Anders Breivik, the man accused of murdering 77 people in Norway, testified yesterday before a five-judge panel which will decide whether he’s guilty and whether he’s insane. There’s more than enough evidence for the guilt; he’s admitted to the attack. But Breivik’s performance in court yesterday should remove any shred of doubt that he was sane and fully aware when he allegedly carried out the massacre.
And it really was a performance. Walking into the court, the accused killer gave a Nazi-like fist pump. He told prosecutors his one regret was that he attacked a youth camp instead of a journalism conference nearby. And he showed zero remorse for the massacre, calling it “spectacular” during a drawn-out explanation of his motivations:
Norwegian gunman Anders Behring Breivik defended his massacre of 77 people, insisting today he would do it all again and calling his rampage the most “spectacular” attack by a nationalist militant since World War II.
Reading a prepared statement in court, the anti-Muslim extremist lashed out at Norwegian and European governments for embracing immigration and multiculturalism. …
Breivik has five days to explain why he set off a bomb in Oslo’s government district on July 22, killing eight people, and then gunned down 69 others at a Labor Party youth camp outside the Norwegian capital. He denies criminal guilt, saying he was acting in self-defense, and claims the targets were part of a conspiracy to “deconstruct” Norway’s cultural identity.
“The attacks on July 22 were a preventive strike. I acted in self-defense on behalf of my people, my city, my country,” he said as he finished his statement, in essence a summary of the 1,500-page manifesto he posted online before the attacks. “I therefore demand to be found innocent of the present charges.” …
According to Breivik, Western Europe was gradually taken over by “Marxists and multiculturalists” after World War II because it didn’t have “anti-communist” leaders like U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy. The senator dominated the early 1950s with his sensational but unproven charges of Communist subversion in high government circles in the U.S.
This isn’t the argument of an insane person; it’s the argument of a twisted and ugly ideologue. Breivik’s beliefs are certainly delusional, but his actual argument follows the thought-pattern of someone who is sane and lucid. He is clearly aware of the gravity of the massacre and discusses specific ways he would alter his plan if he had a chance to do it again. He offers a motivation for the attack and lays out his case for self-defense. They are appalling, to be sure. But those who argue he’s insane are denying the real evil that appears to have driven him.
Moreover, the panel of judges sat through Breivik’s extended rant, in essence giving him a prominent international media platform to spout his extremism. When victims’ families asked why the court was allowing this, Breivik threatened to stop speaking at all if his diatribes were curtailed:
Mette Yvonne Larsen, a lawyer representing victims’ families, also interrupted Breivik, saying she was getting complaints from victims who were concerned that the defendant was turning the trial into a platform to profess his extremist views. Her remarks prompted the judge to again urge Breivik to wrap it up.
Breivik replied if he wasn’t allowed to continue he might not speak at all.
Breivik has admitted to massacring 77 people – including teenagers – and seems proud of it. For that, he faces a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison and was given a courtroom platform to espouse his noxious political beliefs at length. Plenty has already been said about the disgraceful leniency of the Norwegian legal system as it applies to this case, but seeing photos of Breivik strolling into the courtroom with a smile on his face and a fist bump really emphasizes the injustice of it all.
So when they release him in 21 years, he kills another 70 people ?
I really would love to hear any opponent of the death penalty argue against it in this case. Please. Just one person give it your best short.
It's too expensive. n nHe should be locked away for good (not just for 21 years). And he must not become a martyr. n nI am against punishment as such. The reason I want violent criminals locked up is not to punish them but to protect society from them. Best case scenario is the terrorist being shot before his crime. But a death penalty after the crime only serves the criminal.
Not a good argument. The ONLY thing that makes it expensive in the US is absurd legal challenges by opponents of the death penalty. But it is actually very cheap to hang a beast like Breivik. n nBut even if it was expensive, the question is whether it is just. Our entire legal system is too expensive, so your argument proves too much. Nothing could be more just than executing a monster like Breivik. n n
Sad think is that he likely would be locked up longer were they to declare him insane. nWhich, incidentally, may be exactly what the judges are trying to help along.
I'm so incredibly sick of this. Let me enlighten you on the Norwegian legal system. The maximum prison term is, indeed, 21 years, but you can be sentenced to "detainment" for five years at a time if you pose a specific threat to national security, which, in effect, means that Breivik can (and he most certainly will) stay in prison forever. Please stop writing about things you know nothing about. n nI was actually at the courtroom today as a citizen, and saw what you describe. What you fail to mention is that the prosecution team argued in favor of Breivik reading his prepared statement. This is the most clueless piece I've read on this topic.
This convinces me of everything I suspected about Norwegian law and wanted to say in the last post but didn't. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr Moe, but it appears that one can commit the absolute most horrendous crime imaginable — and shooting children at a beach comes just about as close to that as one can imagine — and only get 21 years in jail. n nBut one who is a "threat to national security" — essentially anyone whom the government doesn't like — can be sentenced to almost a third of that. Repeatedly. n nI have four Latin words for you: "Non Crimen sen Legie" — not spelled correctly, but they translate to "No Crime Without (a) Law": — if it ain't defined as a crime when you do it, you can't go to jail for doing it. Google "ex post facto law" and "bills of attainer" — both explicitly prohibited under our Constitution — and for good reason, as is the "corruption of blood." n nEver since Hamarrabi, the people (of a free country) have had the right to know what conduct is prohibited and what the sanction was for it. Albeit almost everything was death under Hamarrabi's code, but it was a written and posted one. There wasn't the catch-all of "if the government wants you in jail" stuff that you cite here. n nAnd while you are technically right that Ms. Goodman didn't *explicitly* state that the prosecution requested the perp be allowed to read his rant, she did at least strongly imply it — at least to one familiar with American trials where the prosecution would be screaming bloody murder about this and their mere silence would be construed (by Americans familiar with American courts) as the prosecution supporting the introduction of the testimony. n nI think that this line is particularly relevant: "When victims’ families asked why the court was allowing this, Breivik threatened to stop speaking at all if his diatribes were curtailed." n
In a horrible, perverse way, he has demonstrated that Norway is, indeed, afflicted by the moral weakness and cultural cowardice that he accuses it of. He has mercilessly murdered their children and dares them to do something about it. Instead of promptly hanging him, they listen to his diatribe and give him 21 years…with TV.
We have had similar trials — remember the Long Island Railroad shooter who exercised his right to represent himself and was cross-examining his victims? n nAnd then there is "Helter Skelter" — Charles Manson. His trial was pre-TV coverage of courts but was enough of a circus anyway. Imagine what that would be like today, between the tabloids interviewing the quite-attractive "daughters" of his sick "family" and his antics in the courtroom — just imagine…. n
At the end of the day, what happens to Breivik is a lot less important than what happens to Norwegian society and politics as a result of what he did. Killing him would mean abandoning rule of law (seeing as there's no death penalty in Norway) — which is unacceptable, even if he "dares us" to do it.
Wonder if ol' Anders would be wearing that look of smug defiance if he were being tried in, say, Saudi Arabia?