(Close Window)
Topic: Oslo
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 22, 2011 12:02PM)
What do these people think they achieve?
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Jul 22, 2011 12:44PM)
One of the biggest mysteries I can imagine. Suicide bombings get buried on about page 12 of the paper these days - they've become so commonplace that no one even cares anymore. Obviously Oslo isn't the normal location for any kind of bombing, so it's making headlines, but still...I can't begin to imagine what people think this will achieve.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 22, 2011 09:46PM)
Wow. 80+ dead. From what I've read, sounds like some international extremist groups have tried to "take credit" for this, but the latest is that it was actually some homegrown domestic terrorist act. One official said the attack "is probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center." I suppose we will learn more in the days ahead.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 22, 2011 10:48PM)
In lieu of the latest reports, I'm waiting for the worldwide profiling of right-wing blond-haired Caucasians to commence. Or at least for Herman Cain's statement that he'll be excluding them from his cabinet.
Message: Posted by: Steven Steele (Jul 22, 2011 10:55PM)
I'm not too concerned about laying blame yet...the press isn't real keen on checking sources at first...I'll let the dust settle. But in the mean time I feel horrible for the families of those lost. What a tragedy, regardless of where or when something like this occurs.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 22, 2011 11:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-22 23:48, landmark wrote:
In lieu of the latest reports, I'm waiting for the worldwide profiling of right-wing blond-haired Caucasians to commence. Or at least for Herman Cain's statement that he'll be excluding them from his cabinet.
[/quote]

Yes, because such reaction always flows from singular, isolated incidents.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 23, 2011 12:11AM)
I've been watching CNN's tweets on this and will continue to do so. My Grandmother on my Mother's side who recently passed was Norwegian. This is a tragedy.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 23, 2011 07:37AM)
Gee Critter - my maternal grandfather was also Norwegian - my mother's maiden name was Olsen.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 23, 2011 07:45AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 00:27, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-22 23:48, landmark wrote:
In lieu of the latest reports, I'm waiting for the worldwide profiling of right-wing blond-haired Caucasians to commence. Or at least for Herman Cain's statement that he'll be excluding them from his cabinet.
[/quote]

Yes, because such reaction always flows from singular, isolated incidents.
[/quote]
Yes, right-wing Caucasian extremism like Oklahoma City which was quoted above, is a one-off happening.
Message: Posted by: motown (Jul 23, 2011 08:18AM)
For the second time I've received email from friends regarding a very extremist event. First from a friend in Stockholm and now Oslo. Very sad.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 23, 2011 09:40AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 08:37, Destiny wrote:
Gee Critter - my maternal grandfather was also Norwegian - my mother's maiden name was Olsen.
[/quote]

Olsen, like those Anorexic girls what used to do bad sitcoms?
My Grandma's maiden name was Martinson.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 23, 2011 10:07AM)
From the [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/23/norway-attack.html]CBC[/url]:

[quote]A 32-year-old suspect, who police said dressed up as a police officer before shooting his victims, was in custody and talking, investigators said.

A search of his home and his Facebook postings turned up suggestions of right-wing and anti-Muslim political leanings, police said, but they haven't shared what might have propelled him to mass murder.

“It’s not clear what his motivation is yet and the police haven’t really talked about that,” CBC reporter Nahlah Ayed said from the scene outside Oslo on Saturday. “What we do know from police is that he has been very co-operative and is very keen to express his point of view.”

The Norwegian-born suspect comes from a well-to-do family, and his Facebook page suggests he may be a Christian fundamentalist, she said.

Little else is known yet about his background, including whether he served in Norway's armed forces, although all men in the country are liable for military service after the age of 18.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 23, 2011 11:52AM)
Dollars to Doughnuts he served in the military. These guys always do.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 23, 2011 12:00PM)
I, personally, would hope that we don't politicize this thread. Not now.

It's just awful-ugly-gut-wrenching bad, and and a horrible day for all of us.

I ain't a praying type, but tonight I'm praying for the families of those kids out on a camping trip.

We can start another thread for analysis. Let this one be for mourning.

May the nearly 100 people victimized by some single, lone maniac rest in peace.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 23, 2011 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 13:00, stoneunhinged wrote:

We can start another thread for analysis. Let this one be for mourning.

May the nearly 100 people victimized by some single, lone maniac rest in peace.
[/quote]

Well put.

This was a horrible thing.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jul 23, 2011 05:01PM)
Saying a prayer for them is certainly the right thing to do. My thoughts and prayers are with them.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 23, 2011 06:48PM)
Stone, apologies. But it was a political atrocity.

The 80+ gunned down were part of Norway's youth movement for their Labour Party. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/23/997883/-Norway-attacker-was-a-political-Terminator?via=blog_1

The killer was attacking the country's future. It's a horrible crime- beyond all comprehension. :( Prayers should be said indeed.
Message: Posted by: motown (Jul 23, 2011 08:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 12:52, landmark wrote:
Dollars to Doughnuts he served in the military. These guys always do.
[/quote]Considering many countries have mandatory military service, that's a pretty good bet.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 23, 2011 08:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 21:01, motown wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-23 12:52, landmark wrote:
Dollars to Doughnuts he served in the military. These guys always do.
[/quote]Considering many countries have mandatory military service, that's a pretty good bet.
[/quote]
Norway does have a form of compulsory military service, but there are enough 'outs' in the system that only about 4 out of 15 young men have to actually go through with it.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/norway-debates-conscription-to-military-service-for-women.4555128-116320.html
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 24, 2011 12:29AM)
Wow, Norway's toughest criminal sentence is 21 years?! Nothing like killing 92 people and getting out of prison in time for your 55th birthday party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/anders-behring-breivik-oslo-bombing_n_907880.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|80593

Please tell me those sentences can run consecutively.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 24, 2011 12:52AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 01:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Wow, Norway's toughest criminal sentence is 21 years?! Nothing like killing 92 people and getting out of prison in time for your 55th birthday party.
[/quote]
This link indicates that effective life imprisonment is possible in Norway, but rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

"The maximum indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment."
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 24, 2011 02:35AM)
May they all Rest In Peace.

Very sad this... :(
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 24, 2011 10:32AM)
From this article:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084835,00.html?iid=tsmodule

[quote]Although the attacks in Oslo and Utoeya were precisely planned and executed, Breivik does not appear to have ever had military training. On his Facebook site, which has been shut down, Breivik says he enjoys playing computer games such as World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2. Other hobbies include hunting. [/quote

Not that it matters much. Human beings are simply predictably unpredictable. Who knows what it takes to push your neighbor over the edge?

I mourn for humanity, sometimes. I truly mourn. We are capable of such great compassion, such great love, such great ambition...and such great destruction. And we do it over and over and over again. We do not learn. Maybe we cannot learn. Maybe the destructiveness is the price of beauty. I do not know. I am not wise.

:(
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 24, 2011 10:37AM)
The story grows more horrific as the facts unfold. No matter if it's their "9/11" or "Columbine" or whatever, the one thing we do know is that it is a great tragedy. It's awful for everyone who knew the victims and it's awful for the whole country, in fact it's pretty awful for the human race.
Now is the time to show support for the victims and their families.
I'm not ready to debate the "reasons."
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 24, 2011 10:44AM)
For one man to cause so much destruction is just so incredible and so sad.

So much grief, so quickly.

Kids on the island were 14 to 19 years old...

Hug your kids a bit tighter tonight those lucky enough.

So very very sad... :(

Life really is fleeting.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 24, 2011 11:23AM)
I gave up on world peace many years ago. I understand why people go to war, both offensively and defensively. I understand why people attack and kill people they hate. (That understanding does not mean condoning or liking any of it - just understanding.) What I cannot get my head around is attacking people who are not your enemy to make a point.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 24, 2011 11:52AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:23, Destiny wrote:
What I cannot get my head around is attacking people who are not your enemy to make a point.
[/quote]

Which is what makes such tragedy decidedly human. Wolves or elephants or sharks (or whatever) wouldn't do such a thing. Only human beings seem to "rationalize" such incredibly destructive behavior.

It would seem (so far; you know how these things go) that the guy had planned this well in advance. Even the bomb was coldly calculated to occupy authorities while he murdered as many teenagers as possible.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 24, 2011 01:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:23, Destiny wrote:

I gave up on world peace many years ago. I understand why people go to war, both offensively and defensively. I understand why people attack and kill people they hate. (That understanding does not mean condoning or liking any of it - just understanding.) What I cannot get my head around is attacking people who are not your enemy to make a point.
[/quote]
I believe this case may fall more into the former than the latter given that he mainly attacked and killed people he perceived to be his enemy (i.e., members of the ruling government and politically active children of its members).

[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:52, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:23, Destiny wrote:
What I cannot get my head around is attacking people who are not your enemy to make a point.
[/quote]

Which is what makes such tragedy decidedly human. Wolves or elephants or sharks (or whatever) wouldn't do such a thing. Only human beings seem to "rationalize" such incredibly destructive behavior.
[/quote]
It may be that only humans 'rationalize' it. But animals do attack their own, in vicious and incredibly destructive ways. E.g., recent studies have exposed dolphins to be mean killers of their own kind, and of members of non-violent, non-rival, non-predatory other species.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 24, 2011 01:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-22 13:02, Destiny wrote:
What do these people think they achieve?
[/quote]

The usual "force the hand of God" strategy. Start the pendulum swinging and then profit from the predictable actions.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 24, 2011 01:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 14:17, balducci wrote:...
It may be that only humans 'rationalize' it. But animals do attack their own, in vicious and incredibly destructive ways. E.g., recent studies have exposed dolphins to be mean killers of their own kind, and of members of non-violent, non-rival, non-predatory other species.
[/quote]

Peter Watts's story "Bulk Food" might offer some insight on this topic.

here you go, courtesy of the author: http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/WattsChanner_Bulk_Food.pdf

Kindly do the "save as" to your local drive. :)
Message: Posted by: Weisszach (Jul 24, 2011 03:44PM)
Hate seeing this sort of stuff as there seems to be no logical reason for this. My heart goes out to everyone involved.
Message: Posted by: 1tepa1 (Jul 24, 2011 04:40PM)
You can also pray for the shooter. He was catholic.

I am hoping the best for the families.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 24, 2011 10:11PM)
I won't be sparing any sympathy for the shooter - I had none for Bin Laden or the Aum Shinrikyo mob that gassed Tokyo's subways or any like them. These people who pose as extreme religious purists are simply self centred and self righteous ****wits - religion has nothing to do it - it's cover for their own self importance. There are an awful lot of Catholics, Protestants, Moslems, Buddhists, Sikhs etc in this world who feel strongly about their beliefs but don't behave like this.

Such people make me wish eternal ***ation and suffering was real.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 24, 2011 11:34PM)
Do you feel that this guy really deserves a trial?

Mind you I said a trial. I am not speaking of his mental state. Lets assume he is found fit to stand trial. Do you feel he deserves one? Does anyone believe he is innocent?

Again assuming he is found mentally fit to stand trial. Why should he just not be executed? Is that uncivilized? Should a person be excuted who just killed 90 plus people and is judged mentally compentent? If so why? Maybe because he is a killer who thinks nothing of killing children. But I am just guessing here. Some may believe he has rights. Of course I believe he forfeited those rights when he killed all those people and everyone knows he did it.

Should we be asking why should a person who just executed 90 plus people warrant a trial when he has been judged mentally fit to stand trial for something we know he did? Should he be fed and clothed for the duration of his waiting to stand trial? Should he have cable TV while waiting? Just asking here.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 24, 2011 11:45PM)
So you're not in favor of the American system of justice? I'm no legal historian, but I'd venture to say that at least the last four hundred years of Western jurisprudence is based on the concept of a trial. Just sayin'.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 24, 2011 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 00:45, landmark wrote:
So you're not in favor of the American system of justice? I'm no legal historian, but I'd venture to say that at least the last four hundred years of Western jurisprudence is based on the concept of a trial. Just sayin'.
[/quote]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Read my post. The only thing I said is I believe "HE" forfeited those rights when he killed those people. A trial for a crime such as this whether here in the United States or Norway is a waste of money and quite honestly makes a mockery out of the justice system. What will a trial prove? As stated earlier (presumed) he is of sound mind. We know he did it. Please tell me the point of a trial ini this instance. This is only an opinion and definitely not a legal stand. I can definitely be changed of said opinion with a valid arguement. But stick to the facts of mentally competent and definitely did it.

By the way, the Amreican Justice System works just fine in "MOST" cases. Of course we just had one that many people disagreed with didn't we?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 25, 2011 12:10AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 00:56, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 00:45, landmark wrote:

So you're not in favor of the American system of justice? I'm no legal historian, but I'd venture to say that at least the last four hundred years of Western jurisprudence is based on the concept of a trial. Just sayin'.
[/quote]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Read my post. The only thing I said is I believe "HE" forfeited those rights when he killed those people.
[/quote]
Well, I'm also not sure what you are saying then.

IF it is the case you believe he forfeited his rights to a trial, then it certainly does sound to me as though you are not in favor of the American and Western systems of justice. Or at least that you oppose certain central features of them.

In this particular case, it appears that he published a confession and so it sounds as though the trial should (hopefully) be cut and dry.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 25, 2011 12:29AM)
The trial is to keep our sanity, not his.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 01:32AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 01:10, balducci wrote:

In this particular case, it appears that he published a confession and so it sounds as though the trial should (hopefully) be cut and dry.
[/quote]

I think Balducci has it right - WE deserve a trial of even the most undeserving - the facts are presented and a verdict delivered - it's a system that has served us quite well for a long long time. In this case the evidence seems overwhelming.

As for his sanity, I don't know what Norwegian law states, but here, in the case of Martyn Bryant who carried out the Port Arthur massacre, although there were issues surrounding his mental health, the fact he was able to plan and carry out the attack, rendered that argument void.

I would hope that any decisions regarding such a person's fitness to stand trial were decided by a judge and jury - not a mental health expert - they often seem too close to their speciality to render an impartial verdict from my casual reading of news stories. (*I don't know that Norwegian law even works anything like ours - US, Canadian, Australian etc are all based on the English justice system, or 'British' as MARK LEWIS would insist :) )

I hate to open this can of worms, but the "I'm crazy", "I was drug affected" and "I had a terrible childhood" excuses don't play well with me. Plenty of people with the same problems do not do terrible things.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 25, 2011 01:42AM)
As meaningful concepts of morality become rejected more and more, it seems insanity and evil gradually converge, and responsibility declines. If there is no evil, then what explanation is there for such acts, apart from insanity? Sane people don't go around killing people. Still a minority viewpoint, but from casual conversation, it really seems to me that some bizarre notion where the act becomes its own excuse is becoming more and more widely accepted.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 01:48AM)
Well explained Lobo.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 25, 2011 01:53AM)
Not sure what your point is here Lobo.
I don't think there's been a wide acceptance that anybody who kills must be insane. What exactly are you referring to? Unless you think that people suffering from psychosis should be tried as others, I'm not aware that the non-delusional have been getting free passes willy-nilly. I guess I can think of Dan White, and I'm sure you're familiar with others, but does it really seem to you as a growing problem? Asking nicely here.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 25, 2011 01:59AM)
Can't speak for Lobo, of course, but his phrase, "the act becomes it's own excuse" is profound. It's definitely something I'm going to spend some time thinking about.
Message: Posted by: 1tepa1 (Jul 25, 2011 08:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 00:34, acesover wrote:
Do you feel that this guy really deserves a trial?

Mind you I said a trial. I am not speaking of his mental state. Lets assume he is found fit to stand trial. Do you feel he deserves one? Does anyone believe he is innocent?

Again assuming he is found mentally fit to stand trial. Why should he just not be executed? Is that uncivilized? Should a person be excuted who just killed 90 plus people and is judged mentally compentent? If so why? Maybe because he is a killer who thinks nothing of killing children. But I am just guessing here. Some may believe he has rights. Of course I believe he forfeited those rights when he killed all those people and everyone knows he did it.

Should we be asking why should a person who just executed 90 plus people warrant a trial when he has been judged mentally fit to stand trial for something we know he did? Should he be fed and clothed for the duration of his waiting to stand trial? Should he have cable TV while waiting? Just asking here.
[/quote]

First of all its not legal to execute anyone in Norway. And yes I think it is stupid to kill someone BECOUSE THEY KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not a good law. He should have a trial even tho we all know he did it and he admits it even himself. But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 08:22AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.
[/quote]

I think the real reason we have a trial is so that the evidence of his guilt is presented and evaluated - it may not seem important in a clear cut case like this, but it is extremely important in more ambiguous cases - so we must always follow the established procedure.

As for his punishment, the older I get, the colder my heart grows against perpetrators like him - I have moved from a staunchly anti capital punishment youth to a reluctantly pro capital punishment middleage. Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.
Message: Posted by: 1tepa1 (Jul 25, 2011 09:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
But we need to have that trial so they can judge and decide for how long he is going to prison.
[/quote]
Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.
[/quote]

I agree.
Message: Posted by: 1tepa1 (Jul 25, 2011 09:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:02, 1tepa1 wrote:
[quote]
Whatever happens, surely a person who commits a crime such as this should never be allowed to walk freely in public again.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 09:14AM)
As I sked in my post and honestly while there are many excellent points of view expressed here I do not believe that anyone has answered my question. That being. What is the point of the trial in this case? I can see where if the trial were by passed and we went right to punishment phase of the system many could argue that a very dangerous precedent has been set. Honestly that is the only reason I can see for a trial. I admit it is a rather good one. However this will end up being a media circus and a lot of attention will be focused on an individual that certainly does not deserve to draw another breath of life on this planet.

I understand that , The Law is The Law. But does it answer the underlying question of wht a trial will prove in this instance. We know he did it, we have come to the conslucion that he is of sound mind (that has been presumed in my asking the question of a trial) and he admits comitting the act. What is the point of a trial?

I am sure a trial will be costly, which only adds to this terrible act. Put this person away or excute him and be done with it. He does not deserve the time or energies of any sort of justice system as we all know he is guilty of this terrible act of mans inhumanity to man. The worse act a single human can commit is the taking of other lives to satisfy your own desires.

Again I say this is nothing more than an opinion (my opinion) and I feel that this person does not warrant a trial but only punishment as we all know he is guilty. There is no chance he did not commit this act. We are not going to find out he was home with his family whenthis tookplace and has eye witnesses to prove this. We have stated that in this instance he is of sound mind. Why the trial?

Maybe we should have the trial so he can get marriage proposals and letters from people who "understand" him. He is not worth the food he will consume nor the air he will breathe before his sentence is pronounced.

Is this a knee jerk reaction on my part? Maybe. But please tell me what a trial will accomplish. A trial is for the purpose of finding out whether a person is guilty or innocent and if guilty to what degree. Does any one here have any doubt to these questions? Again we have said he is guilty and of sound mind. Sems like we should proceed to the punishment phase.

All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 25, 2011 09:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 02:32, Destiny wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 01:10, balducci wrote:

In this particular case, it appears that he published a confession and so it sounds as though the trial should (hopefully) be cut and dry.
[/quote]

I think Balducci has it right - WE deserve a trial of even the most undeserving - the facts are presented and a verdict delivered - it's a system that has served us quite well for a long long time. In this case the evidence seems overwhelming.

As for his sanity, I don't know what Norwegian law states, but here, in the case of Martyn Bryant who carried out the Port Arthur massacre, although there were issues surrounding his mental health, the fact he was able to plan and carry out the attack, rendered that argument void.

I would hope that any decisions regarding such a person's fitness to stand trial were decided by a judge and jury - not a mental health expert - they often seem too close to their speciality to render an impartial verdict from my casual reading of news stories. (*I don't know that Norwegian law even works anything like ours - US, Canadian, Australian etc are all based on the English justice system, or 'British' as MARK LEWIS would insist :) )

I hate to open this can of worms, but the "I'm crazy", "I was drug affected" and "I had a terrible childhood" excuses don't play well with me. Plenty of people with the same problems do not do terrible things.
[/quote]

I can say a little about this (at least how it would work here in America) because court evaluations are where the majority of my education has been, but I can't render an opinion on his exact diagnosis because that would be unethical.

What I can say is that just being insane does not get a person out of trouble. It has to be shown that they were too insane to know what they were doing. That is clearly not the case here.

Even if a person is declared insane however, contrary to popular belief, a person usually spends far longer in a mental institution than they would have in prison. That's because prison has to let them out when their time is up. A mental institution doesn't have to let them out until they are better, which in criminal cases is usually never. There are occasional fudge-ups, of course, but overall it is no gift to be declared Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI).
Once that declaration is made, the first step is commitment proceedings. There is no walking away for them.

As I said though, that is America. I have no idea how it works in Norway.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 25, 2011 09:38AM)
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 25, 2011 09:39AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:25, critter wrote:

As I said though, that is America. I have no idea how it works in Norway.
[/quote]

This is important. Let's stand back and respectfully watch and support Norway as it deals with this tragedy.

John
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 25, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:14, acesover wrote:
All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
[/quote]Fortunately, nobody is forcing you to listen to his reasons.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:14, acesover wrote:
All this individual warrants is punishment. Do you really believe he should be allowed to get on a witness stand and spout his drivel as to why what he did is justified? Believe me he will take the stand because he wants to tell everyone his reason for slaughtering children. I for one am not interested in his reasons.
[/quote]Fortunately, nobody is forcing you to listen to his reasons.
[/quote]

However profound you feel your last statement is. You are wrong. There will not be anyone who reads a newspaper or watches television or for that matter mingles with other people who will not be forced to hear what he has to say.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 09:47AM)
Thanks for that Critter - helps my understanding.

Acesover - I really take your point and to a large degree, agree. but I suspect this is why we describe the justice system as 'due process'. It is just a process, and in this case, an obviously superfluous process, but it is 'due'. We don't do it for him - we do it for us. If we agree as a community to accept certain laws of behaviour and behave according to them at risk of punishment, then there must be a declared process for dealing with transgressions.

Otherwise we are just a mob, deciding on whim or rumour that someone is guilty and dropping them by a noose from a nearby tree.

Like you, I don't need to hear a thing about his motivations or manifesto. If it's true, as I think I heard , that he surrendered the moment authorities appeared, it says a lot about him that he thought it okay for kids to die for his cause, but was not willing to give up his own life.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 09:57AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:38, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.
[/quote]

To answer your first questions. To find out if they are guilty or innocent. In this case there is no doubt.

If you read my post the only downside in not having a trial could be the prcedent it sets. I am also talking about this case right now. Not what wil happen in the future. Again I am not trying to change laws. I am asking what will this trial accompliish? What will it accomplish other then to let him get on the stand and tell the world his reasons for this.

So the long and short of it is he gets what he wants and tells the world why he did it and Norway gets to have an expensive trial to find him guilty as we already know he is. I guess there is some sense to that I just find it hard to find. Remember I am talking abaout this case right now. Not any other case. This is more of a discussion of logic rather than law. I do understand some of the possible repercussions of no trial. But I am asking WHAT WILL IT ACCOMPLISH?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 10:01AM)
I think it keeps things working correctly - like waiting for the light to turn green even when we see there are no cars coming.

I hope Lobo shows up - he always provides good insights into discussions like this.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 25, 2011 10:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 09:03, 1tepa1 wrote:
I think it is stupid to kill someone BECOUSE THEY KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not a good law.
[/quote]


So, by that logic, what's your suggested punishment for someone convicted of kidnapping? I assume you'd agree it's stupid to confine someone in a small place against his will BECAUSE HE CONFINED SOMEONE IN A SMALL PLACE AGAINST HIS WILL. That would be an eye for an eye.

Which is not to say that there aren't good arguments against capital punishment, but this isn't one of them. There's a difference between an act used as a criminal sanction and the same act committed against an innocent person.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 25, 2011 10:04AM)
Wow, I read Destiny's post right after I posted my last. Talk about wasting a wish.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 10:06AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:47, Destiny wrote:
Thanks for that Critter - helps my understanding.

Acesover - I really take your point and to a large degree, agree. but I suspect this is why we describe the justice system as 'due process'. It is just a process, and in this case, an obviously superfluous process, but it is 'due'. We don't do it for him - we do it for us. If we agree as a community to accept certain laws of behaviour and behave according to them at risk of punishment, then there must be a declared process for dealing with transgressions.

Otherwise we are just a mob, deciding on whim or rumour that someone is guilty and dropping them by a noose from a nearby tree.

Like you, I don't need to hear a thing about his motivations or manifesto. If it's true, as I think I heard , that he surrendered the moment authorities appeared, it says a lot about him that he thought it okay for kids to die for his cause, but was not willing to give up his own life.
[/quote]

Finally an answer. "Due process". Unfortunately as stated it is in this case superfluous and that is my whole point. What will it prove? Not trying to derail "due process". I am only trying to point out that having a trial in this case accomplishes nothing. However it does support the justice system and that is reason enough, regardless of how flawed.

However I stand by my point that as far as justice is concerned it accomplishes nothing in this case. It only prolongs getting to the punishment phase while giving this individual the spotlight. Which is exactly what he wanted. The killing was only a means to an end for him.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 25, 2011 10:13AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:57, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 10:38, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Aces, both Pakar and Destiny are right.

Plus, why do we have a trial in cases such as this? Why do we have trials for terror suspects? Why did we have a trial for Casey Anthony? Why do we have trials for repeat drug offenders? Why do we have trials for first-time offenders? Why do we have trials at all?

Shortly after the Casey Anthony trial, I heard a radio host/lawyer tell it this way- trials, specifically trials by jury, are what prevents the government from arbitrarily throwing someone in prison for life, or executing them. It is one of the few recourses a civilian has against the power of Big Government, and as ugly as it is sometimes, it needs to be done. Otherwise we're no better than having the King imprison his enemies at a whim.

As for Norway, let them handle it the way they see fit. If I'm understanding what I'm hearing, although they can't officially give him a life sentence, they can make sure he will never be let out of prison to endanger their society again.
[/quote]

To answer your first questions. To find out if they are guilty or innocent. In this case there is no doubt.

If you read my post the only downside in not having a trial could be the prcedent it sets. I am also talking about this case right now. Not what wil happen in the future. Again I am not trying to change laws. I am asking what will this trial accompliish? What will it accomplish other then to let him get on the stand and tell the world his reasons for this.

So the long and short of it is he gets what he wants and tells the world why he did it and Norway gets to have an expensive trial to find him guilty as we already know he is. I guess there is some sense to that I just find it hard to find. Remember I am talking abaout this case right now. Not any other case. This is more of a discussion of logic rather than law. I do understand some of the possible repercussions of no trial. But I am asking WHAT WILL IT ACCOMPLISH?
[/quote]For one, it will shine sunlight on his insanity. Whether he shrivels from the light, or stands confident in his madness, this will give the act some context. From how I see Norway handles violent crimes, this broader understanding is important to their society.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 11:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Wow, I read Destiny's post right after I posted my last. Talk about wasting a wish.
[/quote]

Not at all - I loved this parallel:

"I assume you'd agree it's stupid to confine someone in a small place against his will BECAUSE HE CONFINED SOMEONE IN A SMALL PLACE AGAINST HIS WILL."
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 25, 2011 10:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 11:06, acesover wrote:
[Finally an answer. "Due process". Unfortunately as stated it is in this case superfluous and that is my whole point. What will it prove? Not trying to derail "due process". I am only trying to point out that having a trial in this case accomplishes nothing. However it does support the justice system and that is reason enough, regardless of how flawed.

However I stand by my point that as far as justice is concerned it accomplishes nothing in this case. It only prolongs getting to the punishment phase while giving this individual the spotlight. Which is exactly what he wanted. The killing was only a means to an end for him.
[/quote]

I find myself in agreement - we have to do it, but it is just going through the motions, and few of us wish to look at sewage under a spotlight.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 25, 2011 11:32AM)
Aces, you and I both believe in natural law (as I recall). Civil law is something else entirely, and must be based on premises of constancy and universality. You commit a crime? You go before a judge and get arraigned, and you will have your day in court.

I think that is pretty darned important. Your mileage may vary.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 25, 2011 11:37AM)
Aces, the answer to your question was posted before by a wise man :) :
[quote]I can see where if the trial were by passed and we went right to punishment phase of the system many could argue that a very dangerous precedent has been set. Honestly that is the only reason I can see for a trial. I admit it is a rather good one. [/quote]

The foundation of a just system of law is that all are brought before the court equally--even people we think are terrorists. It sucks to have to wait to see justice done, but it's better this way.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 25, 2011 11:58AM)
I think there are a few reasons why the trial route is preferable, one of which is that which is being alluded to in most of the above posts - the sort of ratification of the process itself. To the extent that there's confidence in the system, that confidence is in large part fostered by consistency. It's not perfectly consistent (or anything close to that), but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be as consistent as possible, and to the extent that it is, that's a good thing.

Another point would be the "slippery slope" argument; you don't want to start carving out exceptions for the cases where we're "sure" that the person is guilty, because leaving that decision to someone's judgment leaves open the possibility that at some point, someone will decide that we don't "need" a trial for someone who is 99.9999% certainly to have committed the crime, and then it turns out that's the one-in-a-million.

Additionally, criminal statutes have mental state requirements; knowing that someone committed an act isn't enough to establish criminal guilt. This is completely separate from mental competence to stand trial.

Also, facts that come out at trial may have a bearing on the sentence imposed.

I think the most important of these, far and away, is the confidence/consistency in a state that abides by the "rule of law" regardless of how the facts of any given situation may make it seem "unnecessary."
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 25, 2011 03:50PM)
From http://ca.news.yahoo.com/court-says-norway-gunman-arraigned-closed-hearing-102730034.html

Police announced, meanwhile, that they had dramatically overcounted the number of people slain in a shooting spree at a political youth group's island retreat and were lowering the confirmed death toll from 86 to 68.

The overall toll in the attack now stands at 76 instead of 93. Police spokesman Oystein Maeland said that higher, erroneous figure emerged as police and rescuers were focusing on helping survivors and securing the area, but he did not immediately explain more about how the overcounting occurred.

Police also raised the toll from a bombing outside the government's headquarters in Oslo before the shooting spree, from seven to eight.

The dramatic reduction in death toll adds to a list of police misteps: They took 90 minutes arrive at the island from the first shot, and people who called emergency services have reported being told by operators to stay off the lines unless they're calling about the Oslo bombings.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 05:59PM)
I agree tht this could be very dangerous if a trial was skipped and we went right to the punishment phase. However I seem to be having a hard time expressinig my point of view. That is: What will it accomplish?

I definitely feel we have to have a trial because of the damage it could do and the precedents it could set. But does it accomplish anything else other than to preserve the justice system...and I do not mean to make that sound like it is not enough I am just trying to satisfy myself in what it will accomplish as far as this being something more than a formality. Will we be trying to show that maybe he had a reason for this? Maybe he is innocent because he was a deprived from having sweets as a child, ad naseum. Again I feel the only thing it accomplishes is what he set out to do in the first place and that is to give himself center stage and tell the world whe he did it. As I said the killing was nothing more than a means to an end for him. He took those lives for center stage which he will get. Mission accomplished for him. The trial serves no point other than to preserve the sysem which is important but nothing more.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 25, 2011 06:29PM)
Off the top of my head, perhaps information that comes out at trial will help expose, find, and / or convict accomplices or sympathetic copy cats he knows of?

The trial could also bring comfort to some victim's families.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jul 25, 2011 06:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 18:59, acesover wrote:

I agree tht this could be very dangerous if a trial was skipped and we went right to the punishment phase. However I seem to be having a hard time expressinig my point of view. That is: What will it accomplish?

[/quote]

It will show that we are a nation ruled by law. That no matter how horrendous or barbaric an act we will never lower ourselves to that level.

Declaring a man guilty and stringing him up from the nearest tree denies him due process and makes the state little better than the criminal himself.

Civilized men behave in a civilized manner. Thus we treat all equal under the law. Regardless of their supposedly known guilt.

Besides, isn't forgiveness the Christian thing to do?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 25, 2011 07:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 19:48, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 18:59, acesover wrote:

I agree tht this could be very dangerous if a trial was skipped and we went right to the punishment phase. However I seem to be having a hard time expressinig my point of view. That is: What will it accomplish?

[/quote]

It will show that we are a nation ruled by law. That no matter how horrendous or barbaric an act we will never lower ourselves to that level.

Declaring a man guilty and stringing him up from the nearest tree denies him due process and makes the state little better than the criminal himself.

Civilized men behave in a civilized manner. Thus we treat all equal under the law. Regardless of their supposedly known guilt.

Besides, isn't forgiveness the Christian thing to do?
[/quote]

I kind of agreed with most of what you inferred till the last sentence. Are you suggesting we forgive this individual because we are christians?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 25, 2011 08:24PM)
I thought Lutheranism was the state religion of Norway. At any rate, there is a difference between forgiving and letting him kill again. I think that the perpetrator is going to be in jail for a long time, for the safety of all society.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jul 25, 2011 08:33PM)
[quote]

Besides, isn't forgiveness the Christian thing to do?
[/quote]

Well, I recall the Godfather was a Christian. I side him...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 26, 2011 09:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 21:33, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
[quote]

Besides, isn't forgiveness the Christian thing to do?
[/quote]

Well, I recall the Godfather was a Christian. I side him...
[/quote]

I forget. Who did he forgive?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 26, 2011 11:09AM)
Are we talking about James Brown?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 26, 2011 01:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 01:52, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 01:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Wow, Norway's toughest criminal sentence is 21 years?! Nothing like killing 92 people and getting out of prison in time for your 55th birthday party.
[/quote]
This link indicates that effective life imprisonment is possible in Norway, but rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

"The maximum indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment."
[/quote]
I saw in newspaper reports today that he could be charged with an offense of "crimes against humanity" which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years versus the 21 years for the current charges of "terrorism". Presumably the subsequent continuing option of five years additional containment applies in either case.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 27, 2011 12:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-25 19:29, balducci wrote:
Off the top of my head, perhaps information that comes out at trial will help expose, find, and / or convict accomplices or sympathetic copy cats he knows of?

The trial could also bring comfort to some victim's families.
[/quote]

The comfort you elude to is a two edged sword as it may also open new wounds that were starting to heal with time. Do you really feel that the parents and loved ones of those children will get comfort reliving the event in a court of law? Do you believe that the parents hearing this subhuman give his reasons for slaughtering their children will give them comfort and solance? I personally do not.

Personally if they do not have death penalty I suggest they lock him away somewhere and forget what they did with the key.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 27, 2011 12:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-26 14:39, balducci wrote:
I saw in newspaper reports today that he could be charged with an offense of "crimes against humanity" which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years versus the 21 years for the current charges of "terrorism". Presumably the subsequent continuing option of five years additional containment applies in either case.
[/quote]

Whatever the elements of "Crimes Against Humanity," and whatever they call the various offenses in their criminal code, it's hard to fathom that this wouldn't qualify for their most serious criminal violation. I can't imagine this guy getting a 30% discount off of their longest sentence (i.e. 21 instead of 30 years).
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 27, 2011 12:11PM)
This topic is just one of those that bring out my "Dark Side" which I believe all of us have to some degree. Some of course are darker than others.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jul 27, 2011 12:14PM)
Some psychiatrists have been analyzing his manifesto, and rather than insanity, they say it shows some of the hallmarks of sociopathy. I believe that would make him a prime candidate for "Containment", as he would completely understand his actions, he would just not care about how other people were affected by them.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 27, 2011 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 13:14, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Some psychiatrists have been analyzing his manifesto, and rather than insanity, they say it shows some of the hallmarks of sociopathy. I believe that would make him a prime candidate for "Containment", as he would completely understand his actions, he would just not care about how other people were affected by them.
[/quote]

After killing in excess of 70 children I definitely feel he is definitely a sociopath. However I do not feel that containment is the answer for this "thing". I really feel if there ever was an arguement for the death penalty this is one fairly close to the top of the list. I think a firing squad or gas chamber is ideally suited for this guy or hanging or even the chopping block. Make the punishment fit the crime, and confinement does not fit the crime here. Giving up his life definitely fits.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 27, 2011 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 17:59, acesover wrote:

After killing in excess of 70 children I definitely feel he is definitely a sociopath.
[/quote]
Just an FYI, "Labour Party member Bjorn Jarle Roberg-Larsen told CNN the vast majority of the youth movement attendees were between the ages of 16 and 22, though some were as young as 13 and others as old as their early 30s."

Whatever their ages, Glenn Beck likened them to 'Hitler Youth' the other day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8664738/Glenn-Beck-likens-Obama-administration-to-the-Third-Reich.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/glenn-beck-hits-a-new-low-compares-norway-victims-to-hitler-youth.html
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 27, 2011 05:18PM)
Glenn Beck gets a Hitler point.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jul 27, 2011 05:18PM)
There used to be a litle thing called rule 42,then it went to rule 43,God knows what it's called know.
Basically,it's a way to get at the nonces;A door left open here,a turn of the head there.
Even a very short spell can seem like a lifetime.
Sometimes self government can be extremely effective.(Don't tell Glen)
Ray.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 27, 2011 05:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 18:18, Ray Tupper. wrote:

There used to be a litle thing called rule 42,then it went to rule 43,God knows what it's called know.
Basically,it's a way to get at the nonces;A door left open here,a turn of the head there.
Even a very short spell can seem like a lifetime.
Sometimes self government can be extremely effective.(Don't tell Glen)
Ray.
[/quote]
I had no idea what you were talking about, so I had to look it up. :)

Seems to be a UK and Australia thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_%28slang%29

Nonce first came into widespread use in UK prisons, where it is primarily used by prisoners to refer to convicted sex offenders, especially abusers of children. "Nonces" are traditionally targets of physical abuse from their prison inmates, and so usually go on Rule 45 (formerly Rule 43)[1] , the rule that enables the segregation of vulnerable prisoners from the other prisoners for their own safety. The Rule 45 section of British prisons in which sex offenders are segregated (also known as going on 'The Numbers' or, in rhyming slang, 'The Cucumbers') is often referred to as the "nonce wing".
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 27, 2011 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-26 12:09, critter wrote:
Are we talking about James Brown?
[/quote]

Ha, Ha..could be. The Godfather of Soul. Wonder how many people he forgave.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 27, 2011 11:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 18:18, critter wrote:
Glenn Beck gets a Hitler point.
[/quote]

Are Hitler points good or bad?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 27, 2011 11:43PM)
Depends whether you're in favor of Hitler or not.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 28, 2011 12:21AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-28 00:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 18:18, critter wrote:
Glenn Beck gets a Hitler point.
[/quote]

Are Hitler points good or bad?
[/quote]

I don't know yet. I suppose they could go either way.
Message: Posted by: hou_dini (Jul 28, 2011 08:41AM)
So, is Beck saying that it is alright to murder (fill in political party name) Youth? Is that a Hitler point?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 28, 2011 08:50AM)
Glen Beck isn't saying anything at all, rationally speaking. The man seems to be deranged by the idea of his own presumed intelligence. The ancient Greeks called men like him "idiots", and for good reason.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 28, 2011 10:40AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-28 09:41, hou_dini wrote:
So, is Beck saying that it is alright to murder (fill in political party name) Youth? Is that a Hitler point?
[/quote]

A Hitler point is a point "awarded" to someone who makes a Hitler comparison in a political (or religious) conversation. The notion came about because Hitler was being consistently mentioned in every one of these types of threads in NVMS. Hitler points are not much beyond a running gag.
Usually, the H word is invoked by someone who can't make a real point, so they just try to get the emotional reaction by comparing whoever is being discussed with the (presumably) most evil man in history.
Sometimes the comparison is legit, but the device is so overused that it's sort of lost it's impact.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 28, 2011 10:48AM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 14:17, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:23, Destiny wrote:

[/quote]
It may be that only humans 'rationalize' it. But animals do attack their own, in vicious and incredibly destructive ways. E.g., recent studies have exposed dolphins to be mean killers of their own kind, and of members of non-violent, non-rival, non-predatory other species.
[/quote]

Dolphins have also been known to kidnap and rape.

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 28, 2011 11:24AM)
Awe, say it ain't so Flicker!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 28, 2011 11:43AM)
Critter,

Thanks on the clarification on "Hitler Points". I kind of thought that is what they were. I like the concept. I see myself using the phrase in the future.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 28, 2011 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-28 11:48, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 14:17, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-24 12:23, Destiny wrote:

[/quote]
It may be that only humans 'rationalize' it. But animals do attack their own, in vicious and incredibly destructive ways. E.g., recent studies have exposed dolphins to be mean killers of their own kind, and of members of non-violent, non-rival, non-predatory other species.
[/quote]

Dolphins have also been known to kidnap and rape.

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780
[/quote]
But the worst are the endless Dolphin performances of Sam the bellhop. That's just plain cruel.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 28, 2011 05:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-27 18:15, balducci wrote:

Whatever their ages, Glenn Beck likened them to 'Hitler Youth' the other day.
[/quote]
Beck's was a ridiculous statement for many reasons, not the least of which is because one of his own politically oriented groups (the 9-12 Project) runs summer camps for youth itself.

http://peoplesworld.org/the-real-problem-with-glenn-beck-s-norway-comments/

Well, at least Beck was smart enough not to refer to a fringe, grass root, group attempting to overthrow the current government as 'brown shirts'.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 28, 2011 10:01PM)
Okay I take back any bad thing I ever ever said about Dolphins including any Hitlerite tendencies. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you:
http://www.slothster.com/2352-Cat-On-Boat-Plays-With-Dolphins.html
Message: Posted by: ursusminor (Aug 10, 2011 07:24AM)
This guy is going to be disected by forensic psychiatrists for decades...
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I don't think he is mad, rather a paranoid
sociopath, with an ENORMOUSLY overblown ego.

Before he gave any details during the early interrogations, he had some demands:
The norwegian government was to step down - The King was to abdicate -
And he wanted access to radio/tv studios for 20 hours...

As for punishment, the longest straight prison sentence here is 21 years.
Each "prison-year" = 7 months, do the math...

The "Crimes against humanity"-thing may be the safest bet, in that case he
won't be out until 2041, since in that case each "prison-year" = 12 months.

If they go for "containment" he may be out before then.

Bjørn
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 10, 2011 11:04AM)
I have little doubt he will end up with the prison groupies. High profile crime, good looking dude...
Prison groupies freak me out. I am curious what his psychological profile would have to say.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 10, 2011 11:08AM)
At the very least, he should serve 21 years for EACH LIFE HE TOOK.

Do the math, way better sentence imo.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 10, 2011 05:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 12:04, critter wrote:
I have little doubt he will end up with the prison groupies. High profile crime, good looking dude...
Prison groupies freak me out. I am curious what his psychological profile would have to say.
[/quote]

Prison groupies' psychological profiles might be more interesting.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 10, 2011 05:11PM)
True...
Message: Posted by: ursusminor (Aug 11, 2011 06:38AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 12:08, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
At the very least, he should serve 21 years for EACH LIFE HE TOOK.

Do the math, way better sentence imo.
[/quote]

Agreed...

But that's not the way it's done here.
The norwegian criminal code is not "calibrated" for this sort of crime, unfortunately.

As a matter of fact, nothing this horrible has EVER happened in Norway in modern times, not in peacetime anyway. And our laws reflect that.

Bjørn
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 11, 2011 07:12AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 18:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 12:04, critter wrote:
I have little doubt he will end up with the prison groupies. High profile crime, good looking dude...
Prison groupies freak me out. I am curious what his psychological profile would have to say.
[/quote]

Prison groupies' psychological profiles might be more interesting.
[/quote]
Yes, I'd love to see what research has been done on this. I always found it fascinating that millions of guys would be stuck without a date on Saturday night while Ted Bundy was getting stacks of mail. Hey critter--there's your dissertation topic!
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 11, 2011 07:34AM)
I just wrote my forensic psych prof to see if she knows of any research. Will keep posted if I hear anything. She might be on vacation right now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 11, 2011 09:40AM)
IIRC, Bundy's wife thought he was innocent right up until shortly before his execution, when after an appeal was denied, he told her to tell the lawyer he'd give up the locations of more bodies they didn't know about in exchange for a commutation.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 12, 2011 07:08PM)
Well my old prof (who has shiploads of experience in the field) is not aware of any research on prison groupies.
This is intriguing. If I could figure out a good research question and how to explain why it should matter to anybody else I may have some fun research to do.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 13, 2011 01:14AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-12 20:08, critter wrote:

If I could figure out a good research question and how to explain why it should matter to anybody else I may have some fun research to do.

[/quote]

How can it not matter?

Any time it's about human sexual attraction, aberration or not, it matters a lot to the understanding of the propagation of our species. In a small way at least.

I think it's a worthwhile study critter, imho... ;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 13, 2011 05:10AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-12 20:08, critter wrote:
If I could figure out a good research question and how to explain why it should matter to anybody else I may have some fun research to do.
[/quote]

I really don't know where you got the idea that research has to matter to anyone else. Do you have the slightest idea what goes on in literature departments these days? ;)

At any rate, I do think that this sort of research would be very interesting, and would bet that it has already been done and your prof just doesn't know about it. But if it hasn't been done, it's doctoral level stuff. Quit talking about it in the Internet, or someone will steal the idea. Instead, jump on it. And yes, I'm quite serious. Get started as soon as you read this post. You don't have to have your question yet. To get started you just need to make a plan, and your professors can help you do that. I'm no sociologist, so I can't help. I don't know the methodology. But the best research ideas are not ideas that researchers invent to get degrees and grants. The best research ideas come from authentic human curiosity. Go and become the world's expert on this subject, and you're almost guaranteed to be on Oprah some day. Jump on it!
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 13, 2011 09:05AM)
Thanks. I plan to. :)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 13, 2011 04:06PM)
Too bad Oprah show ended! :/
Message: Posted by: ursusminor (Aug 29, 2011 02:56AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 12:04, critter wrote:
I have little doubt he will end up with the prison groupies. High profile crime, good looking dude...
Prison groupies freak me out. I am curious what his psychological profile would have to say.
[/quote]

He's been recieving tons of "love-letters" from all over the world.
Too bad he's not allowed to read them, yet.
There is some really "interresting" people out there...

Bjørn
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 29, 2011 05:03AM)
Bjørn, how is the mood there these days? Is the story still something in the daily press?
Message: Posted by: ursusminor (Sep 1, 2011 02:40AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-29 06:03, stoneunhinged wrote:
Bjørn, how is the mood there these days? Is the story still something in the daily press?
[/quote]

It has simmered down a great deal. There are an item or two in the papers most days, but there is no real news.
He's being kept in isolation and questioned, so there are not really any news.
The case probably won't come up in court until sometime next year, and then the circus will start again.
And I mean circus - He wanted to appear in court in his "uniform" and later in white tie & tails.
This is a REAL nutcase...