
But the sideburns that go all the way from ear to ear scream 'guilty'.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 20:54,
archived)

I think we need to call in the referees.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:17,
archived)

whereas people who didn't technically murder but killed lots of people indiscriminately are called mass murderers?
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:15,
archived)

( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:17,
archived)

So if I decided to walk outside and kill the first person I saw it would be manslaughter. But if I decided specifically to kill you it would be murder.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:20,
archived)

( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:22,
archived)

( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:24,
archived)

Who has something shiny we can play with?
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:25,
archived)

although I suppose "specific" can be rather vague
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:27,
archived)

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
His actions were practically the definiton of malicious fore-thought.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:32,
archived)
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
His actions were practically the definiton of malicious fore-thought.


Is Buddha going to try and kill me? I'm so fucking tired of my gods trying to kill me.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:34,
archived)

( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:19,
archived)

i'm almost finding it a bit odd this is in a court given he's murdered over seventy people on a hate induced rampage, and not having his insanity discussed in a secure asylum by doctors and other medical staff
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:17,
archived)

Weird world we've created. I believe we're better off this way, as weird as it is. Lynch mobs are no fun.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:20,
archived)

This court case is basically to decide whether or not he is, legally, insane under Norwegian law. The first assessment said that yes, he was insane. The second assessment, a couple of weeks back, said no, he wasn't. So the trial has to decide first whether or not he'll be tried or whether he'll be locked in an asylum.
Yes, in most countries he'd be judged very quickly as being lucid enough to know what he did was "wrong" - he's admitted that himself, happily, in front of a judge. But Norwegian law doesn't work on those lines, though it almost certainly will as soon as the issue can be debated in parliament and changes made to the legislation. Norwegian law says you have to be judged medically insane, and simply being a psychopath is not judged as being medically insane for whatever stupid reason. (The first assessment judged him to have paranoid schizophrenia, along with numerous other pyschoses.)
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:22,
archived)
Yes, in most countries he'd be judged very quickly as being lucid enough to know what he did was "wrong" - he's admitted that himself, happily, in front of a judge. But Norwegian law doesn't work on those lines, though it almost certainly will as soon as the issue can be debated in parliament and changes made to the legislation. Norwegian law says you have to be judged medically insane, and simply being a psychopath is not judged as being medically insane for whatever stupid reason. (The first assessment judged him to have paranoid schizophrenia, along with numerous other pyschoses.)

Paranoid schizophrenia involves, well, paranoia... voices and messed up emotions and shit. Psychopaths are much more rational.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:39,
archived)

Since being judged a paranoid schizophrenic was enough to get him declared insane, while being judged a psychopath wasn't...
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:55,
archived)

Most psychopaths don't go on rampages.
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:59,
archived)

I'm certainly not trying to argue with you about this :)
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 22:19,
archived)

he's already been declared sane though hasn't he before he could stand trial in a criminal court
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:24,
archived)

then was declared sane in a separate assessment. i don't know what would've happened if he'd been declared insane the second time, but i imagine it would have gone to court anyway, so they could lock him away legally. but i'm not sure - i'm not norwegian, i just live here...
( ,
Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:57,
archived)