If that is so why bother with sane/ insane in the first place. It's pretty clear that this man should never be released. I get this icky feeling over this if you already have the means to lock him up for good. You just might kill freedom of thought if you do it like this
Finding him sane is a much more certain way to lock him up for good.
Since the viking age(earliest reference I know is Snorre), however, Norwegian law has had the principle that if you wre not aware of your actions, you cannot be sentenced(held accountable) for them. Thus, it was necessary to figure out if he could be sentenced at all, hence the psych report.
If he is found insane though, it's worth noting that he will NOT be sentenced because of his actions AT ALL. He will then be sentenced to psychiatric care because of his illness, not his action.
Blame the softhearted vikings, I guess....
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
I really admiree the dignity of soft-headed vikings in dealing with this. But I also always consider what something could means to me, and having somewhat of an inpopular opinion about leftist self-percieved truths doesn't exactly sound like a worthwhile proposition for now to me to adhere to ight now.
What I call leftism is the stubborn habit to not recognise reality because reality doesn't always play nice, and that reality won't always comfirm that the world works that way. Leftism is a play in which we all have to act to please the director, a director who lives in a 100% white neighbourhood and puts his kids on a 100% white school
So Odin is the director?
=][=
It is not left or right thinking. It is not just found in humanitarian circles. Not guilty because of insanity or extra mercy because of inability to understand ones actions is found throughout societies.
The basis of adult vs child sentencing is based on that premise that children are not fully responsible for their actions.
End of the day a merciless justice system that skips due process is a far more terrifying thing than a terrorist.
The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
I don't know how the issue is dealt with in Roman Law, you would need to ask a Frenchman.
In any case, Breivik clearly has a Guilty Mind, so I think the question is moot - the man is clearly sane and rational, declaring him otherwise actually sets a disturbing precedent about who is and is not sane.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
It is the same thing. It's called "Dolo" in Portuguese, "Dolus" in Latin. It can be translated to intention. In a simplified manner, if the criminal had Dolus in his action, then he is guilty. Whereas if it was a negligent crime, then there is no Dolus.
BLARGH!
Bookmarks