Formal indictment against ABB released today.

[arildno]

Today, the formal document that will form the basis against Anders Behring Breivik was released, his trial will begin in mid-april.

119 individuals are named as judicially specified victims, the 79 killed, and 40 who were grievously wounded (personally, I would have liked that ALL the 600 youths at utøya gained the status of judicially specified victims).

He is charged with acts of terrorism and numerous counts of premeditated murder.

The Prosecutor's Office recommends that he is to undergo involuntary psychiatric care, in consonance with the report from the forensic psychiatrists.
In accordance to Breivik's own wishes, the defence team will oppose this, and argue that he was judicially sane.

As for those unmentioned in the document, I think it would be unproblematic for them to raise civil law-suits against ABB, if they want to do so.
I believe that most Norwegians accept that it, in practice, will be US, rather than Breivik, who actually pays out damages for their sufferings.

 

[Evo]

Is there any likelihood that he could be judged sane?

 

[arildno]

Is there any likelihood that he could be judged sane?

The Prosecutor's Office has emphasized, rather unusually, that they make an express provision that if the proceedings during the main trial should convince them that Breivik is judicially sane, they may change their recommendation to the court.

Our problem is that in 1981, just 30 years ago, it was expressly denied the courts to regard "life imprisonment" to anything more than 21 years in jail (21 years had then, over a long period, become the courts' STANDARD maximum sentence, the politicians chose to cripple the courts' power to do anything else in the future..(for those wondering about execution in peacetime in Norway, the provision for that was abolished in 1902, the last peacetime execution taking place in the 1870s)).

IF that baneful decision had not been made back then, the situation today, including how the formal charge has been formulated, would have been very different.

From close reading of the conditions for continued deprivation of liberty (either "confinement" after serving judicial punsihment, vs. compulsory mental health care), it seems to me, as a non-jurist, that the best option to ensure that Breivik is NEVER released is to condemn him as.. judicially insane.

Due to that STUPID law regulation in 1981, we have to shenaniganize..

 

[Evo]

How can they consider releasing someone that is so obviously criminally insane? It's mind boggling.

 

[arildno]

How can they consider releasing someone that is so obviously criminally insane? It's mind boggling.

Well, the concept is that both you and I live in what the Germans call a "Rechtsstaat" (state ruled by law) in which, for example, each and every criminal cannot be judged to other punishments than those set out by formalized, written law validated by the legislative process prior to his crime.

If the law is stupid, we need to change it for the future, but cannot retroactively make it valid for the criminals of today.

THAT is our problem..

 

[Evo]

So there is no thought to him continuing to be a danger to society? How many people does he get to kill before they're convinced that he's criminally insane?

I certainly hope that he is found insane now.

 

[arildno]

So there is no thought to him continuing to be a danger to society? How many people does he get to kill before they're convinced that he's criminally insane?

I certainly hope that he is found insane now.

Well, the judicial dilemma, as I've understood it is as follows:
1) If Breivik is side-tracked onto the line of confinement, a type of judicial punishment valid for those who are considered judicially sane, and that in principle can be maintained indefinitely, then the burden of proof lies upon PROVING that he will STILL pose a menace to society at the regular re-evaluations (otherwise, he must be released). The typical individual condemned to confinement today is the serial pedophile.

2) However, by regarding Breivik as insane, the burden of proof is to prove that he has become mentally healthy/non-psychotic, otherwise, he is to remain confined.

Besides, there exists an obscure paragraph in Norwegian law, never used before I think, that states that if a person is deemed to have become non-psychotic, he may STILL be switched into "confinement" status if proven still a menace to society.

Thus, in my non-jurist view, 2) seems to provide the best option for keeping him behind (soft) bars for the rest of his life.

It does not hurt me a bit that ABB himself is livid that persons can consider him insane, rather than as a rational genius..

 

[MarcoD]

Personally, I think the guy is a sociopath. From my limited knowledge, that would fit the best, a personality with illusions of grandeur, no empathy for other people, and even a likeable personality under normal circumstances. (Oh, and I forgot, he seems to be enjoying the attention.) (He was joking with a kid and a cab driver before he committed his crime; if I remember correctly.)

Unfortunately, sociopaths are quite common, it's about 1% I think.

Psychosis just doesn't really fit. I now have regular psychosis, and honestly, you can't do **** when then that happens. It just doesn't fit his planning.

But maybe he has both. I wouldn't know, I am not into psychology. But I think they'll probably declare him insane no matter what.

 

[arildno]

Personally, I think the guy is a sociopath. From my limited knowledge, that would fit the best, a personality with illusions of grandeur, no empathy for other people, and even a likeable personality under normal circumstances. .

I agree with your assessment.

As for the joking part with a kid and cab driver, I haven't heard it anywhere before.
That need not make it untrue, because he had to wait some minutes (10-15 I think), in his disguice as a policeman, before the ferry came to carry him and some others over to Utøya.

He appeared as a normal, taciturn and rather grave policeman then, from what I've read, but he might have answered some spry remark with one of his own.