Norwegian terror attacks

A guy who walks around calmly and shoots over seventy people dead counts as "insane" and "psychopathic" in my book. It is known since psychological studies carried out in the course of the Second World War that only up to 2 per cent of all people are capable of killing other people and not suffer from psychological effects in some shape, and those are categorised as "aggressive psychopathic personalities" (look up Swank and Marchand on that)... so in my eyes, the psychiatrists have only confirmed the obvious.
 
Natalie said:
Thanks for sharing, I saw that earlier today as well. Somehow I'm not surprised but I do think that many people won't be happy with that evaluation of him. Look for heated responses and discussions over this in the coming days.
Click to expand...

Of course this was main headlines in Norwegian news all around yesterday. I must say, I am astonished that so many different people - politicians, family of victims, journalists, who have never met Breivik, feel qualified to question the assessment carried out by experts who have talked directly to him for almost 40 hours, who have assessed psychotic murderers before, and who have years of experience in just that.

Of course it sparks discussion. But I am not going to be part of that.

Forostar said:
Why would that be? Until EW posted this, I have only seen reports about him not being insane. It was more about fundamentalism and intense ambition and hate. (Naturally I don't count Fox News and other Christian sponsored US media who denied he had anything to do with their religion).

These are matters which should not be cast aside. Sane people can do such things. The next statement I find understandable:
- - - - - - -

But the deputy leader of the opposition Progress Party, Per Sandberg, thought the conclusion that Breivik was criminally insane was "completely incomprehensible".

"How can someone who has planned this for such a long time... be considered insane," he told Norwegian TV.
Click to expand...

We can not, and should not, ignore the hatred Breivik has expressed, and the verdict that he is insane does not mean we should not confront others who share his opinions on e.g. immigration.

However, Sandberg (and other politicians) should also not make the psychiatric assessment of Breivik a political question, because it is not. It is a medical one. They are elected to make laws - executing the laws is up to police and courts.
Politicians who demand a new assessment because they are not happy with the conclusion, step across a border they are not supposed to cross, and ignore the distribution of power.

And again I must express my dislike for how media put a microphone in the face of dozens of people (again - politicians, family of victims, survivors) to have their opinion on a verdict they are in no position to have a qualified opinion on.
It's all about the headlines, I guess.
PS: Reports of him not being insane, have nothing to do with a psychiatric assessment. These have been the opinions of others who have met Breivik in the process (police, lawyers, court officials), and obviously the impression Breivik himself wants to give. I think a conclusion that he is paranoid schizophrenic will be a punishment in its own right. In fact, a police official reported that Breivik said he felt "insulted" upon hearing the conclusion yesterday evening. I think the one most likely to demand a new assessment by independent experts, is Breivik himself. I think going to a high-security mental ward rather than a high-security prison is a defeat to him, and to the society it should make no difference.

Also, mental illness does not necessarily mean lack of intelligence. Thus, the fact that he has planned the massacre to detail, over long time, is not in itself evidence against the diagnosis. And the psychiatrists reported that Breivik had massive illusions - and not illusions in the sense of extreme political views, more like living in a parallel reality.
 
I did not mean that I don't believe the outcome of the assessment. Still I think that second opinions are not rare in medical matters.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
We can not, and should not, ignore the hatred Breivik has expressed, and the verdict that he is insane does not mean we should not confront others who share his opinions on e.g. immigration.
Click to expand...

This I find the most important issue and I am afraid that the "insane" conclusion will distract from this matter.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I think going to a high-security mental ward rather than a high-security prison is a defeat to him, and to the society it should make no difference.
Click to expand...

Let's hope so.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
Thus, the fact that he has planned the massacre to detail, over long time, is not in itself evidence against the diagnosis. And the psychiatrists reported that Breivik had massive illusions - and not illusions in the sense of extreme political views, more like living in a parallel reality.
Click to expand...

I think that this research is not enough. A full exploration of how he got these ideas should be explored. Extreme people (e.g. politicians) must have fed him, and they are not insane are they? The root of his message, the content behind his act should fully be explored. Let politics bleed if they have to.
 
Forostar said:
I did not mean that I don't believe the outcome of the assessment. Still I think that second opinions are not rare in medical matters.
Click to expand...

No, and I just read a comment from a psychiatrist who argued in favour of the system where actorate and defendants each have their own experts, to get independent assessments from both sides of the table. He also raised the question whether courts should always rely on the assessments made by experts from outside court, especially when it comes to psychiatry (which is by no means an exact science).

Forostar said:
This I find the most important issue and I am afraid that the "insane" conclusion will distract from this matter.
Click to expand...

Well, the two can and should be seen as two independent issues. We already know that extreme political views (of any kind) can lead to violence. A conclusion that Breivik is insane does not make others who may share his political views more right, neither does it make them more wrong. However, the conclusion hopefully means that we can discuss his opinions (shared by some) separated from his acts (condemned even by many who share his opinions). The political debate since 22/7 has, unfortunately, seen a tendency to try to put the blame (for Breivik's acts) on each other.
 
Hmm, I wonder which arguments can be used by a political party with more (fundamentalistic) anti-immigration focus to accuse a political party with no (or less) anti-immigration focus.
 
The arguments are well known. Those who are anti-immigration blame the pro-immigration politicians of ignoring all problems related to immigration, and accusing those who point out the problems of being racists. Thus they create a debate climate where it is haram to discuss problems related to immigration, and thus cause frustration which in turn leads to some becoming extremists. All in the rhetoric of anti-immigration politicians, not my words.

The argumentation towards the other side is obviously more straight-forward.

However, it is beyond all serious political debate trying to blame the terrorist attacks on a specific political party or group, when the ideas the terrorist use to justify his deeds are miles away from the politics of the parties in question.
 
I am afraid "Miles away" will be a used excuse by the anti-immigration people. Naturally they'll say their ideals have nothing to do with it. Surely history has never proven that anti-foreigner brainwashing can be dangerous and have violent consequences.

If opposition can deal with them well enough, they can criticize their ideas, now more than ever.

Let them fight. It's needed. The people who vote should wake up and wonder what good their anti-immigration politics have brought. Not many souls will erase Breivik's deed in this context, because his message was crisp and clear. That message is rooted by fear seeding politicians (like Wilders).
 
I'll elaborate more on this later, when I have more time. However I will say briefly that I think we should allow all kinds of opinions to be aired, as long as it's not hate-mongery, without thinking that we may be fuelling an extremist. Extremists who are willing to commit acts of terrorism, may find motivation wherever they want. But more about this when I am not at work ...
 
Looks like we had a second opinion after all:

"The expert team of four psychiatrists assessing Breivik in prison disagreed with several of the original conclusions.

According to the report submitted by the Public Prosecutor, Svein Holden, they do not believe Breivik is psychotic or schizophrenic and do not think he needs drugs.

In addition they do not regard him as being at high risk of committing suicide."
 
Formally, there is a big difference between the two reports. The first one, declaring him insane, is the only one which is formally delivered to the court by the court-appointed experts. The newest report is done by psychiatrists who have been monitoring Breivik in prison for his own security - to assess whether he needs treatment or not. This team may send him directly to a mental hospital now, or put him under treatment in prison, before the trial. The court-appointed experts have given their assessment to aid the court in reaching a correct verdict.

But the fact that these two teams have come to the opposite conclusions, is interesting - to say the least. And the court-appointed psychiatrists have been criticized heavily for writing Breivik's ideas off as delutions, symptoms of schizophrenia, without ever checking whether these ideas are actually common in certain circles or not. Others have stated quite clearly that these ideas are, in fact, common in certain communities.

Should witnesses, victims or their representatives demand that the court appoint new experts and retireve a new assessment, it will probably not change the outcome of the trial anyway. The first report is enough to raise significant doubt about Breivik's sanity, which in turn is sufficient to send him to a mental institution instead of prison.

I'm not sure, however, what will happen if the verdict in the first trial is appealed to a higher court. If a new assessment is requested by the higher court, I don't know what will happen to the original assessment - if it will be given any weight at all.
 
So it seems that indeed another assessment will happen, but regardless of the outcome, the trial will start in April.
 
Today, a new team have started their psychiatric assessment of Breivik. The terrorist has himself claimed that he was exaggerating his behaviour in the conversations with the first team, but who knows ... I think this second assessment will have to come with a very clear conclusion to overthrow the first. This process has shown that there may be a flaw in how the Norwegian juidicial system deals with the insanity question. Instead of the actorate and the defendant both bringing in expert witnesses, the court appoints the experts directly, making it much more cumbersome to get a second opinion. In this case, a second opinion is sought merely because the case itself is so big and unique.

I am really not looking forward to the trial, despite the fact I do not know any of the direct victims (the dead and wounded). It is probably going to stir up a lot of bad stuff in the public debate, plus Breivik's face will once again be all over the papers.
 
The second team of psychiatrists have announced the result of their assessment: They find that Breivik was not psychotic, thus he is juridically accountable and may be sentenced to prison. This means the judges will have to judge this based on both reports, and on how the terrorist appears in court.

Article from BBC
 
The first week of the trial is over - and it has been tough for the entire nation. All major media are covering the trial in great detail, with many direct quotes from the court. Today was probably the worst day for survivors and those who lost someone, as Breivik was questioned about the massacre itself. Earlier this week, other things (preparations, etc.) have been in focus. Today he was confronted with details of how he shot people in cold blood.

After reading what he says, I can't really see much difference between him and any random jihadist or member of any other terrorist organization. He has drowned himself in an extreme worldview, and he has sufficiently little empathy to go ahead with actual terrorist acts. I can't see him being found juridically insane, I see it most likely that he will get the punishment everyone expected from the day he was arrested: The maximum prison sentence of 21 years, but with the possibility of indefinite extension until he is no longer considered a danger to society. For him, that will probably mean the day he dies.

I hope I live to see that day, because I shall celebrate it.
 
I'm pretty disgusted by the way the trial and media coverage provide Breivik with exactly what he wants, a platform for self-presentation.
 
Not really. He is shown for the disturbed coward he is, and I doubt he will gain followers ... Remember, everything he says now is in response to questions - from the actorate, lawyers and judges.

Besides, do we really have an option? Now that his sanity is the main question for the trial, and with the trauma his terrorism has inflicted on the victims and on the society, the public demand for information is too big here. And maybe seeing him in court, under the control of others, will help the survivors to overcome the trauma. Now that they see him, no longer dangerous to them, as a man who fights against only one thing - being sent to the asylum.
 
I agree with EW, Perun. The sort of people who would follow Breivik based on this particular level of coverage are the same that would follow him if there was none. He's being crucified in the press, not vindicated. His followers would place him on a cross if the press didn't do it for him.
 
... something which would spawn vast numbers of conspiracy theories. No, I think it was good that they got him alive and that they have been open about the investigation. It would be much harder for the society to move on if the terrorist was shrouded in mystery. Plus: Immediately after the bomb attack (before the shooting reached the news), some Islamist groups claimed they were behind it - and rumours at the time circulated that people who looked like typical Muslims were harassed in Oslo because of these suspicions. Making it known that the terrorist was Norwegian, and an extreme Nationalist, helped stop these speculations quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top