The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[Viking]

Now, if I got this right, his trial will start in a few weeks: 16 April, so I intended to start a general thread that can be updated.

Some sides of the trial has made me think of things that I have not thought of before; such as the first topic I will bring up below. While I was not in Oslo when the bomb went off, I'll be here during the trial, so if anyone wants his autograph, then that...I keed, I keed. He should get a bullet, but he won't - another dilemma.

Most of the articles that are written on the topic for the time being, are in Norwegian; so you will just have to take my word for the translations.


First out is the draft of a law that can keep people locked up as long as long it is thought that they will be at immediate risk if released. Sounds kind of creepy (especially with the article title); no idea how other countries deal with such issues (and that would be interesting to hear).

New law shall keep Breivik locked up for the rest of his life

The government are hastily introducing a new law that can keep Anders Behring Breivik locked up for the rest of his life, for his own safety.

In a text which TV2 [Norwegian TV channel] has gained access to, it is suggested that a pasient can be kept locked up in a high-security instiution of treatment as long as the police is of the opinon that there is a danger that someone will attack him in an act of revenge for what he has done.

Part of the suggestion reads:

"In very special cases, a patient might have commited grave and highly provocative acts, such as massmurder."

It goes on to say that the condition for the transfer to and confinement of the patient in this special security unit shall be "based on that there is a particularly high risk for attacks against the patient himself"

Then something for the circus.

Breivik wants [Mullah] Krekar as witness

The defence lawyers of Breivik intend to use Islamists to convince the court that [Breivik] had reasons for believeng that Muslims want to take over Norway.

Mohyeldeen Mohammad, Mullah Krekar and Arfan Bhatti may have to witness in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.

- This is now cleared with Breivik, and it is certain that we request the presence of Krekar, Geir Lippestad, lawyer of Breivik, tells VG Nett [online version of newspaper]

...

Defence lawyer of Breivik, Vibeke Hein Bæra, tells NRK that the witnesses are selected to show that Breivik was not necessarily controlled by paranoid delusions when he planned and executed the acts of terror; and that there instead exist more people in Norway that share his view of Europe being at war.

- We want to highlight the reason for Breivik fighting his battle. He has expressed that he is fighting because he is concerned that Norway will be taken over by Muslims. For this, we want to have witnesses that can tell us something about why he got this fear.

Those names are essentially Islamists currently residing in Norway. Should any of them show up, they'd probably say "yes, we would like Norway to be a nation of Islam", and some more gibberish.

[HoreTore]

The three loonies are called in to make a case that Breivik is sane. They share the same world-view, and thus Breivik cannot be insane as they are sane, is the logic.

[rvg]

New law shall keep Breivik locked up for the rest of his life

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

[HoreTore]

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

This isn't the type of law you are judged by in a courtroom, this is a law concerning how medical staff should handle pasients.

[Conradus]

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

procedural laws apply on ongoing cases, isn't that standard with these things?

[Greyblades]

...Why would they need new legislation, isn't intentional mass murder enough to get him life without parole?

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, don't let yourselves be talked into a Patriot Act-lite. Nearly every crime results in aggrieved victims that could conceivably want revenge.

[lars573]

...Why would they need new legislation, isn't intentional mass murder enough to get him life without parole?

Which would mean he'd be released free and clear by 2030 (assuming his trial only takes a year). You see in Norway the maximum someone can be imprisoned for is 17 years. Not a second longer, no matter what crime you were convicted of.

[rory_20_uk]

Which would mean he'd be released free and clear by 2030 (assuming his trial only takes a year). You see in Norway the maximum someone can be imprisoned for is 17 years. Not a second longer, no matter what crime you were convicted of.

Try him concurrently?

[Fragony]

Life in prison actually means just that here gladly, you will never get out if you get that verdict

[The Stranger]

just do like the americans do and give him 900 years in prison and 15 life sentences.

[Viking]

Which would mean he'd be released free and clear by 2030 (assuming his trial only takes a year). You see in Norway the maximum someone can be imprisoned for is 17 years. Not a second longer, no matter what crime you were convicted of.

Actually, it is 21 years - and that is the punishment. You can be kept in prison for the rest of your life if you are deemed a danger to society (re-evaluated every 5 years).

Even worse.

*Don't get me wrong, this dude deserves to rot and/or hang, but just the fact that a peice of vague and creepy legislation that might violate all of your human rights came out of it means that he won, and Norway lost. Sorry dudes.

It depends on the politicians' intent. The title I translated was probably misleading. The idea is if they expect someone to be assassinated/attacked when his time as a patient is over (depending on what the upcoming new psychiatric assessment concludes, he is likely to be sentenced to forced treatment). One would think that, as a free citizen, one has a right to police protection. Otherwise, it becomes part of the punishment rather than protection (not that psychiatric treatment is supposed to be punishment in the first place).

A complaint has been filed to the civil ombudsman (from the part of the article that I did not translate).

[Fragony]

GC has a point and that is how some will see it, but imho it's unfair. It should be obvious to anyone that this guy should never walk the streets again just because an atrocity like this was never considered when they made the laws. Was it really just a crime really, or is he just evil.

[Fragony]

GC has a point and that is how some will see it, but imho it's unfair. It should be obvious to anyone that this guy should never walk the streets again just because an atrocity like this was never considered when they made the laws. Was it really just a crime really, or is he just evil.

[Viking]

That new law thing made it to the BBC now, and as far as I can see, they included some crucial details (bolded by me) that the article I linked to earlier somehow forgot to include (lulz). Excerpt:

Norway is rushing through laws to ensure that Anders Behring Breivik is kept in a new, top security hospital if a court finds him criminally insane.

The law would allow patients to be locked up for as long as police found they were "in danger of being attacked by someone seeking revenge".

Patients would not be kept in the unit for more than six months at a time.

After that period, medical staff would need approval to extend the stay, or transfer the patient to another unit.

This mental health bill has been in the making since 2010.

But last year's 22 July attacks accelerated the process and resulted in an urgent review of the health care system with respect to violent and dangerous patients.

The legislation is designed to accommodate the care of Breivik in the event a verdict finds him criminally insane.


Ila high security prison in Norway, where Breivik is being held
The bill says the law would apply in special circumstances whereby "a patient may have committed grave, atrocious and offensive acts, such as mass murder".

[...]

Opponents of the bill have expressed concerns that Norway risks ending up with draconian laws that could compromise the human rights of mental health patients and transfer too much power to police.

[Crazed Rabbit]

They caught some would be terrorist crossing into the USA from Canada with a bunch of bomb making materials.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison - a sentence that was overturned for being too lenient.

There's a lot wrong with the US legal system, but I think one shouldn't cap sentences at 21 years for all crimes.

They share the same world-view, and thus Breivik cannot be insane as they are sane, is the logic.

Would that help his case at all though?

CR

[Fragony]

What I don't understand is why it's treated as one crime, casualties in Oslo died because of an explosion, a bomb is one crime. But the rampage on that island are 76 crimes, for each victim he pulled the trigger after all. It would make more sense. I kinda share GC's concerns you can't just change the rules midgame. I fully understand it as this guy should never be released, but it's a slippery slope. These level-headed vikings have a way to good society to let it slip, they can trust eachother there but one ruling always opens up the possibilities. From what I read I agree with Breivik a lot, am I also insane or do we just disagree. Saying something on the internet can also be a crime, am I criminaly insane? I trust Norway's left with it but I certainly don't trust the Dutch left with such a tool, especially after the Wilders trial, they tried to cheat. It blew up in their face, but they tried.

[HopAlongBunny]

I just worry that they'll follow the trend of other countries that have been the victims of terrorism: over-reaction that harms the citizenry more than protects them, potentially to the point of undermining your democratic and citizen-driven society.

Which is essentially to hand the terrorists a victory; who's winning the war again?

[lars573]

They caught some would be terrorist crossing into the USA from Canada with a bunch of bomb making materials.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison - a sentence that was overturned for being too lenient.

There's a lot wrong with the US legal system, but I think one shouldn't cap sentences at 21 years for all crimes.



Would that help his case at all though?

CR

Compared to the rest of the western world the US penal codes are draconian and quite backward.

[Kralizec]

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

Exactly. If anything deserves life imprisonment (or the death penalty, if you're so inclined) it's what Breivik has done. But ex post criminal laws are out of the question.

I get the impression however, that we're talking about a similar system that the Dutch have (called TBS for short). In essence, it's a psychiatric lockup, passed out alongside a jail sentence and applied (usually) after the jail sentence has been served out. When in TBS, the person gets treatment and isn't released until the institution and the judge are satisfied that the convict is unlikely to commit another (violent) crime. Which could be indefinitely.

However, even if it's not supposed to be a punitive measure on paper, it's widely regarded as de facto imprisonment that is potentially lifelong. I think retroactive application would be wrong in this case, also.

Compared to the rest of the western world the US penal codes are draconian and quite backward.

Meh. I quite agree with CR's statement. In fact, the Dutch legal system is one of the relatively few in western Europe where a life sentence actually is a life sentence. To top it, unlike most other systems, there's no way to get out earlier except by being pardoned or whatever.

[lars573]

And in Canada a life sentence means your under state supervision (of some form) for the rest of your life. But the actual incarceration is 20 to 25 years.

[Fragony]

Aye, it's rarely given but the worst of the worst get the worst of the worst. TBS is a chance you might one day wil be released, a life sentence is byebye. I believe we are the only European country doing this in fact

@Kraz

[Dîn-Heru]

What I don't understand is why it's treated as one crime, casualties in Oslo died because of an explosion, a bomb is one crime. But the rampage on that island are 76 crimes, for each victim he pulled the trigger after all. It would make more sense.

I assume (without being a lawyer) that §62 in the penal code is in effect. Basically if someone commits several crimes that each on their own is a criminal offence you get one sentene for all the crimes, but it has to be higher than the minimum punishment would be if the person had done only one of the crimes. Not sure how this is applied when the crimes all qualify for 21 years imprisonment, but I assume you can't go higher than the maximum... So yeah, assuming my interpetation of the law is correct the police treat it as one crime, because that is how it will be judged. (Like I said I am not a lawyer so I don't know the reasoning behind the paragraph)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assume (without being a lawyer) that §62 in the penal code is in effect. Basically if someone commits several crimes that each on their own is a criminal offence you get one sentene for all the crimes, but it has to be higher than the minimum punishment would be if the person had done only one of the crimes. Not sure how this is applied when the crimes all qualify for 21 years imprisonment, but I assume you can't go higher than the maximum... So yeah, assuming my interpetation of the law is correct the police treat it as one crime, because that is how it will be judged. (Like I said I am not a lawyer so I don't know the reasoning behind the paragraph)

That's silly Francophone way of doing things. Much better for him to be charged seperately for all crimes, he would then be guilty of at least two seperate offences, possibly three if his manifesto were considered to breach some hate law. Then he could be given 42 years.

[HoreTore]

They're treated as different crimes when it comes to compensqting the victims though.

As for the mental health bill, the BBC also got it wrong; our mental health bill started a many, many yeara ago, and it will probably never be finished. The debate on when and how to use force won't be ended in the foreseeable future. It's amended every single year. One year, those who want more force in mental hospitals ain the upper hand. The next year their opponents get the upper hand, and so it drags on forever and ever.

ABB is looking at many years in prison(seems most likely right now) or an institution. When the day comes that the mental bill matters to him, the odds that the rules are the same are astronomically small.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Absolutely. Terrorism's goal is, obviously, to create terror. If you're so terrified you that you want to hand over your previously inviolable rights then certainly they win. After all, they don't generally care about their lives--they're out to create havoc and screw things up for idealogical reasons. The only victory a terrorist can have is a political one, why hand it to them?

Because people value their lives above most everything else. Politicians have "to do something". The incentives all line up. Maybe terrorism is the fundamental weakness to a liberal democracy. Our Charizard is trying to battle against Squirtle but this time Gary is much more determined than Ash.

[Fragony]

They're treated as different crimes when it comes to compensqting the victims though.

As for the mental health bill, the BBC also got it wrong; our mental health bill started a many, many yeara ago, and it will probably never be finished. The debate on when and how to use force won't be ended in the foreseeable future. It's amended every single year. One year, those who want more force in mental hospitals ain the upper hand. The next year their opponents get the upper hand, and so it drags on forever and ever.

ABB is looking at many years in prison(seems most likely right now) or an institution. When the day comes that the mental bill matters to him, the odds that the rules are the same are astronomically small.

Problem is that he isn't insane, what he did makes perfect sense it's an act of war, he whiped out the next generation of the enemy. It may be twisted but it's not insane. Should have killed him on the spot, now you will have to play by your own rules

[HoreTore]

Problem is that he isn't insane, what he did makes perfect sense it's an act of war, he whiped out the next generation of the enemy. It may be twisted but it's not insane. Should have killed him on the spot, now you will have to play by your own rules

I prefer psychiatrists to make that decision. But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

[HoreTore]

Perhaps, perhaps. The only appropriate way to deal with terrorrism is high-mindedness and objectivity. Turning the other cheek, even. Any other response will make things worse as we've seen. Perhaps it is the fundamental weakness to a liberal democracy indeed.

Well said.

While I certainly don't approve of the reference to mass murder in the mental heath bill text, I don't consider themental health law as enough of a problem to riot just yet. Unlike real laws, the mental health law is mostly based on the doctors judgement, it just provides some absolute limits to what can be done(like: after x years, y must be done). I'll be grabbing my pitchfork if they start redoingthe penal code, however.

A Lex Behring Breivik, a term coined by a Dagbladet chronicle yesterday, is NOT something I would approve of.

[The Stranger]

I prefer psychiatrists to make that decision. But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

why... sif they know more about it.