Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[Svartalf]

If that one is innocent, next thing you'll come up with is that LH Oswald and JW Booth were too?

[Seth]

The problem I have with the insanity defense is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It should be "guilty, but insane." After all, there is no question that he murdered people, so he is guilty of those acts, but his insanity should be a mitigating factor IN HIS SENTENCING.

Under no circumstances, however, should he be in a position to walk out of a mental institution after being "restored to sanity" with no record of having murdered people.

You can kill someone, and not be guilty. If you ARE GENUINELY insane, it really is not your fault.
No more than if you are physically ill.
Take the rare cases where people have killed their partner in a dream, without waking. You can't call them guilty. If you genuinely are not conscious or sane, you can't be called guilty.

This is a conundrum indeed. I can distinguish between someone who is asleep, or who does not think or know they are killing another person because they are so delusional that their act is aimed at a hallucination like a monster or pink elephant and a paranoid schizophrenic who knows full well that he is targeting and killing other human beings that he thinks are a threat (though not an immediate one) to him. However paranoid or schizophrenic he might be, he still targeted human beings specifically for political reasons. He was not fighting alien monsters and he did not kill someone accidentally while trying to deal with a hallucination or dream. He knew exactly what he was doing, and his excuse that he was killing them for political reasons doesn't wash.

The problem is that psychiatrists would have us believe that they can tell. No they can't. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. And I have to agree with your last bit, someone like this should never walk free, on the word of any psychiatrist or panel. I don't trust their word on sanity, or on the safety of a "cure".

Correct. A clever and intelligent paranoid schizophrenic can be very devious and can potentially fake a recovery long enough to be released. It's certainly happened before.

I would just classify genuinely insane killers as innocent, but too dangerous to be free. They can't have the benefit of the doubt. The public has to have that.
And no way does this guy fit the bill of a genuinely insane killer. Unless he has a long history of insanity and didn't do all that planning that we heard of.

I just wonder why all the resistance to declaring him guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance of insanity? He clearly committed the murders, and the law should discount mens rea only insofar as the punishment for the crime is concerned. That's the distinction between first and second degree murder (deliberation) and manslaughter (reckless disregard), which is only a distinction in the DEGREE of of the offense. Guilty of murder while insane should just be another degree of the offense of unlawfully killing another human being and should go towards the sentence, not guilt or innocence.

[Audley Strange]

All those deaths, all the time and effort wasted on this guy. How does keeping him alive benefit mankind exactly?

It's perfectly simple. That might be any one of us one day. And we might be innocent.
They do convict the wrong people all the time, you know.

Yes, however that is an automatic response regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty, which is not what I asked.

[Warren Dew]

I understand that the maximum sentence for any crime in Norway is 21 years. This may be a way to put him away for longer than the law would normally allow.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We should have a Intentional Malicious Slaughtering rule.

[Schneibster]

All those deaths, all the time and effort wasted on this guy. How does keeping him alive benefit mankind exactly?

It doesn't.

Not killing him does.

There's a difference your prejudice is causing you to try to hide.

[Seth]

I understand that the maximum sentence for any crime in Norway is 21 years. This may be a way to put him away for longer than the law would normally allow.

As long as he's "criminally insane" he can be held for life. Problem is that some doctor might make a mistake and declare him sane. That could happen next year and he'd have a right to be released immediately upon regaining his sanity...er, gaming the system and hoodwinking the doctors...

[Achtland]

[Schneibster]

I think the concept is that if he did not have the mental state to appreciate the nature of his actions or tell right from wrong, then he could not have the necessary mens rea to be guilty of the "crime" in the first place.

There is no question that he "killed" people (well, assuming that the police arrested the right guy - none of us were there - so that is what a trial would be for), but assuming he killed the people, then there is still a question as to whether the killings were murder. Murder requires a specific kind of mens rea - intent to kill or intent to do great bodily harm. The insanity defense negates the "intent" element, because he couldn't formulate that particular mental state.

There would be no point in punishing him if he was unable to tell right from wrong or to appreciate the nature of his actions at the time of he committed them, because he would not be aware of what he is being punished for and the rehabilitative effect of punishment would be nonexistent, since he he didn't do the deed because he wanted to.

The reason people don't like the insanity defense is more along the lines of not buying it. We don't believe, no matter what the psychiatrists say, that he didn't know what he was doing. Alternatively, we don't care that he didn't know. He did it. Fuck him. I agree with the latter. There is no real way this fellow will ever be reasonably able to be admitted back into society, regardless of his mental state at the time of the killings.

While I agree he should never be allowed back in society, I see no point in vindictive feelings like "fuck him." Fuck who? There's no "who" there as we ordinary understand "who." That's how he was able to do those things.

Your point about mens rea is important and well-taken.

[mistermack]

I would just classify genuinely insane killers as innocent, but too dangerous to be free. They can't have the benefit of the doubt. The public has to have that.
And no way does this guy fit the bill of a genuinely insane killer. Unless he has a long history of insanity and didn't do all that planning that we heard of.

I just wonder why all the resistance to declaring him guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance of insanity? He clearly committed the murders, and the law should discount mens rea only insofar as the punishment for the crime is concerned. That's the distinction between first and second degree murder (deliberation) and manslaughter (reckless disregard), which is only a distinction in the DEGREE of of the offense. Guilty of murder while insane should just be another degree of the offense of unlawfully killing another human being and should go towards the sentence, not guilt or innocence.

A genuinely insane person is no more guilty than the man who kills in his sleep. They both actually did the action of taking a life, but had no control over their actions. I just wonder why the resistance to acknowledging that.
( so long as REAL steps are taken to ensure that it can't possibly happen again ).
Guilty has a meaning. A little child may shoot someone. They did it, but they are not guilty.
Guilt means responsibility. The genuinely insane are not responsible. But like all things, there are countless shades of grey. Not a line with responsible on one side and not responsible on the other.

That's why I say that nobody should ever get freed on the word of psychiatrists that they are safe and sane.

[Seth]

I would just classify genuinely insane killers as innocent, but too dangerous to be free. They can't have the benefit of the doubt. The public has to have that.
And no way does this guy fit the bill of a genuinely insane killer. Unless he has a long history of insanity and didn't do all that planning that we heard of.

I just wonder why all the resistance to declaring him guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance of insanity? He clearly committed the murders, and the law should discount mens rea only insofar as the punishment for the crime is concerned. That's the distinction between first and second degree murder (deliberation) and manslaughter (reckless disregard), which is only a distinction in the DEGREE of of the offense. Guilty of murder while insane should just be another degree of the offense of unlawfully killing another human being and should go towards the sentence, not guilt or innocence.

A genuinely insane person is no more guilty than the man who kills in his sleep. They both actually did the action of taking a life, but had no control over their actions. I just wonder why the resistance to acknowledging that.

Because the psychopath DOES have control over their actions. He did not go and kill people randomly because he was deep in a paranoid delusion that every person, dog, horse and car he saw was a monster trying to kill him, he specifically identified his enemy, carefully chose the venue to maximize his body count and reduce the chances of the police stopping him, selected a defenseless population comprised of his political enemies, and executed the plan with intent, knowledge, understanding and cunning. That his paranoid schizophrenia lead him to believe that his only recourse to protect society was to start a political war, as his manifesto states, does not mean that he did not have full control of his actions. He did. Full, complete control as demonstrated by his meticulous planning and execution of the killings.

That's a whole different thing than the person who runs around in a psychotic frenzy shooting at everything in sight out of a paranoid fear reaction he's being attack by boogey-men.

( so long as REAL steps are taken to ensure that it can't possibly happen again ).
Guilty has a meaning. A little child may shoot someone. They did it, but they are not guilty.
Guilt means responsibility. The genuinely insane are not responsible. But like all things, there are countless shades of grey. Not a line with responsible on one side and not responsible on the other.

That's why I say that nobody should ever get freed on the word of psychiatrists that they are safe and sane.

I disagree. Responsibility means responsibility, guilt means guilt, ie: you committed the act:

Guilt: the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law.

A little child would be guilty of shooting someone but not responsible under the law for that act. That does not mean he did not commit the act, merely that due to his age, he cannot be held criminally liable for it. The same should apply to insane persons; a judgment of "guilty but insane" should be entered in the record so that the person carries that judgment with them and society is put on notice that the person is capable of insane acts.

[Schneibster]

I would just classify genuinely insane killers as innocent, but too dangerous to be free. They can't have the benefit of the doubt. The public has to have that.
And no way does this guy fit the bill of a genuinely insane killer. Unless he has a long history of insanity and didn't do all that planning that we heard of.

I just wonder why all the resistance to declaring him guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance of insanity? He clearly committed the murders, and the law should discount mens rea only insofar as the punishment for the crime is concerned. That's the distinction between first and second degree murder (deliberation) and manslaughter (reckless disregard), which is only a distinction in the DEGREE of of the offense. Guilty of murder while insane should just be another degree of the offense of unlawfully killing another human being and should go towards the sentence, not guilt or innocence.

A genuinely insane person is no more guilty than the man who kills in his sleep. They both actually did the action of taking a life, but had no control over their actions. I just wonder why the resistance to acknowledging that.

Because the psychopath DOES have control over their actions.

You know nothing of psychopathy. You just contradicted every expert alive.

Psychopathy is precisely the prevention of controlling emotions, whether by disease or disability, from reaching the amygdala.

[Warren Dew]

You know nothing of psychopathy. You just contradicted every expert alive.

Psychopathy is precisely the prevention of controlling emotions, whether by disease or disability, from reaching the amygdala.

Emotions are not the only thing that can control actions.

[Schneibster]

You know nothing of psychopathy. You just contradicted every expert alive.

Psychopathy is precisely the prevention of controlling emotions, whether by disease or disability, from reaching the amygdala.

Emotions are not the only thing that can control actions.

We were talking about psychopathy.

Maybe you forgot.

[mistermack]

I disagree. Responsibility means responsibility, guilt means guilt, ie: you committed the act:

Guilt: the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law.

How can you get it so wrong, when it's spelled out for you?
Guilt does not mean you committed the act, it means you committed the offense .........etc.
There is a huge difference between the act and the offense.
Killing someone isn't an offense. Otherwise cops and soldiers would be constantly locked up.
If a cop shoots an armed suspect aiming a gun at him, you don't say he's guilty, but with mitigating circumstances, just because he carried out the act.
Guilty means far more than just being the person who carried out the act. It means being in the wrong.
Little children, sleepwalkers and completely insane people are not in the wrong. And are not guilty. That's the law.

If you are ever on a jury, do look up the word guilty, and try to understand it a bit better.