http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Foslobomben%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10016366
The Court Psychiatrists have determined that ABB is not criminally liable for the Utøya massacre and Oslo Bombing. (lawyers please correct my phrasing here if neccessary) The effect of this is that he will not be found guilty and he will not be sent to prison. He will be sent to a hospital for the criminally insane. Potentially to be released when the mental health service determines that he is no longer psychotic and no longer a danger to society.
The idea that he might be out after 3-5 years of treatment like the tram-killer (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fspesial.php%3Fid%3D912) which was a mentally disturbed somali man (slargos posted about him some time ago) that when refused treatment attacked a tram full of communters with a Rambo Knife killing one and injuring many, he was found mentally incapable and released within two years from a mental health institution. He demanded compensation due to him being initially denied treatment; makes me sick and will make the norwegian population sick.
It seems that if ABB takes his pills and tells the psychiatrists what they want to hear and behaves well norway will be faced with the possiblity that he might be let out after only a few years.
There seems to be some suggesting, however, that he might go to prison once he is "cured". I don't know how that might work, and would like to hear if anybody does.
Norwegian custom on topics like this suggest that a Lex-ABB or a special departmenal procedure-ABB (that violates his rights but nobody bothers to challenge) might be produced.
Even if her were found criminally liable, he'd only do 3-5 years anyway. This is Europe we're talking about.
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
Do the court psychiatrists decide? In the UK insanity is an issue for the court to decide, it's not handed over to particular medical professionals.
You guys must have a much different standard of criminally insane then we do.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
Which is why, in about 4 years, you'll be posting a minor news piece found on the 6th page about how he's being released back into society.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
Do the court psychiatrists decide? In the UK insanity is an issue for the court to decide, it's not handed over to particular medical professionals.
In Norway the Court appoints a panel of experts determines the issue. It is not left to the judge or the jury to have to decide which of the competing experts is correct. This is one of the things I like about Civil Law (as opposed to Common Law's take on the issue).
I sort of like America's approach where the guys who are legitimately insane and have killed a bunch of people go to a mental hospital but it's pretty much understood it's a "permanent move." Mainly because once moved in, the doctors have to sign off on his being released and in the vast majority of cases where you have a mass murderer doctors are going to be highly unlikely to ever say that the individual is no longer a threat to themselves or others. I think our civil tort system has made doctor's intrinsically more conservative (even though they wouldn't face malpractice claims or anything for releasing a person that was still a threat, I contend the cultural conservatism about diagnoses carries over into things like this.)
I have to say I'm shocked at that decision.
I've dealt with "criminally insane" cases and over here it's generally limited to the schizophrenics - people hearing and seeing things that don't actually exist. You can have a lot of sympathy for such people, even after they commit violent crimes.
But what exactly is ABB's "illness"? What is his diagnosis?
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 09:37:58 AM
I have to say I'm shocked at that decision.
I've dealt with "criminally insane" cases and over here it's generally limited to the schizophrenics - people hearing and seeing things that don't actually exist. You can have a lot of sympathy for such people, even after they commit violent crimes.
But what exactly is ABB's "illness"? What is his diagnosis?
Paranoid Schitzophrenia :contract:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2FDette-betyr-rettspsykiaternes-konklusjoner-6709621.html
QuoteWhat is criminally insane?
According to the Penal Code, a person who was psychotic, high-grade mentally retarded or unconscious in the deed does not punishable by imprisonment. A psychosis is a medical term for a mental condition in which the person has a different perception of reality. Hallucinations and delusions are common symptoms.
A defendant who is not criminally sane can be transferred to compulsory health care when the court considers it necessary to protect society. The goal is that medical treatment will make the person healthy, but they may end up spending the rest of his life in an institution.
What happens next in the matter now?
The forensic commission will now consider whether the circuit psychiatric report about Anders Breivik Behring standard. This is a clean professional quality viewing on the premises and the conclusion is tenable. It is very rare that the Commission disapproves of a report from the appointed professionals.
Commission vurrdering will still take several weeks. Then, the more specific planning of the trial start.
How does this conclusion the trial?
There will still be pursued extensive litigation against Behring Anders Breivik, and it will shed light on the actual events as thoroughly as if Breivik had been considered sane. The report primarily affects the question of sentencing.
The report from the right psychiatrists are basically advisory to the court, but it is rarely the right choose to ignore such a statement,
In practice this means that Breivik will be sentenced to compulsory psyskisk health care and transferred to the health care system.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 09:37:58 AM
I have to say I'm shocked at that decision.
I've dealt with "criminally insane" cases and over here it's generally limited to the schizophrenics - people hearing and seeing things that don't actually exist. You can have a lot of sympathy for such people, even after they commit violent crimes.
But what exactly is ABB's "illness"? What is his diagnosis?
Paranoid Schitzophrenia :contract:
Being a right winger is not a form of Schizophrenia. It's not something you can really hide well. If he really was Schizo then people who met him would have commented on it. Untreated schizophrenia is pretty easy to spot. You tend to toward incoherence and stereotyped speech patterns. Not to mention hallucinations and the like.
This decision strikes me as criminally insane.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adressa.no%2Fnyheter%2Fterrorangrepet%2Farticle1734893.ece
Basically he will be evaluated every 3 years to see if he is not a danger to society. Once he is no longer a danger and can be released ino the community there will be no more reason to keep him in psychitatric care. Yes, he can be out in three years. There will still be a trial to establish the facts.
QuoteIf Anders Breivik Behring would be healthy and no longer pose a danger to society, he can in theory be out in three years.
Today it was announced that the experts have concluded that the terrorist accused Anders Behring Breivik was criminally insane during the terrorist attacks. That means he can not be sentenced to imprisonment or detention, but most likely will be compulsory mental health care at a hospital.
If Breivik is healthy and no longer considered to pose a danger to society, he could escape.
- If he is not considered to be psychotic, but still pose a danger to society, then there is a possibility that he will be transferred to another department of the hospital. It is not a regulation that is widely used, but there is an opening. If he is not considered a danger to society, not the sentence could be longer, said District Attorney Inga Bejer Engh questions from journalists Simen Gran Creek in Adresseavisen.
It was during a press conference with prosecutors Holden Sven and Inga Bejer Engh that this was made known.
- Can apply for the release
- As a professional, I am not surprised at the conclusion of the experts right psychiatrists, says Tor Langenbach in Court Administration.
- What does it mean if Behring Breivik will be sentenced to compulsory psychiatric care?
- It means he is subject to compulsory psychiatric treatment. He can not be sentenced to imprisonment. In theory this means that he can get treatment for three years, and he is cured of it, he can be released. He may in fact after a certain period of compulsory psychiatric treatment covet their release. It will then be created a case where it is assessed if the person is healthy and there is a risk of recurrence. Is not it, let him free.
- What impact will the assessment of right psychiatrists get at the trial?
- It will be essential. There is a clear report that will never be set aside, says Langenbach.
The court has the opportunity to reject the report, but it is extremely rare, according to Langenbach.
Just Psychiatry Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim have found that Breivik was psychotic when he massacred children in Utøya and exploded a bomb in the government quarter. The experts also believe that he has developed the disorder paranoid schizophrenia for a long time. Breivik According to the report is not criminally accountable. If the court reaches the same so he can not be sentenced to ordinary imprisonment or detention.
Can be kept in a lifetime
According to the Penal Code (§ 44), a person who was psychotic, high-grade mentally retarded or unconscious in the deed does not punished.
The person to be discharged when the person is considered healthy, but they may end up not come back out in society.
- A sentence of compulsory mental health care must be extended every three years. The original sentence is applied. The Court will only decide whether the conditions are still met for involuntary psychiatric care, that the convicted person is still a danger to society. Transfer to mental health services should be maintained as long as is needed, says Bejer Engh in the press conference.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
Do the court psychiatrists decide? In the UK insanity is an issue for the court to decide, it's not handed over to particular medical professionals.
In Norway the Court appoints a panel of experts determines the issue. It is not left to the judge or the jury to have to decide which of the competing experts is correct. This is one of the things I like about Civil Law (as opposed to Common Law's take on the issue).
It is one thing to use independent court-appointed experts as opposed to duelling adversarial experts. That makes a certain amount of sense where technical knowledge is involved.
But it is another thing altogether for the Court to abdicate its functions completely, and delegate decisions on the final disposition of criminal matters to a panel of scientific experts.
:facepalm:
Way to prove some of his rants right Norway.
I am shocked that Norway fails completely.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2011, 10:19:34 AM
It is one thing to use independent court-appointed experts as opposed to duelling adversarial experts. That makes a certain amount of sense where technical knowledge is involved.
But it is another thing altogether for the Court to abdicate its functions completely, and delegate decisions on the final disposition of criminal matters to a panel of scientific experts.
The court can set aside the court appointed experts, but this is rarely done. This is not a case of the court setting aside it's functions completely but rather getting specialist knowledge on a specific topic. The tradition in norway is to follow these recommendations. The trial will continue and find fact, it will just not sentence, if it chooses to accept the report from the panel of Psychiatrists.
The Psychitatrists are not determinig the outcome of the case but rather determining a single specific fact relevant only for sentencing.
Is this the end result of social democracy, or are Scandinavians just special that way, in a special sort of way? It seems like unwillingness to respond with force to people attacking your society is kinda a flaw that is ultimately fatal.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 11:08:36 AM
Is this the end result of social democracy, or are Scandinavians just special that way, in a special sort of way? It seems like unwillingness to respond with force to people attacking your society is kinda a flaw that is ultimately fatal.
We'll get Sharia law soon enough.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 11:08:36 AM
Is this the end result of social democracy, or are Scandinavians just special that way, in a special sort of way? It seems like unwillingness to respond with force to people attacking your society is kinda a flaw that is ultimately fatal.
That might be the case.. but..
This is how norwegian courts find people innocent due to clinical insanity. The doctors that examined him diagnosed him as suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia and that he was suffering from the same at the time of the massacre.
If anything the political and social response has been to screw this guy over. There have been multiple cases of what might be called prosecutorial misconduct. I'd like to have BB's opinion of this
- the prosecution (which in norway is part of the police) applied for and got a longer period of incarceration (4 weeks rather than 2 weeks) than was permitted under norwegian law
- the prosecution got access illegally to ABBs files from child services and the content of these files were leaked
and in a less serious case
one of his lawyers who works part time for the norwegian tax authority applied for leave to participate in the trial was denied by her employer, this isn't strictlly illegal, but it looks fishy, she was one of the few who wasn't forced by the court to represent him.
The issue here is that there is outrage in society about the prospect of him getting out, ever. There is also great annoyance over the fact that if he is insane they cannot use him to advance the case against anti-multiculturalism and so called islamophobia. If ABB is insane you cannot accuse Fjordman or other "Islamophobes" of inciting indirectly to violence since they cannot be held accountable for what a madman they didn't know existed used them as an excuse to committ murder.
Don't worry, social democracy is standing up for itself, it's just getting very confused in the process.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
I talked to a friend of mine who works with people who work in the equivalent institution here i Trondheim that ABB will probably serve in Oslo and in addition to explaining to me the difference between Psychopathic (born evil) and Psychotic (evil because of brain chemistry) he explained how the system worked and he is very distressed by this. He is part of the multicultural left, though I've moved him away from the Israel is evil position he held before, and he told me that if his doctor deems it right for his treatment and his doctor doesn't consider him a danger to society he will be released, but, like any other Paranoid Schitzophrenic he will be under involuntary medical supervision the rest of his life. So, in a few years you might see ABB on short furloughs from hospital and in a few more years you might see him realeased into an open psychiatric care home and a few years later free with a duty to report regularly to a doctor.
The attitude in Norway seems to be that this is unjust. ABB needs to be punished. This isn't an attitude that Norwegian society has held before. Criminals are to be reformed and returned to society, not punished. In a sense multicultural-norway is experiencing exactlly the same emotions that ABB seems to have experienced in his youth when a gang of immigrants at his school beat him up regularly and escaped punishment.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
I talked to a friend of mine who works with people who work in the equivalent institution here i Trondheim that ABB will probably serve in Oslo and in addition to explaining to me the difference between Psychopathic (born evil) and Psychotic (evil because of brain chemistry) he explained how the system worked and he is very distressed by this. He is part of the multicultural left, though I've moved him away from the Israel is evil position he held before, and he told me that if his doctor deems it right for his treatment and his doctor doesn't consider him a danger to society he will be released, but, like any other Paranoid Schitzophrenic he will be under involuntary medical supervision the rest of his life. So, in a few years you might see ABB on short furloughs from hospital and in a few more years you might see him realeased into an open psychiatric care home and a few years later free with a duty to report regularly to a doctor.
The attitude in Norway seems to be that this is unjust. ABB needs to be punished. This isn't an attitude that Norwegian society has held before. Criminals are to be reformed and returned to society, not punished. In a sense multicultural-norway is experiencing exactlly the same emotions that ABB seems to have experienced in his youth when a gang of immigrants at his school beat him up regularly and escaped punishment.
I have no idea what Norway will do, but assuming he is actually insane, a reasonable position would be that while his condition may be controllable by drugs, his actions demonstrate that should he have a relapse (very possible as I understand it) the danger to the public is so great that he must be confined for life.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
Actually paranoid schizophrenia (or schizophrenia in general) is one of the
most treatable conditions. There is no cure of course, but it is very well controlled when the proper medicatinos are taken.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 11:08:36 AM
Is this the end result of social democracy, or are Scandinavians just special that way, in a special sort of way? It seems like unwillingness to respond with force to people attacking your society is kinda a flaw that is ultimately fatal.
That might be the case.. but..
This is how norwegian courts find people innocent due to clinical insanity. The doctors that examined him diagnosed him as suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia and that he was suffering from the same at the time of the massacre.
If anything the political and social response has been to screw this guy over. There have been multiple cases of what might be called prosecutorial misconduct. I'd like to have BB's opinion of this
- the prosecution (which in norway is part of the police) applied for and got a longer period of incarceration (4 weeks rather than 2 weeks) than was permitted under norwegian law
- the prosecution got access illegally to ABBs files from child services and the content of these files were leaked
and in a less serious case
one of his lawyers who works part time for the norwegian tax authority applied for leave to participate in the trial was denied by her employer, this isn't strictlly illegal, but it looks fishy, she was one of the few who wasn't forced by the court to represent him.
The issue here is that there is outrage in society about the prospect of him getting out, ever. There is also great annoyance over the fact that if he is insane they cannot use him to advance the case against anti-multiculturalism and so called islamophobia. If ABB is insane you cannot accuse Fjordman or other "Islamophobes" of inciting indirectly to violence since they cannot be held accountable for what a madman they didn't know existed used them as an excuse to committ murder.
Don't worry, social democracy is standing up for itself, it's just getting very confused in the process.
I can't really give any opinion. You throw out words like "illegally" and "Longer than permitted under Norwegian law", but often times things are not so black and white. I don't know norwegian law (now do I know norwegian, for that matter) so I can't really offer any comment.
Yes - if someone is truly not guilty because of mental defect, then morally there is no purpose, no point in punishing them for what they have done. You punish the guilty mind, and someone who is mentally ill lacks that guilty mind.
But still - the decision just seems very wrong to me. Under our system, it's not enough to merely be mentally ill. In fact our criminal dockets are full of the mentally ill. It is you have to have a mental defect to such an extent that you do not realize that what you are doing is wrong.
Nothing I've read about ABB would indicate that level of illness to me. He would seem to recognize that society considered his murders wrong, and that he knew he would be punished for it.
Scandinavia isn't like normal places. Here Communist homosexuals who hate normal people are running the show.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 03:44:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
Actually paranoid schizophrenia (or schizophrenia in general) is one of the most treatable conditions. There is no cure of course, but it is very well controlled when the proper medicatinos are taken.
Well, that's more or less what I said.
However, like all schizos, as a generality I understand they do not like taking their meds, and are subject to relapses. If the guy really did massacre because of his illness, can the system take that chance by releasing him where his disease is "controlled" but not "cured"?
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 05:02:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 03:44:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
Actually paranoid schizophrenia (or schizophrenia in general) is one of the most treatable conditions. There is no cure of course, but it is very well controlled when the proper medicatinos are taken.
Well, that's more or less what I said.
However, like all schizos, as a generality I understand they do not like taking their meds, and are subject to relapses. If the guy really did massacre because of his illness, can the system take that chance by releasing him where his disease is "controlled" but not "cured"?
It's not a switch. If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 05:09:39 PM
It's not a switch. If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.
Seems still kinda risky. Obviously if they want to go off their meds and are subject to supervision, they will have an incentive to skip town to avoid the supervision - while they are still 'normal'. Given that the disease does not impair intelligence necessarily, particularly when controlled, there is a chance for them to do this successfully.
If it is the case that the consequences of them going fully insane when the meds wear off are the potential for another mass murder, I can see the case for indefinite detention - thus precluding the scenario.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 05:09:39 PM
It's not a switch. If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.
Seems still kinda risky. Obviously if they want to go off their meds and are subject to supervision, they will have an incentive to skip town to avoid the supervision - while they are still 'normal'. Given that the disease does not impair intelligence necessarily, particularly when controlled, there is a chance for them to do this successfully.
If it is the case that the consequences of them going fully insane when the meds wear off are the potential for another mass murder, I can see the case for indefinite detention - thus precluding the scenario.
Except they don't go off their meds planning on going crazy - they go off their meds because they think they can handle it without them. Hence they're not going to skip town, because that would be admitting they need their meds in order to be normal in the first place.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.
I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.
If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.
To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.
I talked to a friend of mine who works with people who work in the equivalent institution here i Trondheim that ABB will probably serve in Oslo and in addition to explaining to me the difference between Psychopathic (born evil) and Psychotic (evil because of brain chemistry) he explained how the system worked and he is very distressed by this. He is part of the multicultural left, though I've moved him away from the Israel is evil position he held before, and he told me that if his doctor deems it right for his treatment and his doctor doesn't consider him a danger to society he will be released, but, like any other Paranoid Schitzophrenic he will be under involuntary medical supervision the rest of his life. So, in a few years you might see ABB on short furloughs from hospital and in a few more years you might see him realeased into an open psychiatric care home and a few years later free with a duty to report regularly to a doctor.
The attitude in Norway seems to be that this is unjust. ABB needs to be punished. This isn't an attitude that Norwegian society has held before. Criminals are to be reformed and returned to society, not punished. In a sense multicultural-norway is experiencing exactlly the same emotions that ABB seems to have experienced in his youth when a gang of immigrants at his school beat him up regularly and escaped punishment.
I'm guessing you aren't translating these phrases correctly in English. Psychopathy isn't really used much in English. There is nothing "Evil" about being psychotic. Psychotic is where you have hallucinations or your words thoughts are all confused. Generally they aren't more violent then the ordinary person.
Sociopathy is not considered an excuse for criminal behavior. In fact you'll find a very high percentage of sociopaths in jail. Psychosis often is. A Sociopath might kill someone because they want their money, a Psychotic might kill someone because it's the only way to prevent the PTA from spying on him.
Actually, what it this sounds like is making certain political beliefs a mental illness.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 05:09:39 PM
It's not a switch. If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.
Seems still kinda risky. Obviously if they want to go off their meds and are subject to supervision, they will have an incentive to skip town to avoid the supervision - while they are still 'normal'. Given that the disease does not impair intelligence necessarily, particularly when controlled, there is a chance for them to do this successfully.
If it is the case that the consequences of them going fully insane when the meds wear off are the potential for another mass murder, I can see the case for indefinite detention - thus precluding the scenario.
Except they don't go off their meds planning on going crazy - they go off their meds because they think they can handle it without them. Hence they're not going to skip town, because that would be admitting they need their meds in order to be normal in the first place.
I don't follow your logic.
Yes, they skip the meds because they think they don't need 'em (and they have distressing side-effects).
But having made that choice, and
knowing they would get in deep shit from their case worker if s/he finds out they are not taking their meds (and has ways of knowing this), why *wouldn't* they avoid the supervision if they could?
I sure as hell would, if someone was trying to *force* me to take some nasty meds *I know I don't need* and I wanted to avoid taking them.
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
This is why the M'Naghten rule is the best rule for criminal insanity.
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".
That's up to you law-talkers. Thems just the epidemiological facts.
My vision is a world without prisons as we know them. Death penalty for some, rehabilitation for others. (Guess where this guy lands.)
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".
My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.
Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though. What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend. We have statistical model that can already identify them. Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?
s. 718.1 covers the
fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 09:47:56 PM
My vision is a world without prisons as we know them. Death penalty for some, rehabilitation for others. (Guess where this guy lands.)
And if you can predict with near certainty who needs the death penalty, and who needs rehabilitation, you have superpowers far in advance of modern science.
And yet I remain unappreciated. It's tragic.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".
My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.
Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though. What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend. We have statistical model that can already identify them. Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?
s. 718.1 covers the fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.
We are talking about a totally different regime with different purposes - not sentencing a sane criminal, but deciding if a person who is insane (and thus not morally culpable) must be locked up, not as a punishment, but for the protection of society.
I can see a fundamental difference between saying "statistically, 20% of bank robbers re-offend" and "statistically, this insane person has a 20% chance of a relapse into insanity".
The difference is this: the criminal who re-offends makes a
concious choice to do so; each offence is an
entirely seperate crime, for which they are morally culpable. The criminal cannot be
punished in advance for a crime they have not committed.
With an insane person it is different, because insanity takes away the ability to make morally-binding choices. Assume that if the person has a relapse into insanity there is a good chance he will kill again. Again, his killing is would not be morally culpable. His freedom from coercive supervision is a value that has to be measured against public safety - but there is no element of "punishment" involved.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.
If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".
My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.
Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though. What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend. We have statistical model that can already identify them. Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?
s. 718.1 covers the fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.
We are talking about a totally different regime with different purposes - not sentencing a sane criminal, but deciding if a person who is insane (and thus not morally culpable) must be locked up, not as a punishment, but for the protection of society.
I can see a fundamental difference between saying "statistically, 20% of bank robbers re-offend" and "statistically, this insane person has a 20% chance of a relapse into insanity".
The difference is this: the criminal who re-offends makes a concious choice to do so; each offence is an entirely seperate crime, for which they are morally culpable. The criminal cannot be punished in advance for a crime they have not committed.
With an insane person it is different, because insanity takes away the ability to make morally-binding choices. Assume that if the person has a relapse into insanity there is a good chance he will kill again. Again, his killing is would not be morally culpable. His freedom from coercive supervision is a value that has to be measured against public safety - but there is no element of "punishment" involved.
In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public. Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill? Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 10:25:14 AM
In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public. Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill? Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?
Because the mentally ill lack agency. That's why they are not "guilty" when they commit what would otherwise be offences.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 10:25:14 AM
In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public. Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill? Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?
Because the mentally ill lack agency. That's why they are not "guilty" when they commit what would otherwise be offences.
So what? We're talking about situations where no offence has been committed yet.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 10:48:08 AM
So what? We're talking about situations where no offence has been committed yet.
Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).
In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 10:48:08 AM
So what? We're talking about situations where no offence has been committed yet.
Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).
In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.
Except there exists a class of people who apparently can not be deterred from committing further offences. When I see a guy in docket with a six page record and 100+ convictions, clearly specific deterrence is not working.
It seems to me you want to classify the criminally insane as 'not people', just by dressing it up with language of "laking agency". I can't agree to that.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:31:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 10:48:08 AM
So what? We're talking about situations where no offence has been committed yet.
Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).
In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.
Except there exists a class of people who apparently can not be deterred from committing further offences. When I see a guy in docket with a six page record and 100+ convictions, clearly specific deterrence is not working.
It seems to me you want to classify the criminally insane as 'not people', just by dressing it up with language of "laking agency". I can't agree to that.
Well, presumably people with such dockets draw longer and longer sentences? And if the offences in question were
murder (rather that doing drugs or shoplifting), they would in fact eventually be sentenced to indefinite detention under Canada's "dangerous offender" legislation, much like the insane, right? [You do remember we are talking about killing people - I assume you do not routinely have crooks on your docket who have "100+ convictions" for murder ... ]
I do not see that engaging in the balancing exercise I advocate is the same as declaring the criminally insane 'not people'. If you do, I suppose there is no more to be said.
BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. <_<
If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. <_<
So think how lucky you guys are that we're sharing our legal knowledge and experience with you for free! :yeah:
Quote from: KRonn on November 30, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?
Sound medical reasoning? Once he has his pills and takes them regularly, convinces his psychiatrist that he knows what he did was wrong and he'll get let out on supervised release or some sort of care in the community like any other psychotic schitzophrenic.
So in Canada and Norway is it rare for people to be in hospitals forever? My wife isn't in psychiatric but a lot of admissions stop in regular hospital psych wards en route to permanent beds at a State psychiatric hospital. She says that a large number of psychiatric patients in the State system have been continuously residential patients at State hospitals for over 10 years, with no real potential for ever being released.
Note that these aren't all criminal admissions, but about 50% of the system in Virginia is comprised of admissions who were sent into psychiatric facilities from the criminal court system. The reason it is so high is because apparently these types of people are very often never able to meet a medical board's definition of "safe from inflicting harm on self or others" and thus are permanent residents.
It's not exactly prison, though. I've been in the State hospitals, they generally have a lot of freedom of movement and access to a lot of amenities prisoners simply do not have. Even the lifers tend to go into town on supervised trips to stores and such, so it isn't really the same as being imprisoned for life.
There was a guy here who walked into a convenience store with a big knife and stabbed two teenagers to death basically because he was psychotic and having a true break from reality. He's been in a State hospital for 15+ years. Some years back it was very controversial that this guy was regularly being taken into town with minimal supervision to get ice cream from Dairy Queen and such, people were outraged. But the fact of the matter was he was not imprisoned so his movements were governed by what his caretakers felt he could be safely exposed to, so that guy may never be released from the hospital because of his mental illness but it's also not quite accurate to say he's imprisoned.
It's not a lot of fun, I can tell you that.
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. <_<
But at what cost?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2011, 12:51:03 PM
So in Canada and Norway is it rare for people to be in hospitals forever?
The practice so far has been to focus soley on the medical needs of the patient rather than public perception of justice. The vast majority are not the criminally insane but rather the normally insane. The goal of psychiatric health care has been tro try and integrate people requiring psychiatric care into society and keep them part of it - this is done for medical reasons, it results in happier and healthier patients.
Norwegian psychiatric doctors have consistently, when asked by the press, said that he might be released (partially or even completely), but that he will be in the psychiatric care system for the rest of his life. But, as a person on a norwegian forum discussing this said; "I wouldn't want to be the doctor signing the release papers".
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2FSprsml-og-svar-6710176.html
QuoteQuestions and answers
1 What do the experts' conclusion?
Anders Behring Brevik, according to the experts, not criminal tilregning because he is psychotic with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
2 How long has he been psychotic?
It does not psychiatrists on, beyond saying that it "has taken place over a longer period of time."
3 Why do the experts that he is psychotic?
He has several serious delusions and complete lack of empathy. He believes he is chosen to decide who shall live and die, that he may be the new head of Norway, and that he can be destroyed at any time.
4 What happens next?
The declaration shall be quality assured by the forensic commission. Usually it takes approx. one month, but this time it takes probably longer.
5 What kind of decisions can the forensic commission take?
It can make comments, ask for detailed answers or rejecting the report. Of the 500 mental health issues this year, the Commission has just rejected one report.
6 Can the court overrule the psychiatrists?
The court is free to consider the evidence, or ask for new experts. But in practice it happens almost never.
7 What does compulsory mental health care?
Patients with "severe mental disorder", usually psychotic, can be kept to a psychiatric institution subject to treatment. This may apply for life if the patient is not healthy or is deemed dangerous to the environment.
8 When he is transferred to a psychiatric institution?
It will be decided after the Commission has considered the statement from psychiatrists.
9 What kind of institution, he must be treated by?
Compulsory mental health care can only happen at an institution that has received special approval from the Health Directorate. For Behring Breivik's part is probably the security department at Dikemark.
10 If the court?
Yes. If he is sentenced to compulsory psychiatric care, he transferred to a security department of a hospital.
11 Are there any differences in such a court and an ordinary court?
In principle not.
12 Will Behring Breivik be allowed to give evidence at the trial?
Yes. He gets the same opportunity to comment on their actions
13 How often should his condition re-evaluated?
A verdict must be extended by the court every 3 years. When such extensions are added to the original verdict of reason. It is therefore not a new review of the case.
14 What does the court when the condition is evaluated again?
Then take the court only as to whether the conditions for compulsory mental health care are present. What matters is whether he still poses a danger to society.
15 Who will evaluate his condition?
Responsible physician determines Behring Breivik treatment, within a given confidence level. The doctor can not move the patient without the consent of the prosecuting authority.
16 What happens if the doctor and prosecutors disagree?
When the hospital's Control Commission headed by a judge to decide what security measures are adequate.
17 What happens if the doctors think is healthy?
He may still be trapped if the court believes he is a danger to the environment.
18 Will there be a new trial if he is declared healthy and not a danger to the environment?
No.
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:34:28 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 30, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?
Sound medical reasoning? Once he has his pills and takes them regularly, convinces his psychiatrist that he knows what he did was wrong and he'll get let out on supervised release or some sort of care in the community like any other psychotic schitzophrenic.
So far, the best medical evidence (from Zoups) is that there is always a considerable risk of relapse.
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. <_<
But at what cost?
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. <_<
But at what cost?
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
I'll have to wait until I'm 57 or so.
<_<
:shifty:
:yeah:
Quote3 Why do the experts that he is psychotic?
He has several serious delusions and complete lack of empathy. He believes he is chosen to decide who shall live and die, that he may be the new head of Norway, and that he can be destroyed at any time.
Now I appreciate it's a google translation, and of a summary, but again - completely shocked. A "lack of empathy" certainly does not make one NCRMD. Delusions might, but it depends on what kinds of delusions, and it doesn't sound as if ABB had those kinds of delusions.
Can't we all be destroyed at any time? That doesn't sound delusional.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2011, 12:51:03 PM
So in Canada and Norway is it rare for people to be in hospitals forever? My wife isn't in psychiatric but a lot of admissions stop in regular hospital psych wards en route to permanent beds at a State psychiatric hospital. She says that a large number of psychiatric patients in the State system have been continuously residential patients at State hospitals for over 10 years, with no real potential for ever being released.
Note that these aren't all criminal admissions, but about 50% of the system in Virginia is comprised of admissions who were sent into psychiatric facilities from the criminal court system. The reason it is so high is because apparently these types of people are very often never able to meet a medical board's definition of "safe from inflicting harm on self or others" and thus are permanent residents.
It's not exactly prison, though. I've been in the State hospitals, they generally have a lot of freedom of movement and access to a lot of amenities prisoners simply do not have. Even the lifers tend to go into town on supervised trips to stores and such, so it isn't really the same as being imprisoned for life.
You have to remember there's a weird overlap going on between the criminal justice and mental health systems. You may well have people that have been "released" from the criminal justice system, but are still being involuntarily detained under mental health legislation.
I don't know about rare, but most people who have been found NCRMD are given some degree of release. Now they generally aren't just turned loose - they may have to follow conditions, or live in supervised housing. But from my limited experience the Review Board does eventually authorize the release of people found to be NCRMD.
EVen the greyhound bus beheader will likely be fully released into the community one day.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 02:19:33 PM
Quote3 Why do the experts that he is psychotic?
He has several serious delusions and complete lack of empathy. He believes he is chosen to decide who shall live and die, that he may be the new head of Norway, and that he can be destroyed at any time.
Now I appreciate it's a google translation, and of a summary, but again - completely shocked. A "lack of empathy" certainly does not make one NCRMD. Delusions might, but it depends on what kinds of delusions, and it doesn't sound as if ABB had those kinds of delusions.
A better and manual translation.
Quote
He has among other symptoms serious delusions and a complete lack of empathy. He believes he is chosen to decide who gets to live and who dies, that he can be the leader of norway and that he can be exterminated at any time.
We all know that ABB isn't insane in any way that would have legal effects in any reasonable country.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 01:54:39 PM
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
But you have to become a lawyer and thus give up all that makes you human and be condemned to argue boring shit for all eternity.
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 01:54:39 PM
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
But you have to become a lawyer and thus give up all that makes you human and be condemned to argue boring shit for all eternity.
That's just a bonus. :cool:
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 01:54:39 PM
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
But you have to become a lawyer and thus give up all that makes you human and be condemned to argue boring shit for all eternity.
Sort of like being a Languishite. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
Sort of like being a Languishite. :D
I was about to say...at least they get paid for it. :blush:
Hey some languish threads don't get taken over by lawyers arguing boring shit. One can ignore the ones that do.
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 03:56:55 PM
Hey some languish threads don't get taken over by lawyers arguing boring shit. One can ignore the ones that do.
Your own fault for entering a thread that is about the result of a court case. :P
I thought about this post for 0.1 of an hour. The bill's in the mail.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 30, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 01:54:39 PM
Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.
You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at. ;)
But you have to become a lawyer and thus give up all that makes you human and be condemned to argue boring shit for all eternity.
Sort of like being a Languishite. :D
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2011, 03:45:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
Sort of like being a Languishite. :D
I was about to say...at least they get paid for it. :blush:
Not here we don't. Though I like your idea ... :shifty:
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 04:04:49 PM
Though I like your idea ... :shifty:
Pfft. Like you don't bill your clients for Languish time.
Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2011, 12:34:28 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 30, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?
Sound medical reasoning? Once he has his pills and takes them regularly, convinces his psychiatrist that he knows what he did was wrong and he'll get let out on supervised release or some sort of care in the community like any other psychotic schitzophrenic.
I'd think we'd have to go a long way to get to sound medical reasoning, given his track record.