It is a terrifying look into the mind of a serial killer. You rarely get to hear comment from serial killers before they are locked away never to be seen or heard of again. It begs the question can there ever be some sort of peace for the victim’s families knowing this clown is being paraded in front of the media and being allowed to spout his nonsense.
I think most Norwegians feel very differently about this. ABB’s attack was not just a murder rampage - it was a direct attack on the foundations of the Norwegian democracy. He wanted - and wants - to radicalize society. What you are seeing now is Norwegian society saying “no”.
There was a lot of talk initially about creating new laws, etc., in order to deal with ABB, but (at least for the moment) talks of a Lex Breivik have pretty much disappeared, and most people seem to have the opinion that the system can deal with him. And I think that is becoming increasingly important to many Norwegians - to know that the system is good enough, and is capable of dealing even with people such as ABB. They do not want to treat him specially or declare a “war on right-wing terrorism” or whatever - they just want to deal with him like the criminal that he is. Assuming they succeed (and it looks like it at the moment), this strengthens Norwegian society rather than weakens it.
That he gets such a lengthy court case with so many “show” witnesses is somewhat unprecedented. But as I’ve mentioned earlier, I think this is basically judicial strategy. By ensuring that everything gets taken up and examined now, they are going to eliminate (if successful) almost everything that ABB can use to take up and create a lengthy appeals process later. Essentially, they are allowing the big Circus now, in order to avoid encore performances. I don’t personally like it, but I can see how it makes sense.
After such a tragic event, I doubt there’s much peace to be found through any short-term reaction. He slaughtered innocents because of an irrational position brought on by psychopathy and a deluded mind. Killing him or shutting him up would be revenge - not peace seeking.
I think “true” peace can only be found through understanding and coming to terms with how something so horrible can happen. But I doubt the pain can ever be entirely removed. He created the situation - which is now reality for the people left behind. It can’t be undone - but maybe it can be understood.
If you think letting the person speak is the same as greenlighting his actions in any way - or the same as doing him a favor - then we’re not on the same page at all.
I think letting him speak will inevitably destroy his position much more efficiently than removing him, but I don’t think revenge should be the motivation.
I agree. On the one hand you have purely hypothetical people who might agree with him and might be galvanized by a sensational trial. But on the other hand, you have a society that is showing the world its monsters because they are confident that they can deal with them. They’re not hiding him away and having a secret trial, they’re airing their dirty laundry. So let him rail and let him rant. Let him spout whatever hate-filled nonsense he wants. And in the end, you show that those things don’t matter and that the law can deal with monsters that have delusions of grandeur, and you put him in jail like a common criminal.
I think it’s not even so much that the ideology is abhorrent - which doesn’t necessarily mean that it would fail to be picked up - as that the vessel for it has no idea what a poor messenger he is - and especially poor for the target audience. It’s like if they put OBL on trial and he spent a good 3 quarters of it volunteering to talk about being a brony and how much he likes fortified wine.
If it is all irrelevant, why even let him talk about it?
You’re just legitimising that if you’re a big enough monster, the State will give you an opportunity to spout your hate-filled propaganda.
The point is that no matter who you are and what you’ve done - mass murder or speeding ticket - the state will put you in the same court and try you on the same conditions as everyone else.
Also, I fail to see how we’re doing Breivik a favor by letting him speak. I’d say we’re doing exactly the opposite.
Yes, the State can put you in Court - but the Court need not hear matters which are irrelevant. Objections on the grounds of irrelevance happen all the time. The fact is that the guilt does not hinge on motive. There is no need to put him on the grandstand - and the issue of whether he is insane can be left to the experts.
Breivik is certainly not doing himself any favours - but we are encouraging the similarly crazy (not legally insane crazy I would think) by putting up the idea that if you kill enough people you will get your hours of fame.
That’s a fair point I think. Not so much in terms of how it’s useful to him or his cut ‘n’ paste ideology, but the media coverage of the massacre and its focus on the killer and his bodycount is pretty widely accepted as being a terrible way to cover that kind of thing. I think that’s more a matter of media coverage - which the court can influence to some degree - than anything to do with the trial as it’s happening now, which is at least restricted to something passing for evidence rather than sales driven speculation. By this point the damage is already done, and not so much by the justice system.
The Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania was supposedly prompted by the coverage given to the Dunblane massacre. It’s interesting to read that now, given that like Bryant, Breivik seems to be quite obsessed with numbers and bodycounts - and it’s also worth noting that in that case having an IQ of 66 is no impediment to shooting 50+ people in minutes as long as you have an AR-15 and they’re not expecting you. Kind of puts the more grandiose claims about his genius planning of the massacre in perspective. I’m not sure how you cover something like this in a way that it can’t possibly make a retarded Tasmanian schizophrenic do something stupid though.
The way I see it, if you kill enough people - you’ll get hours to demonstrate to the entire world just how sick you are - and they’ll be ridiculing you and your insane position that much more, for the rest of your life.
Do you really think people who’re both willing and capable of slaughtering dozens are just waiting around to be inspired by some media circus?
We might as well ban any book, film, game or whatever else that could potentially inspire some maniac to slaughter innocent people.
I’d much rather we learned from the source, than trying to understand something like this with fingers in our ears.
I’m not sure how you cover something like this in a way that it can’t possibly make a retarded Tasmanian schizophrenic do something stupid though.
I doubt you can in a free and open society.
Well if I’m wrong then not letting him take a stand doesn’t make much of a difference - experts could always question him and learn from him and publish the results in long, uninteresting articles.
There’s also a big difference between letting a mass murderer use a trial as propaganda piece, and the court allowing him to do it, as opposed to freedom of speech in other circumstances. Even freedom of speech has limitations (inciting violence, hatred etc).
Also, if the average run of the mill murderer doesn’t get a few hours to crow about his stabbing, I don’t see why Breivik gets a free pass.
Maybe I’m just ridiculously jaded at this point, but I can’t even bring myself to give one crap about this guy.
His crime was horrific, but he’s just so far off the deep end that I don’t think my brain even regards him as a real person. I perceive him as something akin to a poorly written fictional character.
While I personally agree with your point, I think the arguments for not doing this are quite reasonable. An open trial allows him to spout his ideology - but close it and you give his ideological compatriots grist to the mill of their conspiracy theories. It would make it much easier to make ABB into a martyr, unlike the current situation where almost everyone is doing their best to avoid being identified with him.
The fact is that the guilt does not hinge on motive. There is no need to put him on the grandstand - and the issue of whether he is insane can be left to the experts.
Or… as it turns out… not. Fact is that there are now two expert reports arguing completely opposite cases. This case has seriously - perhaps fatally - undermined the standing of the Judiciary Committee for Psychiatry in Norway.
I consider it a good thing that this case has brought to light how much “experts” of this nature can be counted on. One wonders how many cases have tilted to one side or the other, because of an “expert” report on the mental state of someone on trial.
Maybe the Scientologists are right and psychiatry/psychology is evil? :)
Anyway, he needs to be dealt with. Let’s just hang him already - oh wait. Is the limit really 21 years? Good grief.
Except most fictional characters don’t kill 77 real people. In my mind, he’s crazy, but not quite crazy enough to avoid criminal punishment.
Why not just release him?
And charge someone else for his murder? Nah.
His chances to seek a sudden death are over now. What would you do with the person, possibly a relative of one of the murdererd, who kills him?
He is going to live and I hope the Norwegian justice system does anything to ensure he is not enabled to commit suicide. He should be supervised 24/7. He should also receive the best possible medical attention available. They should investigate his brain Nazi style. He should not receive anything except a naked cell, a hole and something to eat and drink. He really should be enabled to only think about his actions for the next 3-5 decades.