The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[Viking]

But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

If the second psychatric assessment reaches the same conclusion as the first one, I don't really see that. And if it doesn't, then what.

[HoreTore]

If the second psychatric assessment reaches the same conclusion as the first one, I don't really see that. And if it doesn't, then what.

The prosecutor has opened up for asking for prison sentence regardless of what any report says. The defence is going to try its best to prove sanity. In other words, both defender and accuser wants prison sentence, and its far from given that an expert opinion will trump that.

For ABB to be found insane, the second report has to find him insane AND the court will have to go against both the defence and the prosecution. This means that the odds are he will be found sane and sent to prison, as the situation stands right now. Also, an insanity verdict will be appealed, but a prison sentence won't.

With a second report finding him insane, the odds will change of course. But even in that situation, I believe the odds are still slightly in favour of prison.

[Viking]

A image supposed to be from the 1800s shows a familiar face. (check the upload date: 3 October 2008).

The image was originally thought to show a Norwegian master thief (Ole Høiland), but back in 2010, this was found out not to be the case. An article using the image back in 2009 can be found here. Amusing.

The prosecutor has opened up for asking for prison sentence regardless of what any report says. The defence is going to try its best to prove sanity. In other words, both defender and accuser wants prison sentence, and its far from given that an expert opinion will trump that.

For ABB to be found insane, the second report has to find him insane AND the court will have to go against both the defence and the prosecution. This means that the odds are he will be found sane and sent to prison, as the situation stands right now. Also, an insanity verdict will be appealed, but a prison sentence won't.

With a second report finding him insane, the odds will change of course. But even in that situation, I believe the odds are still slightly in favour of prison.

I was given the impression that it is unusal for verdicts to go against the psychiatric assessment; or something like that.

[HoreTore]

It IS unusual for a court to go against an expert opinion(remember the debate on experts about a year ago), but it does happen from time to time, and this case in anything but usual.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time since Hamsun a defendant has gone against an expert stating insanity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A image supposed to be from the 1800s shows a familiar face. (check the upload date: 3 October 2008).

The image was originally thought to show a Norwegian master thief (Ole Høiland), but back in 2010, this was found out not to be the case. An article using the image back in 2009 can be found here. Amusing.

Wait... what was all that about?!

[Viking]

Wait... what was all that about?!

It is some (presumeably) random dude that looks a lot like Breivik, and the photo of him was incidentally earlier thought to be the photo of another high profile criminal Norwegian (who lived from 1797 to 1848). But it wasn't, the museum made a mistake when it got the photo in the early 1980s. No one knows who that random dude is, or why he was photographed.

It all should be clear as cucumber to you now.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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?

I'm curious why you think that's the goal of terrorism. You describe them as very rational.

Couldn't express what I was trying to say, so I went googling, check this out:

http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf

[Whacker]

I'm curious why you think that's the goal of terrorism. You describe them as very rational.

Couldn't express what I was trying to say, so I went googling, check this out:

http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf

Errr.. Help me out with this one. So if I'm reading this right, the paper is proposing that terrorists do what they do for the sake of... terrorism itself?

I'm having a bit of a hard time with this for a few reasons. First, I can't get a good idea of what they're defining as a "terrorist", but it seems to fit what I understand to be the generally accepted definition. They referenced the german marxist faction, the IRA, and a few middle eastern groups. Second, I can't help but think they're painting an overly broad picture of what terrorism's goals are. Some individuals and groups seem haphazard at best and not really unified under a cause, or really having clearly stated aims or goals. Other groups seem to be very cohesive, well run, and clearly stated aims and goals. I can't check his sources, and it'd take hours, but I'm curious what the actual sample base they use looked like for the data they drew their conclusions from. A half-dozen shoe bomber guys wouldn't really be a good working basis for something aiming to paint a broad picture, aye?

In short, I think the paper is maybe too broad, and each individual instance of a terrorist act, and the perpetrators should be evaluated individually and on a case by case basis. Thoughts?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Errr.. Help me out with this one. So if I'm reading this right, the paper is proposing that terrorists do what they do for the sake of... terrorism itself?

No...

He says the organizations appeal to the socially alienated, the lonely, the dislocated, the unemployed, and target them for recruitment (rather than people who have proven commitment to the political cause)...that in interviews with members of terrorist groups they say that they didn't join for political reasons but for social reasons (social connections to people who were already members), that many of them don't understand the claimed political purpose of the group...the groups are naturally extremely close knit and rewarding to people who have felt alienated...

It's like a smaller more intense version of the standard psychology of people who join a mass movement, according to him.

[Whacker]

No...

He says the organizations appeal to the socially alienated, the lonely, the dislocated, the unemployed, and target them for recruitment (rather than people who have proven commitment to the political cause)...that in interviews with members of terrorist groups they say that they didn't join for political reasons but for social reasons (social connections to people who were already members), that many of them don't understand the claimed political purpose of the group...the groups are naturally extremely close knit and rewarding to people who have felt alienated...

It's like a smaller more intense version of the standard psychology of people who join a mass movement, according to him.

OK, I read it a slightly different way, but I follow. Even if people don't join for political reasons at first, if they at some point subscribe in whole or majority to the group's ideaology, wouldn't that make the original reason for joining moot? Not saying that every member of a terrorist org is politically motivated, but it would seem to me that the majority of them would be. So that's what this paper is saying is not true then?

[HoreTore]

Saw an interesting interview with a woman yesterday, who in her early years first was a member of Blitz(anti-fascists), then the neo-nazi's.

Her reasoning for it was the thrill and the action(when with the nazis: looking down at other people made me feel good about myself), not the political views itself. I don't see that just applying to her, I think it applies to many militant/radical youths. But this is of course just an opinion, I have no real facts to back it up.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

OK, I read it a slightly different way, but I follow. Even if people don't join for political reasons at first, if they at some point subscribe in whole or majority to the group's ideaology, wouldn't that make the original reason for joining moot? Not saying that every member of a terrorist org is politically motivated, but it would seem to me that the majority of them would be. So that's what this paper is saying is not true then?

I would think they immediately claim to be in agreement with whatever the groups ideology is at the moment, even if they don't understand it. That doesn't mean they are ever motivated by it. I don't think politics is that strong a motivator, at best it is an excuse for the real motivation. Eric hoffer says a lot of good stuff about this. People get meaning in life, a powerful sense of purpose and worth, and strong social affirmation. Think they are going to care much about the specific policy points?

[Whacker]

I would think they immediately claim to be in agreement with whatever the groups ideology is at the moment, even if they don't understand it. That doesn't mean they are ever motivated by it. I don't think politics is that strong a motivator, at best it is an excuse for the real motivation. Eric hoffer says a lot of good stuff about this. People get meaning in life, a powerful sense of purpose and worth, and strong social affirmation. Think they are going to care much about the specific policy points?

It would seem to me yes, if one is actively joining an organization that exists outside the law and performs illegal (and most likely immoral) actions, then the primary driver would be an ideological one. Having a good understanding of the ideological intricacies would therefore be important.

Dunno, I'm limited by my perceptions and experiences, but that's what makes the most sense to me. I can see a desire to social ties and bonds being a strong component, but if one is going to join and participate in an organization where one's livelihood and even life may be forfeit, it would not be a big leap to assume that it would take some strong consideration and require some actual belief in the group's raison d'etre.

Edit - So if I had to sum it up, it strikes me as a bit odd the paper suggests that most terrorist groups act the way they do. To me, the ones that we read about most frequently seem to be well organized, cohesive, politically motivated, and most often the risk vs. benefit factor is considered to a certain degree. The IRA for example. Perhaps that is just a result of the media and government(s) portraying them as such. Others, like Mr. Shoebomber, seem to be the outlying fringes that are unorganized, irrational, and foolish.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Edit - So if I had to sum it up, it strikes me as a bit odd the paper suggests that most terrorist groups act the way they do. To me, the ones that we read about most frequently seem to be well organized, cohesive, politically motivated, and most often the risk vs. benefit factor is considered to a certain degree. The IRA for example. Perhaps that is just a result of the media and government(s) portraying them as such. Others, like Mr. Shoebomber, seem to be the outlying fringes that are unorganized, irrational, and foolish.

hmm well he does say

"In his study of the IRA, for example, Robert White found that nearly half of the terrorists he interviewed were unaware of the discrimination in northern ireland against catholics, despite the salience of this issue in IRA communiques"

Presumably there have to be at least a few people who come up with the ideological stuff though. But their motivations not be what we might think either.

[gaelic cowboy]

hmm well he does say

"In his study of the IRA, for example, Robert White found that nearly half of the terrorists he interviewed were unaware of the discrimination in northern ireland against catholics, despite the salience of this issue in IRA communiques"

Presumably there have to be at least a few people who come up with the ideological stuff though. But their motivations not be what we might think either.

Couldnt one say that about any organisation of pretty much any size we care to mention, did American troops in WW2 really join to rid the world of Nazis or was it a paying gig that promised adventure.

[rvg]

Couldnt one say that about any organisation of pretty much any size we care to mention, did American troops in WW2 really join to rid the world of Nazis or was it a paying gig that promised adventure.

We joined because Pearl Harbor got bombed to smithereens. That set us on warpath against Japan and her allies.

[gaelic cowboy]

We joined because Pearl Harbor got bombed to smithereens. That set us on warpath against Japan and her allies.

Everyone in America that joined up had the same motivation???

No the answer is the government entered the war and the population at large had there own reasons for signing on.

We should be careful to assign a motivation to any person who joins an army the reasons can be multiple even for the same person.

[rvg]

Everyone in America that joined up had the same motivation???

No the answer is the government entered the war and the population at large had there own reasons for signing on.

We should be careful to assign a motivation to any person who joins an army the reasons can be multiple even for the same person.

People enlisted because the country was at war. Even though at that time conscription was still in force the majority of people enlisted voluntarily. As for the reasoning of every single individual, I cannot say. Most people though do not go out risking their lives for "adventure". Some do, most don't.

[Fragony]

More concerned about his glorification among people that are an enrichment to culture and who are from a society that has shame, personally. The world will burn and it starts in France.

[Fragony]

France is always burning. They're like, what, on the 5th Republic now?

The situation in France is grim enough to make both the reasonable left and the populist right really uncomfortable. Got me thinking on how we really have to talk this over. The social situation of the poor that's ok to the blind-right and the cultural naivity of the blind-left We are all wrong.

[rvg]

The situation in France is grim enough to make both the reasonable left and the populist right really uncomfortable. Got me thinking on how we really have to talk this over. The social situation of the poor that's ok to the blind-right and the cultural naivity of the blind-left We are all wrong.

Looking at things now, France is lucky not to have kept Algeria.

[Hax]

More concerned about his glorification among people that are an enrichment to culture and who are from a society that has shame, personally. The world will burn and it starts in France.

You're talking about Mohammad Merah and not Breivik here, right?

It's also baffling to see that you're consistently pointing at Algerians, Moroccans and other people of Middle-Eastern or Arabic descent, when the first people Merah killed were in fact Algerian Frenchmen serving in the French army. It's not only biased, it's despicable and frankly disgusting. These people put their lives on the line in the service of their country and you regard them as potential traitors. You should be ashamed.

What you fail to see is that whenever a Muslim does something wrong, it doesn't have to be in the name of or inspired by Islam. Merah was a very troubled figure with a lot of psychological and psychatric problems. He and Breivik apparently have a lot in common.

As for Algeria, the departure of the pieds-noirs and the later departure of the Jews was one of the greatest blows to cultural diversity in Algeria. If Algeria would have stayed French, would we have had the same situation? Who the hell knows. It's a stupid question.

[rvg]

As for Algeria, the departure of the pieds-noirs and the later departure of the Jews was one of the greatest blows to cultural diversity in Algeria.

From what I understand they didn't have much of a choice.

[Hax]

It depends, are you talking about the pieds-noirs or the Jews?

[rvg]

It depends, are you talking about the pieds-noirs or the Jews?

Pieds

[Fragony]

'It's also baffling to see that you're consistently pointing at Algerians, Moroccans and other people of Middle-Eastern or Arabic descent, when the first people Merah killed were in fact Algerian Frenchmen serving in the French army. It's not only biased, it's despicable and frankly disgusting. These people put their lives on the line in the service of their country and you regard them as potential traitors. You should be ashamed.'

Why don't you think this over, how would a radical muslim see these soldiers. No need for boohooohoooisms

[Hax]

You're just like some of the Muslims I discuss religion with; they're always telling me to "think it over" and "do more research".

[Fragony]

You're just like some of the Muslims I discuss religion with; they're always telling me to "think it over" and "do more research".

And you are now just acting like the type of leftie I don't discuss anything with as it's as rewarding as pranking teh girlfriend, they just don't get it.

hellooooooo they are French soldiers, soldiers bad

[Hax]

Exactly. They are French.

[Fragony]

Exactly. They are French.

If that's an answer to something then what was the question?