #10
turbo said:
After Breivik claimed that he would do it all over again, isn't that ample evidence to warrant extending his sentence?
If he should be judged to involuntary confinement (due to perceived present danger to society) that confinement status is not something that can be imposed at the beginning of the confinement term, but will, after the first 10 year stint, be reevaluated every 5 years or so. Thus, it is judicially irrelevant that he may be deemed a danger NOW; 20 years from now, one might have to, sadly, conclude differently
.
If not, perhaps the judges' panel can declare him insane and institutionalize him indefinitely.
If his "psychosis" is proved to have evaporated, he must be set free, or, by an unused paragraph, get involuntary confinement if his psychosis is abated, but he is still regarded as a danger to society.

Serving one concurrent 21-year sentence for all those murders is a pathetic "punishment" IMO. I can see Norway's desire to limit lengthy sentences, but perhaps there should be an option for consecutive sentences...
Breivik himself said in court today that 21 years is a pathetic punishment, and he would have more respect for the imposition of death penalty.
In that, I fully agree with Mr. Breivik.
 
  • #11
Sick person.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-shock-norway-gunman-describes-massacre-124453974--finance.html
 
  • #12
Terrifying and sick. My youngest grand-nephew is named Anders, a traditional name handed from generation to generation in his father's family. I wonder if he will continue to bear that name? ABB might do to "Anders" as Hitler did to "Adolph".
 
  • #13
turbo said:
From your bbc link: "If Breivik is judged sane and found guilty of murder, he faces a maximum of 21 years in jail, although that can be extended if he is deemed a threat to the public."

After Breivik claimed that he would do it all over again, isn't that ample evidence to warrant extending his sentence? If not, perhaps the judges' panel can declare him insane and institutionalize him indefinitely. Serving one concurrent 21-year sentence for all those murders is a pathetic "punishment" IMO. I can see Norway's desire to limit lengthy sentences, but perhaps there should be an option for consecutive sentences...

I know he has admitted it all in full but remember he hasn't even been convicted yet.

I also think judges declaring people insane to achieve the desired sentence is a dangerous thing to advocate, everything should be done by the book so there is no chance of him being able to appeal.

From what I understand (my knowledge of the Norwegian legal system is limited) he could end up serving far longer than twenty one years.
 
  • #14
turbo said:
Terrifying and sick. My youngest grand-nephew is named Anders, a traditional name handed from generation to generation in his father's family. I wonder if he will continue to bear that name? ABB might do to "Anders" as Hitler did to "Adolph".

As for "Anders", it is a fairly common name (around 20.000 Norweeds by last count).

In contrast to the name "Vidkun" that was never common, and inextricably, linked to Mr. Quisling, has only 14 name sakes today.

It will be tougher in other countries than Scandinavia, though, since there "Anders" will be rare.
I hope your grand nephew will keep a good name (prominent in my own family as well, actually).
 
  • #15
lulong said:
Reports in US media quote the monster as saying that he "would do it again". No remorse.
It was also reported that he said he had wanted to kill more people.
 
  • #16
Ryan_m_b said:
Letting him rot in jail as the years go by would be far better than giving him the satisfaction of a quick ending and a final point in history. By the last point I mean that if he was to live on for years and years then his story will be diluted by his punishment and anything that happens in future rather than a quick thing.

Why would it be better? We're not barbarians.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Hobin said:
Why would it be better? We're not barbarians.

Sure it may be cruel in a sense, but what's so barbaric about it? In fact, its quite the other way around.
 
  • #18
Hobin said:
Why would it be better? We're not barbarians.
By "rot in jail" I did not mean literally. I meant let him stay in jail for decades for his crime, as I stated that would drag out his story to one of a man who did an evil act and then spent decades in punishment because of it whilst the world moved on. Killing him would cement his place in history as it is now and makes his story far easier for idolisation and rationalisation.
 
  • #19
lmoh said:
Sure it may be cruel in a sense, but what's so barbaric about it? In fact, its quite the other way around.

Because... it's cruel? Cruel is barbaric, no matter whether you're on the side of the good guys or the bad guys. An emotional need for vengeance does not an ethical decision make.

Ryan_m_b said:
By "rot in jail" I did not mean literally. I meant let him stay in jail for decades for his crime, as I stated that would drag out his story to one of a man who did an evil act and then spent decades in punishment because of it whilst the world moved on. Killing him would cement his place in history as it is now and makes his story far easier for idolisation and rationalisation.

Fair enough. Those are rational reasons. :smile: I'd like to note that I'm against the death penalty myself, but it was mostly the 'rot in jail' that ticked me off a bit.
 
  • #20
Hobin said:
Because... it's cruel? Cruel is barbaric, no matter whether you're on the side of the good guys or the bad guys. An emotional need for vengeance does not an ethical decision make.

Barbaric to me implies brutality, or physical violence. Imposing the death penalty appears to fit that definition quite well.
 
  • #21
lmoh said:
Barbaric to me implies brutality, or physical violence. Imposing the death penalty appears to fit that definition quite well.

You're only changing the definition of barbaric I used in my post to try to prove your point. Being barbaric does not necessarily mean violent.
 
  • #22
No, what would be wrong is if ABB gets what he wants and gets his lethal injection or bullet through his skull. That means he killed 77 people, got his media funfair to spout off his drivel, then he gets his death penalty so he can probably achieve what he would think of as his own martyrdom.

Let him rot in jail and show that you have to carry the can for your actions.
 
  • #23
What's the deal with all the rotting stuff, people?

I'm not particularly for giving ABB what he wants. However, I'm *also* not in favor of punishment purely for punishment's sake. Revenge is totally unacceptable to me if it doesn't serve an actual purpose other than satisfying the emotional we-want-to-lynch-him-needs of the people. The reasons Ryan mentioned, for example, are good enough reasons to not give him what he wants.
 
  • #24
Hobin said:
What's the deal with all the rotting stuff, people?

I'm not particularly for giving ABB what he wants. However, I'm *also* not in favor of punishment purely for punishment's sake. Revenge is totally unacceptable to me if it doesn't serve an actual purpose other than satisfying the emotional we-want-to-lynch-him-needs of the people. The reasons Ryan mentioned, for example, are good enough reasons to not give him what he wants.

Rot in jail is an idiomatic english phrase that basically means to like let someone stay in jail indefinately.
 
  • #25
rollcast said:
Rot in jail is an idiomatic english phrase that basically means to like let someone stay in jail indefinately.

*scratches head* In that case, I misunderstood. I thought that since Ryan already mentioned he didn't mean rot literally, you were trying to emphasise that you did mean it literally. My apologies, English isn't my first language.
 
  • #26
Hobin said:
You're only changing the definition of barbaric I used in my post to try to prove your point. Being barbaric does not necessarily mean violent.

Well, that was what I took the word to mean, and you are certaintly free to disagree with me, but I am not going to argue any further on this point (which is just simply a semantic dispute).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Hobin said:
What's the deal with all the rotting stuff, people?

I'm not particularly for giving ABB what he wants. However, I'm *also* not in favor of punishment purely for punishment's sake. Revenge is totally unacceptable to me if it doesn't serve an actual purpose other than satisfying the emotional we-want-to-lynch-him-needs of the people. The reasons Ryan mentioned, for example, are good enough reasons to not give him what he wants.

To me, the urge people feel to punishment, is the desire, perhaps unrealistic, that the person may come to be regretful of their actions. I think people feel emotionally disturbed that someone could do something so horrible, and not have remorse. But it is unreasonable to expect someone like ABB to ever be rehabilitated.

Otherwise, punishment is also for the sake of making an example, so that others know the consequences they may face if they attempt similar crimes.

And then there is punishment for the sake of revenge, which I am not in favor of.

But I think that the main point of incarceration, or execution, is to make the world safer, to remove a great threat to the lives of innocent people. I think that this is the most important aspect. And I think that when someone is so bad as ABB, the most reasonable thing is the death penalty. I could care less about wether or not this is what he wanted. What does it matter that he gets what he wanted or not at that point, where he is no longer existent on this earth, and therefore can no longer pose a threat.
 
  • #29
jreelawg said:
And I think that when someone is so bad as ABB, the most reasonable thing is the death penalty. I could care less about wether or not this is what he wanted. What does it matter that he gets what he wanted or not at that point, where he is no longer existent on this earth, and therefore can no longer pose a threat.
I disagree, it's possible he would pose more of a threat dead than alive. His death relegates his story to history and could martyrise him. Make no mistake whilst he is an evil individual he is not the only one in Europe, having such a final end to his story could allow other militant extremists to view him as a man who died defending Europe. Keeping him alive but separate mitigates this.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
ascension777 said:
Too bad they don't have death penalty anymore in Norway, sometimes it's justified. He's creepy.

Creepiness does NOT justify the death penalty. Also, please take a look at everything Ryan said in the post before yours.
 
  • #31
He started crying while the music of his youtube video was playing. So the music is what made him emotional.
 
  • #32
pftest said:
He started crying while the music of his youtube video was playing. So the music is what made him emotional.
Possibly though it seems more likely that the indicated start of his video made him emotional.
 
  • #33
Well, today, during the gruelling, never-ending testimony of the Chief Pathologist detailing the autopsy reports of the deceased, the main prosecutor Bejer Engh broke down for a moment, and was seen quietly drying some tears from her face.

On Friday, 7 autopsy reports were done, today 12. 50 more to go.

Breivik himself is mildly interested, but haven't shown any emotions worth mentioning.
 

1. What is the trial that ABB is involved in?

ABB is involved in a trial regarding allegations of bribery and corruption in its dealings with the government of Libya.

2. Why was ABB moved to tears on the first day of the trial?

ABB's former CEO, Ulrich Spiesshofer, was emotional during the first day of the trial as he expressed regret and apologized for the company's involvement in the corruption scandal.

3. What are the potential consequences for ABB in this trial?

If found guilty, ABB could face significant fines and damage to its reputation. The company may also be subject to further legal action and investigations.

4. How did ABB respond to the allegations of bribery and corruption?

ABB conducted its own internal investigation and cooperated with authorities. The company also implemented new compliance measures and policies to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

5. What impact has this trial had on ABB's business?

The trial has had a negative impact on ABB's business, as the company's stock prices have dropped and its reputation has been damaged. The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the trial has also affected ABB's ability to secure new contracts.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top