Norway mass murder suspect insane, police say

[Eugene]

Source: CNN

Norway mass murder suspect insane, police say

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
November 29, 2011 -- Updated 1231 GMT (2031 HKT)

(CNN) -- Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of killing 77 people in a bomb and gun rampage in Norway in July, is insane, police said Tuesday.

He was psychotic at the time of the attacks and during 13 interviews experts conducted with him, they said.

-snip-

He will still be tried to determine whether he committed the murders, police said.

But under Norwegian law, he cannot be sentenced to prison or preventive detention but can be confined to a mental hospital for the rest of his life, police said.

-snip-


Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/29/world/europe/norway-terror-suspect/index.html

[Quantess]

1. That seems accurate. He seems insane to me.

I doubt his life in the mental hospital will be any cushier than it would have been at a Norwegian prison. Norwegian prisons are reputed to be the cushiest in the world.

[Yo_Mama]

10. If he's insane he would be a danger to others in prison,

so should be in a psychiatric treatment facility.

We can hardly claim that he has no capacity for violence.

[Diclotican]

11. Quantess

Quantess

At least, we don't put insane people into a long prison time, and then execute them in th name of following the law, over here in Europe...

And when it came to the prison system, It all depend of where you are put. The older prisons is not exactly Holiday in, even tho they have tried to make them better the last couple of decades.. But you can just do so much with old prisons... The new ones (the few who are been build) are rather good in comfort. Even tho they ARE prisons.

And, the whole point in Norway, is to rehabilitate prisoners, not to put them behind bars for many years and make them worse than when they came in.. The whole consept, is to try to rehabilitate, and even give them some tools to do it better after the time in prison - as education, or an trade..

Diclotican

[Quantess]

12. Thanks for explaining.

I wasn't making any value judgements about it either way. A swede remarked that at norwegian prisons "man får kaffe och kakor i sängen på morgonen".

Have you ever seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"? He thought he'd be getting the easy way out by pretending to be insane and thereby avoiding prison, but he was so wrong.

[Diclotican]

18. Quantess

Quantess

Well I guess he kind of "overstate" it when he told you, that you will be given coffe and cookies at the bed at the morning;).. It is not exactly that way. But that you more than properly have it better in a Norwegian prison system, than say in a US system thats so is pretty clear... If I was to be put into a prison system at all for a longer time, I would far better be in the Norwegian system, than in the US form of correctional system... You might put people into the system, but they got worse when they came out than when they get in. And it is also possible that they came out with mental illness because in US they have the ugly habit on putting you in a solitary cell for a long time. That form of prison time was out the window many years ago in most of Europe - even here in Norway.

But then again, I doubt Breivik would be send out in the general population anyway, if he was found fit to stand trial, as he would have been teared apart from the others.. He was, and are not exactly popular in the prison population at a whole...

Diclotican

[Quantess]

23. No, I know he was exaggerating just to be funny.

That would be my dad.

I don't even want to get started on the US prison industry, it's so messed up.
I do appreciate the attempts to rehabilitate prisoners, because after all, that should be the goal whenever possible. But as to whether Anders Breivik can be rehabilitated and sent back into society someday... nobody should dare to find out.

[Diclotican]

35. Quantess

Quantess

Yeah, it is typical "swedish-Norwegian" infighting, goes a long way back to when Norway and Sweden really had the "big brother - little brother" concept of friendship.. Over the last couple of decades it have been more of a level playing field as Norway have been richer - or sweden been more poor:P

The goal of most prison system is to try to rehabilitate the prisoners, but some - as Breivik is maybe to sick, or insane to be rehabilitated into the society. Then we need places, where they can be kept for their own sake, and for the rest of the community's case I guess.. And I think that the place where he might end up in, at Dikemark, avd 8 is a place where they can care for him - and protect him against himself, and others also.. For the moment, they house 18 of the absolutely worst of the worst criminal insane in Norway, and they are kept really tight for the most part!

Diclotican

[amandabeech]

51. There are many, many bad prisons here in the U.S.,

but some are worse than others. You'll notice that some of the worst stories either come out of the southern states or from states with severe overcrowding, like California.

Many prisons also get sued on the basis of our Constitutional Bill of Rights guarantee that a prisoner not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Many states have had to upgrade their systems as a result of a court order under our this provision. I myself did a one year internship with a United States judge in Texas who had ordered major changes in the Texas prison system. Texas did not want to comply, but the judge kept after them. For awhile at least, the situation in the prisons was better. The judge's name was Williams Wayne Justice. He's no longer with us, but his surname surely described his character.

I've also done some work with patients in a large mental hospital. Many times police who pick up offenders who seem to have psychological problems offer the accused the chance to go the mental health route instead of the penal system route. The problem with that is that both the penal and mental health systems have difficulty coping with insane or unstable prisoners. It is a very difficult problem. Some of those, after a hearing that determines that they are mentally ill and violent, end up in high security facilities that are designed for just such prisoners. Usually those facilities are located near a mental hospital.

Breivik probably would receive appropriate treatment in Minnesota than Alabama, for example. Please don't judge us all by conditions in the worst systems.

[Diclotican]

53. amandabeech

amandabeech

Yes, I know about, some of the prison system, who are rather on the bad side of the whole affair I would say. Overcrowding gang fighting, crime behind bars... In many of the prisons, the guards, guard the doors, but inside of the prisons, the gangs own the place. And will use anything necessary tools to maintain that power.. And the gangs are not even shy on attaching prison guards, to make their statement.... So yes I know little about it, event tho I doubt that I'm any expert on the US prison system - as I'm not expert on the Norwegian prison system. Who might from the outside looks little weird for most people, as most of them do have some freedoms, like looking at a TV, a computer, internet connection (supervised) and other rights, that are not the norm outside of Norway.. Many foreigner who end up in prison in Norway, is quite happy about the whole case, because they often got better treatment in a cell in Norway, than home...

I know that some prisons are sued, on the basis of Bill of rights, guarantees that a prisoner shall not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Something that have been told is the basic of US justis system for as long as The Bill of Rights, have been on the books over there in the US. (And by the way, is laws that just slowly got into the books in Europe) And as you point out, some states have indeed comply on it, and have made changes to the system, to make it more like it should, at the basis of the US Bill of Rights.

It must be interesting to work with an United States Judge even if you doesn't get to work with some really interesting, and I believe your work with the judge was great as it might give many the tools to get a better life, even if they have to be in prison for a long time.. I'm sad that Texas doesn't wanted to comply on it, but that is maybe typical Texas thing?. (I'm not sure, but to me it looks like many Texans is rather stubborn) It is sad that this type of persons, and judge are not here anymore, as they might do better job, than many others.. And he might also follow up on his surname who as you point out, was Justice. I will try to look up on the name when I have time for it. He sounds like a man worth reading about.

I think also, that in many cases, that mental sick persons should be helped mentally, by hospital, or another type of medical help, rather than just be locked up in a prison cell.. Medical helps is paramount if you want a sick man/woman to get well, understood what he/she did, and then not doing it again. In most cases, the need for medical help have been there for years at hand, and they have never getting the treatment and help they was in need of getting.. When they was going all over the top, they did a crime, hurt someone, maybe even killed a person, and then put into a cell.. Then it is better to medicate them, and not at least, help them to get better.. But many are never picked up by the public health services, and they end up doing anything, or everything wrong.. Snad sick persons can do really weird things.. Specially when they are sick mentally... And as you point out, it is not easy to cope with insane, or unstable prisoners, it is maybe the most difficult work to have, to help prisoners, who are so sick, mentally or other vice, that you can't get near them, without personal danger.. Even in peacefully Norway, prison guards, can experience attack from sick prisoners in prison.. And some even have to go away from the job, because of the danger they got into.. Some are to afraid to go back, and need a break from it all in the end

I hope, for both himself, and for the rest of Norway, Breivik would be given the treatment he need. What he did, is without precedence in Norway, I doubt our legal system is at all made for the possibility that one man, could blow up the government offices, and kill more than 80 civilians, at a whole and attack a youth camp too.. The whole thing is just horrible and it will be a shock, that will not subside for a long time.. Maybe after he got his sentence, who I believe would be a long time in the custody of a mental institution maybe for the rest of his life, depend of he can ever get better I guess, it will be more easy to let the wounds grow, and let time goes by... Some says even that Breivik would be given freedom (if he was well enough) in a decade or two, something I really do not hope, as the crime he did, was to horrible to be forgiven.. He need help, and if he ever was made "well" again, at least he should face a trial, to make it possible to give him "some" punishment for his actions... But then again, double jeopardy is still in effect, here in Norway to. You can not be jugded to prison for the same crime - if not new evidences came to light.. And I doubt somehow, that this case can bee looked on, at a new angle, even after 20 year..

But, as it was proven, mr Breivik was not happy, when he was told, that he was insane, and possible is not eligible to be put into a prison cell.. In fact, he was rather insulted by the whole idea.. He have some grandiose ideas about himself, and his role as the "defender and protector" of Norway.. Who had to do this, to protect us against our enemies...

Clearly a madman..

Diclotican

[duhneece]

27. Solitary confinement is torture

No civilized nation commits torture. Pelican Prison has been on hunger strikes, off & on, protesting this form of torture, along with 5 core demands to be treated humanely.

[duhneece]

26. Restorative justice vs punative justice

Puritans vs Quakers...I want the US to move toward Restorative Justice & away from punative justice.

[alp227]

36. Also, Norway doesn't have life imprisonment in prisons

so mental hospitals seem to be the only such indefinite detention available in that country. I wouldn't want Breivik to inhabit in civilized society ever again.

[Gman]

2. Does a anyone ever become psychoticly deranged and kill people in the name of liberal ideology?

That says a lot about conservatism.

[HereSince1628]

3. I think that the 'anarchist' assassins of the late 19th century

were seen that way.

[Gman]

4. Wouldn't it be hard to say they were psychotic?

They waged a war with intent and a purpose. This guy in Norway apparently was obsessed and just lost it. He was a lone wolf as were others like the guy that shot Giffords. I can't think of an instance of someone doing the same as a liberal.

I dunno... there's likely evidence for both sides.

[HereSince1628]

5. IIRC they were pitched to the public by the media as being insane n/t

[Taverner]

7. Although, many of them were framed. See: Sacco and Venzetti

[Yo_Mama]

8. yes, but it's not really liberal or conservative ideology as a sane person would see it

A schizophrenic's brain has a lot of trouble holding and processing information, so they don't connect up ideas the way any normal person would. It seems like some of them seize upon some ideas with emotive power and use that power to support a more internally connected picture of the world, often with tragic results.

The Unabomber is one example of a schizophrenic who held what would usually be considered more "liberal" views, but in his case weren't.

Because they process ideas and concepts in a way that's quite different than a normal person would, these ideas frequently connect up in what seem amazingly random ways to a normal person. The external world and other people are very confusing when they are in psychotic episodes, and they often withdraw in terror, and become tremendously defensive.

It's possible, for example, for a schizophrenic to read an article postulating that vaccinations can have adverse effects (true for a small number of cases without a question), and then jump from that to the deep conviction that a doctor or nurse who tries to give him a shot is trying to kill him - even if he has been taken to the hospital for treatment of an infection and the shot is antibiotic.

Loughner's ideas, for example, were a mix of what would commonly be considered "left" and "right" - but none of those ideas really fit into the same integrated context that the vast mass of normal people carry in their cognition.

The diagnosis for this man will have to be confirmed, but it's probably correct.

[BadtotheboneBob]

15. The SLA comes to mind...

Crazy is as crazy does...

[Quantess]

17. Charles Manson was kind of liberal, but mostly just psychotic.

[Starry Messenger]

46. Liberal? In what way?

He has a swastika carved into his forehead and wanted to start a race war. Timothy Leary had to serve time in the cell next to Manson and Manson scared the crap out of him. He's bugfuck and fascist.

[slackmaster]

29. I don't recognize any ideology that embraces genocide as a form of conservatism

It's pretty radical, actually.

[lbrtbell]

6. As long as he's put away, I'm all for it

Whatever it takes to keep him off the streets.

[Diclotican]

9. Eugene

Eugene

I'm not sure what to say, other than this is probably for the best, that he was found not fit to stand trial.. If he had ben fit to stand trial...

But again, even tho he under Norwegian law can not be put in a prison, he can be put in a mental hospital for the rest of his life, even tho the case is to be reopen every 3 year, and he is to be known to be fit to stand trial, he will be turned over to the cort system for sentencing anyhow...

But, it is maybe for the best, that he was judged to be ill, so he can not be judged to a prison sentence, but put away, in theory for the rest of his natural life

Diclotican

[AtheistCrusader]

13. We can see who you are and who you are responding to

without all that name stuff you are doing.

[Diclotican]

16. AtheistCrusader

AtheistCrusader

I just think it is polite to use the name Im talking to... But I guess some things is different in the US...

Diclotican

[AtheistCrusader]

19. DU is visited by people from all over the world.

I have never seen anyone do that, except you. Granted, I may be in a minority that finds it annoying.

[Lars77]

20. I´ve seen Americans do it before :)

[Diclotican]

33. AtheistCrusader

AtheistCrusader

By all means, if you think it is to annoying, please put me on ignore or something like that... I would not be in your "comfort zone" if I don't need to.

Diclotican

[Tansy_Gold]

37. We each have our own style

:toast: to yours, diclotican!

[EFerrari]

30. It's always nice to see your posts, Diclotican.

[Diclotican]

31. EFerrari

EFerrari

Thanks;).

Diclotican

[Nihil]

45. Different posters have different quirks

I used to find Diclotican's style irritating but I found that I liked
the content of his posts so learned to ignore "all that name stuff"
rather than miss out on the posts. The same applies to the Magistrate's
somewhat pretentious posting manner - irritating initially but worth
persevering for the content. There are others, some of which are worth it,
others aren't.

:shrug:

[iandhr]

14. no ****

[ooglymoogly]

21. The wrongness of this is that a mental hospital is not secure enough

for a mass murderer, insane or not.

More have escaped from mental hospitals than can be counted or for that matter have been caught.

If he escapes and repeats his crime, perhaps on a much larger scale, viciously killing hundreds of men women and children...again.

Of fairness...what then?

Norway would turn so hard right your head would spin.

It is moments like these in history, overt acts of mercy in the face of a heinous act, the rabid right slobber over...what brought Hitler to power...what brought us the patriot act and the loss of our constitution and so on and so on.

If this guy is insane half the GOP and all the religious right is insane.

For pugs it is the direct path to power and fascism.

Norway is risking far more than public outrage, they are risking fairness itself.

But then, the fascists in Norway already know this and its power for exploitation.

[Diclotican]

28. ooglymoogly

ooglymoogly

Well, it depend of which hospital he will be serving his time in. And I doubt that he will be in a facility, where you can get easily out.. The most known mental hospital where they have a few of the worst in the Oslo area, are Dikemark, who have a long tradition in keeping the mad from the rest. And the department he would be kept in, is really secure, no one have yet to be able to run from the facility.. It was one, a decade ago who tried to leave, and he was apprehended after 15-20 min.. By more police than we might have seen in one ara before 22 of July last year.. A person like Breivik would be hold in a tight spot all the time, and never be allowed alone - even for a short while.. They have good experience with this type of persons at this Department (avdeling 8 på Dikemark Psychiatric sykehus) and the area where the insane can get out, is absolutely "airtight", and they are kept under surveillance all the time...

We don't have the same political GOP style of parties in Norway, even our conservatives is rather middle of the road compared to the extreme right in the US. And the extreme right, is so marginalized by the rest, that I doubt they will ever rise their head for as long as we live - we would hope. I really doubt that we will ever have the same style of extreme right-wing - or left wing parties who speak to the masses in Norway. In the political senses Norway is still a pretty solid "social-democratic" community, with an attitude for socialism.. Even before world war two, and the occupation of Norway in 1940 by german forces, never managed to get the masses interesting on fiddling with the extreme right..

And I doubt, that we will have some of the same laws that your patriot act in Norway anytime soon. If we have to have this type of laws we have them already and it goes all the way to the start of the cold war, and even they have been amended as time goes by. In the mid 1990s, when it was discovered that the Secret Police had been spying on the left wing of the political spectrum in Norway since the end world war one, it more or less ended with the capitation of most of Politiets Overvåkningstjeneste, and it was reorganized to accept the new reality of the post cold war reality... And most of the "good old" habits ended after been scrutinized to death (we have a habit on doing that in Norway) And Politiets Overvåkningstjeneste even changed name to PST Politiets Sikkerhetstjeneste. And are just an Shadow of their former glory..

But, you never know, that is true.. But for the most part, the extreme right is castrated to a point that just a marginal minority will ever vote for them.. And our conservatives, is rather middle of the road.. Even FRP our progress party, who by most standards is rather far right are for the most part rather to the left, compared to many of its "sister parties" in Europe and in the rest of the world. And I doubt,that Norway will get a Hitler in the foreseeable future either.

Diclotican

[happyslug]

43. Have you even been to a Mental Hospital? They are some of the more secure places I have even visite.

When I had to visit a client in State Prison, it had less controls on entrances and exits then when I had to visit another client at the local neuro-psychiatric ward. It was easy to get into the Ward, but impossible to get out. The prison was hard to get in (you had to go through security and all that search to make sure no contraband is going into the Prison), in the ward, push open the door and walked in.

On the other hand, getting out of the prison was a snap, checked out and left, no search. To exit the Ward I had to not only check out BUT wait for them to electronically unlock the door.

There were no bars on either place, thick glass does a much better job of keeping people in. Furthermore, if you ever left the NP ward, you still had to make it out of the Hospital, which was down another seven floors. The prison, once you were out, you were out.

Sorry, most mental hospitals have BETTER security then most prisons, you do not see it for the Mental Hospitals want to look like a Hospital not a prison, but they have top notch security.

On the other hand Prisons LOOK like they have Security, even when they do not. Image is important to both Hospitals and Prisons and what most people see is the image not the reality of the underlying security.

One last comment, most people in Mental Hospitals do not have the mental ability (do to their mental health problem) to escape, you have to understand how security works to work around it and most people in Mental Hospitals do NOT have that capacity. If they do that is a sign they are SANE and thus subject to trial (If no trial has occurred) OR subject to placement is a more secure hospital (Which exists but no one reports about them for they are hell holes for people with the least controlled mental health problems end up in such places, they are so bad people in other mental hospitals behave themselves let they be sent to those super secure mental hospitals),

[ooglymoogly]

50. And yet...people do escape, a few never caught.

Some have been, after time, deemed "sane" and released.

These things have happened.

You are right though, I do not know, to what extent mental institutions have been so fortified, even to 99 and 99/100% escape proof....still...this man slaughtered 70 and some men women and children.

1/1000th of a percent, in such a deadly situation, IMO, is a risk not worth taking.

Think for instance of percentages and the Fukushima nuclear power plant that was indestructible.

Odds are very different when the result of even the most remote, can be deadly.

Some countries now realize, correctly, that the odds, no matter how remote and though every precaution is taken, in the case of nuclear, are just not worth the taking.

It is not enough that, after a disaster, fully preventable by not taking the risk...to say...every precaution was taken.

[wordpix]

54. well, guess what we do with insane people who do crimes here in the US?

We put them in with the sane prisoners. According to a friend who works at a prison, having insane people in with regular, run-of-the-mill criminals is a huge problem. I can only imagine what it's like trying to manage this population.

[Lars77]

22. He has been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizofrenia

His family has a history of mental illness, unable to feel any empathy for anyone, and from 2006 onwards he became more and more paranoid and stopped functioning properly, which is probably why he moved in with his mother. In addition to the people whose lives he threatened, he is also suicidal and would probably try to take his own life at some point.

More concretely, he believes that he is the savior of the Norwegian people and that it is up to him to decide who gets to live or die, he thinks he will be a future regent of the country, and that his organization will rule Europe in the future. He also wants to breed people in reservations.


It´s not a surprise that the guy is insane, and he will be locked up for a long, long time.

[stillwaiting]

24. Fundamentalist RW thinking surely must be insane.

Some type of psychosis seems involved to be sure.

Ultra-tribal thinking hell bent on mistakenly seeing the "other" as a threat to their existence and therefore in need of expulsion, eradication, or punishment.

When I have allowed myself to slip into their worldview in an attempt to empathize I become horrified at the insanity of it all.

[EFerrari]

32. You're describing severe paranoia. nt

[jobendorfer]

25. not to muddy the waters any more, but ...

There's a risk in this discussion that we might conflate 3 different interpretations of insanity:

There's the legal definition of insanity, here in the U.S.
There's a legal definition of insanity operative in Norway ( and I'm too ignorant to know what that is, but it's probably different than ours. )
Then there are a set of psychiatric disorders, defined in the DSM-IV.

There is overlap between these definitions, but they are NOT the same, and it's easy to lose context.

Legally, in the U.S. the question boils down to, "Did this person understand the implications or consequences of their act?"
One test of this is, "Would this person have done the same thing in the presence of a police officer?"
If yes, the person is usually judged to be insane.
If no, the person is regarded as sane, in the sense that they were sufficiently in tune with reality and aware enough to defer the act until the policeman was gone
and evade the consequence of arrest.

OTOH, the DSM-IV defines psychotic disorders in terms of a set of observable symptoms and behaviors, which include
things like delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, grossly disorganized behavior, that sum to severely
diminish a person's capacity to function as a parent, in employment, or at school.


Which is how you can have a team of psychiatrists or psychologists diagnosing someone as psychotic,
yet the (US) legal system saying, "He or she is fit to stand trial."

It also explains why it is that in my home state of Oregon, the largest inpatient psychiatric facility is the Multnomah County Jail.
(Since this is DU, I should probably add: I think this is a terrible thing.)

In all of this it should be stressed that schizophrenia is a condition that devastates the lives of those who suffer from it.
The overwhelming majority of schizophrenics are far more likely to end up homeless and/or victimized, rather than to act as victimizers.
Breivik is a very rare exception.

John

[EFerrari]

34. The largest provider of mental health services in the country

is Los Angeles County Jail and it is shameful, isn't it.

[slackmaster]

38. Actually, the largest provider of mental health services in the country is Medicaid

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/4DIS_PAYER2003.shtml

[Eugene]

39. BBC: Norwegian disbelief at Breivik 'insanity'

Source: BBC

29 November 2011 Last updated at 22:26 GMT

Norwegian disbelief at Breivik 'insanity'

By Liss Goril Anda
Norwegian journalist

The Norwegian public, politicians and experts alike are expressing surprise at the verdict of the forensic psychiatrists assessing Anders Behring Breivik.

Many psychiatrists were quoted by the news media ahead of Tuesday's announcement as saying that he was likely to be deemed sane.

Breivik himself has said he found the verdict insulting and that although he had feared it, he had not expected this outcome.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15954370

[limpyhobbler]

41. It is surprising.

He didn't seem any more insane than your typical political terrorist, like Tim McVey or the 9/11 Hijackers. They all had political or religious beliefs we might find "crazy", but that doesn't make them insane, does it?. On the other hand the psychiatrists do know how to diagnose it, but for some reason I'm not buying it.

[happyslug]

44. Norway is a "Civil Law" system of justice

The US and Britian follow British Common Law system of Justice. The prosecution and the Defense argue the issue in front of a neutral Judge. Then the Jury decides the facts and the Judge decides the law based on those facts found by the Jury (If no jury, the facts are found by the Judge). Given the prosecution is just one side in a two way fight, the burden on proof is on the prosecution, thus the old line in the Common Law "You are innocent til proven guilty".

European Civil Law (derived from Roman Civil Law of the Roman Empire) system is different. The prosecutor is NOT one side in a two sided argument but the person who first MUST decide if someone is guilty AND based that decision on the evidence gathered. Such evidence is gathered together in what is called "Dossier" (I believe this is the French name for this package of papers, for this is a broad statement as to the Civil Law System NOT the exact legal system used in Norway). Then the prosecutor takes that dossier and present it and his case to a Judge. The Defendant can then challenge that determination of the Prosecutor in front of the Judge. Thus the old saying that under the Civil Law System "You are guilty till you prove yourself innocent".

Notice both systems require a trial but the Civil Law requires that the Prosecutor FIRST make sure it not only has enough evidence to convict someone, but has weighed ALL of the Evidence in the case, including evidence that shows the defendant to be innocent. Once the prosecution has done that, then and only then can a Trial be held (i.e. you are innocent till the prosecutor says there is enough evidence to say you are guilty).

Now, from a practical point of view both ways of doing justice have their good and bad points. One observation of the Civil Law System is that if you are innocent of the crime it is HARDER to be charged with a crime. On the other hand in the Common Law System, it is easier to be charged, it is up to a Judge and Jury to rule you are innocent or not.

I bring this up for what appears to be happening is that the Civil Law rules are coming into play in this case. The police and the prosecution have gathered the evidence and now have to make a decision if the shooter is "guilty" of any crime. One aspect is did the Shooter have the mental capacity to know what he was doing was wrong? If after review of the evidence, it is clear that the shooter did NOT have the mental capacity, the police and prosecutor must rule him insane. They then must take that to court where the Defendant can challenge it.

In the Common Law System the police and prosecutor do NOT have to decide if the evidence shows someone is insane or not, but only have to decide if there is enough evidence to show that he was NOT insane. Notice no decision as to actually insanity has be be made, just that evidence exists to show he was not.

In most cases, the differences between the two system rarely come up. The main reason is that the Modern Civil Law System really came into use in pre-revolutionary France, which had what we would call police and prosecutors.

Under the Common Law, Police and Prosecutors did NOT exist till the mid 1800s. Even after the adoption of Police and Prosecutors, the older system remained, i.e. if someone did a crime against you, you had to arrest the defendant and bring the case yourself (or hire a private attorney to do so). Aspect of this right to bring private criminal complaints survive till this day, through the right to do so for serious crimes have slowly been abolished over the last 100 years or so (Felonies and Misdemeanors are generally reserved to the local prosecutors NOT the Victim or the Victim's family).

Thus the Common Law tradition reflected the fact that more often then not the only neural person in the case was the Judge, who retained the right to make the final decision on the law. In the Civil Law, you had professionals bringing the criminal charges against people, these professionals were neutral (in most cases) in making a decision, but it was a decision NOT reviewed by the Defendant. Once the prosecutor made his decision that someone had done a crime, he took it to a judge who then reviewed the case subject to input from the Defendant AND any lawyer the Defendant would hire to defend him.

Now, with every Common Law Jurisdiction having Police and Prosecutors just like Civil Law Jurisdictions, the difference in treatment of a case is NOT a wide as I made it above. Today there is a tendency for Common Law Prosecutors to do what Civil Law Prosecutors do, weigh the evidence and determine if a crime was done by the Defendant (again do to the fact such prosecutors, even under the Common Law, are neural as the the parties, which was generally NOT the case before Prosecutors were retrofitted onto the common law).

Thus it is rare today in most cases to see a difference in the two system, given the most of the difference between the two systems was based on the lack of neutral professional prosecutors under the Common Law prior to about 1830 while the Civil Law always had such neutral professional prosecutors. On the other hand the traditions of the Common Law did NOT include that such neutral professional prosecutors make any judicial decision as to a case before taking the case to court. The Dossier was what everyone in the Court relied on at trail, but today in the US the Prosecution must turn over ALL evidence to the Defense, including evidence showing the Defendant is innocent (i.e. much like a Dossier).

Just some background on the two system and why it appears Norway is doing what it is doing. The differences between the two systems of law remain, and one aspect of that difference appears to be coming into play in this case.

[limpyhobbler]

49. ok that does make sense

[limpyhobbler]

40. I'm against the death penalty but I would make an exception for Mr Brevik. n/t

[BadtotheboneBob]

42. Then you are not against the death penalty...

Either you are, or you're not. No exceptions allowed.

[limpyhobbler]

48. I've never been for it before, I guess I changed my mind now , nt

[stellanoir]

47. This video regarding Norway's prisons was originally titled something like

This was cut from "Sicko" because no one would believe it. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4L6-0WRfSA

It's fascinating and really puts us to shame.

on edit- it addresses the prison system @ 5:27 but the intro is really informative about many facets of their culture and priorities

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

55. " critical of Muslim immigration and European liberalism"

oh no, say it ain't so---he's a conservative moron on top of being an insane mass murderer

[roman7]

56. if he killed my loved ones i would want him dead .

[War Horse]

57. This troubles me in so many ways

The first time I heard it I got pissed as Helheim.

But from what's been leaked from the psych report he really is beyond the pale. He apparently fancies himself as the future leader of Norway, intends to set up "breeding camps" (where have we heard that one before..?) and what not.

I'm really torn on this issue. If the entire report was made public it might help. As it looks now, a Geller/Spencer/Jihad watch mentality might make for a plea of insanity...

Still, as one of the lawyers put it, the concept of "insane at the time of the crime" (it gets kind of lost in translation whichever way one puts it) dates back to the Middle ages in Norway.