New psychiatric report concludes ABB to be judiciallysane.

[arildno]

Unprecedented in Norwegian practice, a second psychiatric commission was set up to evaluate ABBs sanity after a massive outcry against the previous report that concluded he was judiciallyinsane.
This new commission, having worked since January, has in addition to detailed conversations with ABB (as the previous commission also had), had the benefit of a 24/7 surveillance/observation period of a month by a team of psychiatric staff. (The court ordered that ABB was to undergo an involuntary observational period at a mental hospital.)

ABB himself has been furious at being labeled insane, and has ordered his defense attorneys to argue for his sanity.

The trial starts April 16.

 

[Evo]

Isn't it better that he be tried as insane?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think the issue is that if he is sane, then there is a limit to how long they can keep him in prison, but if he's insane, they can keep him in an insane asylum forever. Apparently, the Norwegians passed a law to show the world how civilized they are and now they regret it.

 

[turbo]

It would be better for Norway's criminal justice system if he found to be insane and get locked up indefinitely. Norway's limit of 21 years for sentences for even horrific crimes is baffling (IMO) and leaves the country open for multiple opportunities for the killer to grandstand as he and his lawyers fight against any extensions of his sentence. Sad times.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think the issue is that if he is sane, then there is a limit to how long they can keep him in prison, but if he's insane, they can keep him in an insane asylum forever. Apparently, the Norwegians passed a law to show the world how civilized they are and now they regret it.

It would be better for Norway's criminal justice system if he found to be insane and get locked up indefinitely. Norway's limit of 21 years for sentences for even horrific crimes is baffling (IMO) and leaves the country open for multiple opportunities for the killer to grandstand as he and his lawyers fight against any extensions of his sentence. Sad times.

I think you both do a disservice to Norway's very successful judicial system in terms of recidivism and the social circumstances that allow for low crime rates. One off horrors, as horrific are they are, shouldn't be call to change a system that has every other sign of working.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't regret the Norwegian law, they do.

 

[arildno]

Isn't it better that he be tried as insane?

Well, as sane, he will be given involuntary confinement that can in principle be upheld indefinitely (with three year intervals after the first ten, I think).

But, the gravity of the committed crime is explicitly not to be regarded as a factor for keeping him locked up, but one must prove he remains a "clear and present" danger still to society.

(In contrast from renewing a term at a mental hospital, where you need to prove that his delusions have abated)

 

[zahero_2007]

If he is not insane , Why did he murder all these people ?? What was his motives?

 

[arildno]

If he is not insane , Why did he murder all these people ?? What was his motives?

To kill those he regarded as traitors and would-be traitors.

 

[zahero_2007]

Well , as far as i know they are just teenagers , seemingly christians why did he portray them as traitors?

 

[Evo]

Well , as far as i know they are just teenagers , seemingly christians why did he portray them as traitors?

Because he's insane.

 

[arildno]

Because he's insane.

Not in my opinion.
Killing future, probable enemies while they are still swaddled in diapers has some sort of sick rationality behind it.
(After all, they can't present personal resistance at that stage)

But, such mentality remains evil, nonetheless.

(Rationality and efficiency calculations are amoral, in principle)

I'm not religious, but "evil" is a better concept to use on ABB than "insane", in my view...

 

[Evo]

Not in my opinion.
Killing future, probable enemies while they are still swaddled in diapers has some sort of sick rationality behind it.
(After all, they can't present personal resistance at that stage)

But, such mentality remains evil, nonetheless.

(Rationality and efficiency calculations are amoral, in principle)

I'm not religious, but "evil" is a better concept to use on ABB than "insane", in my view...

I would call him "criminally insane". I don't see how someone as dellusional as he is could not be considered to have a mental illness. I don't think he would fit rules for grasping reality that would be considered necessary for being fit to stand trial here in the US. That's actually a bad thing here in the US because it is a loophole that can be used to avoid a conviction and/or lengthy incarceration.

 

[ThomasT]

Unprecedented in Norwegian practice, a second psychiatric commission was set up to evaluate ABBs sanity after a massive outcry against the previous report that concluded he was judiciallyinsane.
This new commission, having worked since January, has in addition to detailed conversations with ABB (as the previous commission also had), had the benefit of a 24/7 surveillance/observation period of a month by a team of psychiatric staff. (The court ordered that ABB was to undergo an involuntary observational period at a mental hospital.)

ABB himself has been furious at being labeled insane, and has ordered his defense attorneys to argue for his sanity.

The trial starts April 16.

I don't think that anybody understands why people like ABB do what they do. But he did what he did. A good argument for the death penalty, imho. People who do heinous acts like ABB's should be unceremoniously exterminated. Maybe gruesomely tortured first. But that would be optional.

I have no idea what ABB's beef was, and don't care. Kill him or put him in a cell for life and forget about him.

 

[phoenix:\\]

I don't believe that we should torture him and kill him, that would mean we are as sick as he is. Why give him the satisfaction in his mindset of believing he was right the whole time? Why not try to fix his ills?

Not in my opinion.
Killing future, probable enemies while they are still swaddled in diapers has some sort of sick rationality behind it.
(After all, they can't present personal resistance at that stage)

But, such mentality remains evil, nonetheless.

(Rationality and efficiency calculations are amoral, in principle)

I'm not religious, but "evil" is a better concept to use on ABB than "insane", in my view...

Judging one based on future actions because of a derangement of their families/friends, etc..., impressing a belief system that he felt was traitorous upon his beliefs is irrational in thinking. He then murdered as many as he could whilst not fully knowing the people he killed all on the pretext of being traitors and future traitors. To me that would be considered, an oversimplification of a cause (that the ills of his country are caused by those he believes to be traitors), slippery slope logic (he believes that more ills would come by allowing their children to grow), fallacy of composition, and many other errors within logic.

You may believe that logic and reason to be distinct, but in case of that reply, would you also believe that if being "reasonable" were a good measure to pursue actions to mitigate traitors and would-be traitors (based on ABB's actions), wouldn't it be rational to implement a strategy of changing the beliefs of those would-be traitors? Killing them is only making them martyrs for their traitorous cause, especially in today's world.

 

[lisab]

I don't believe that we should torture him and kill him, that would mean we are as sick as he is. Why give him the satisfaction in his mindset of believing he was right the whole time? Why not try to fix his ills?



Judging one based on future actions because of a derangement of their families/friends, etc..., impressing a belief system that he felt was traitorous upon his beliefs is irrational in thinking. He then murdered as many as he could whilst not fully knowing the people he killed all on the pretext of being traitors and future traitors. To me that would be considered, an oversimplification of a cause (that the ills of his country are caused by those he believes to be traitors), slippery slope logic (he believes that more ills would come by allowing their children to grow), fallacy of composition, and many other errors within logic.

You may believe that logic and reason to be distinct, but in case of that reply, would you also believe that if being "reasonable" were a good measure to pursue actions to mitigate traitors and would-be traitors (based on ABB's actions), wouldn't it be rational to implement a strategy of changing the beliefs of those would-be traitors? Killing them is only making them martyrs for their traitorous cause, especially in today's world.

Changing a person's beliefs is pretty difficult. And he really, really loves his opinions.

A mind changed against its will,
Is of the same opinion still.

But perhaps letting this guy spew his hatred and vitriol, with the whole world watching -- not just Norway-- is the best way to prevent the next ABB. Daylight is an effective antiseptic against that sort of slime.

 

[luitzen]

The argument is on whether he is mentally accountable for his deeds and I think he is. His ideas were ideologically motivated and his actions were well thought through. If his ideology is not changed in the meantime then he'll pose a great threat when he's released in 21 years (which I'm quite certain will happen). Now I'd like to see how the Norwegians are going to handle that situation.

Where Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, etc. insane and mentally unaccountable for their deeds? One might say that anyone who kills millions of people is insane, but I certainly consider them to be accountable for what they have done.

And this is also the reason why Anders Breivik got enraged when he was reported insane, because that would undermine his ideology.

When a teleological morality (Does a soldier commit a crime when he kills? What about collateral damage?) is applied and when his ideology is correct (which he certainly believes is) then the mass murder of 69 people is not only not a crime, it's also morally the correct thing to do. That's also the reason that moved him to plead not guilty (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535 ).

For this very reason I strongly despise any ideology, especially one that involves teleological ethics.

 

[DevonG]

If he is not insane , Why did he murder all these people ?? What was his motives?

Legal insanity is not the same as medical insanity. The test is simple - was the person capable of understanding that his actions were wrong?

Motive doesn't come into play unless we're talking about a criminal offence, which necessarily must have mens rea - a "guilty mind" (this concept underlies things like intent and motive). Someone detained for psychiatric treatment by virtue of the insanity defence isn't convicted of a criminal offence; by definition, he cannot possesses mens rea and so cannot be guilty of a crime.

My opinion is that Breivik shouldn't be eligible for legal insanity. He clearly had strong notions about right and wrong, and clearly understood that harming children was wrong.

I confess I am sort of hoping he doesn't survive long in jail.