Breivik has won a case against Norway.

Drew_TNBD

http://www.tv2.no/a/8241631

This is a possible interpretation of the psychological evaluations from the 1980s of the boy who grew up to become a mass murderer.

In 1983 and 1984, some of Norway's top specialist child psychologists wanted to forcibly remove Anders Behring Breivik from his mother's care.

A psychologist at the National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Statens Senter for Barne- og Ungdomspsykiatri (the SSBU), Norway's leading body for child and adolescent psychiatry, who in the 1980s observed the interaction between Anders and his mother, was queried by police in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 22 July 2011.

The psychologist fiercely criticised the Barnevernet, Norway's state Child Welfare Service, for stopping the care order.

Anders, then, was defined by his mother as nasty even before he was born. As quoted in the reports from the 1980s, the mother described the fetus as a "a difficult, fidgety child that kicked her, almost consciously".

A psychological evaluation from 1983 states:

"In her experience, Anders is fundamentally nasty and evil and determined to destroy her," and "she sees herself as a victim of a paranoid system".

His mother eventually gave up breastfeeding Anders, because he was "sucking the life out of her".

"The mother deems him to be clingy and demanding. 'I have do to something with him all the time. I just feel like peeling him off of me.' Since they began living on their own, Anders has slept in his mother's bed at night, with close bodily contact. The mother has made scarce and futile attempts to put a stop to this; she may not want to. During their stay at the SSBU, she has however been able to remove Anders's nursing bottle, which is usually filled with red juice. Up until recently he was using the bottle continuously at home, but was able to do without when away," one report states.

The application for respite care was granted; Anders was placed with a young couple. After a short period however, the mother cancelled the arrangement. The foster parents told police during the investigation after the terrorist attacks, that the mother, when bringing two year old Anders to the house, had asked that he be allowed to touch the man's penis, because he had no one to compare himself to in terms of appearance. 'All he ever saw were girls' parts,' she said.

A 1983 report states:

"Anders is a victim of his mother's projections of paranoid-aggressive and sexual fears toward men in general", and "she projects onto him her own primitive, aggressive and sexual fantasies; all the qualities in men that she regards as dangerous and aggressive."

....

Aye.... fucked up home-life and parenting creates monsters.

Sambostar

This is true. 

Another angle is that both Breivik and Martin Bryant were both blonde and suddenly started to lose their hair quite rapidly shortly before committing the atrocities.  This may well have been the final catalyst in the sealing the course of the events which unfolded.

Snap

fretmeister said:

UnclePsychosis;1044942" said:

Norway has one of the best rates of recidivism in the entire world. I'm fairly happy to trust that they know what they are doing.

This. Lowest reoffending rate in the world, lowest prison suicides, very hi rehabilitation & education of offenders.

And the law is applied equally to all. As it should be.

We should be copying them.

The scandi countries IMO are by far the most socially developed in the world. Take any social or health measure and they are all way up there. I think (seriously) it has a lot to do with their climate. Because it is so fecking cold and bleak up there, a lot of the year, they have a very large focus on quality of life, family, and society.

maximum sentence of 21 years too. So he will be out.

BigBearKris

Snap;1053932" said:

fretmeister said:

UnclePsychosis;1044942" said:Norway has one of the best rates of recidivism in the entire world. I'm fairly happy to trust that they know what they are doing.

This. Lowest reoffending rate in the world, lowest prison suicides, very hi rehabilitation & education of offenders.



And the law is applied equally to all. As it should be.



We should be copying them.





The scandi countries IMO are by far the most socially developed in the world. Take any social or health measure and they are all way up there. I think (seriously) it has a lot to do with their climate. Because it is so fecking cold and bleak up there, a lot of the year, they have a very large focus on quality of life, family, and society.



maximum sentence of 21 years too. So he will be out.

He won't, as after served sentence the court can prolong it, so don't think they'll ever release him.

And to be honest - it's a great thing to believe in rehabilitation but that fella should NEVER be released. IMHO of course.

chillidoggy

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

UnclePsychosis;1044942" said:

Norway has one of the best rates of recidivism in the entire world. I'm fairly happy to trust that they know what they are doing.

This. Lowest reoffending rate in the world, lowest prison suicides, very hi rehabilitation & education of offenders.

And the law is applied equally to all. As it should be.

We should be copying them.

The scandi countries IMO are by far the most socially developed in the world. Take any social or health measure and they are all way up there. I think (seriously) it has a lot to do with their climate. Because it is so fecking cold and bleak up there, a lot of the year, they have a very large focus on quality of life, family, and society.

maximum sentence of 21 years too. So he will be out.

And if so, hopefully someone will gun him down him as he walks out of the prison.

Drew_TNBD

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

UnclePsychosis;1044942" said:

Norway has one of the best rates of recidivism in the entire world. I'm fairly happy to trust that they know what they are doing.

This. Lowest reoffending rate in the world, lowest prison suicides, very hi rehabilitation & education of offenders.

And the law is applied equally to all. As it should be.

We should be copying them.

The scandi countries IMO are by far the most socially developed in the world. Take any social or health measure and they are all way up there. I think (seriously) it has a lot to do with their climate. Because it is so fecking cold and bleak up there, a lot of the year, they have a very large focus on quality of life, family, and society.

maximum sentence of 21 years too. So he will be out.

This really is a myth. Go and look at the link I posted and you'll see that certainly their child support services are not up to scratch for a socially developed and socially conscious country in the 21st century.

I understand the bloodlust, I do. But it really doesn't help our sense of ethics or collective morality. This guy went through some shit, some pretty severe shit, it's no surprise he's as fucked up as he is. Doesn't change what he did, and doesn't make it right. But understanding things rather than just resorting to base urges is what marks us out (or should at least!) from your typical shithole of a country.

Myranda

It saddens me that people are up-in-arms against having rights...

Human rights MUST be universal and absolute - otherwise Brevik and his ilk get his way. He wants lines to be drawn on the basis of colour and religion ... he wants there to be no human rights for everyone non-white and/or non-Muslim. So surely the very best punishment for him is to live the rest of his life knowing that he will never have an impact on human rights, more, that even his horrific crimes cannot force an exception in those rights.

To reduce rights for anyone harms the integrity of the human rights act... no person should be exempt, no person should have reason to make exemptions... you set the precedent of granting exceptions to human rights, then what's to stop someone adding more exceptions? No rights for criminals... becomes no rights for suspected criminals - then anyone accused of a crime loses all rights... how about no rights for anyone who disagrees with the current government? No rights for people doing "immoral" things - who gets to decide morality? There are people who think a beer is immoral, shall we remove all human rights for anyone who ever drank a beer?

By making the Human Rights of ALL humans inviolate and immutable then we're all protected from whatever whims an immoral ruling body might want to do. And because of that, waking up a prisoner every hour so he can't sleep... locking him in isolation forever... must be wrong, and if it's wrong, then right the wrong. We want to say we're better than Brevik, that we're the goodies and he's the baddie ... well, that means treating him with the respect he didn't treat others with - because we're the goodies not in spite of it.

Drew_TNBD

Myranda said:

It saddens me that people are up-in-arms against having rights...

Human rights MUST be universal and absolute - otherwise Brevik and his ilk get his way. He wants lines to be drawn on the basis of colour and religion ... he wants there to be no human rights for everyone non-white and/or non-Muslim. So surely the very best punishment for him is to live the rest of his life knowing that he will never have an impact on human rights, more, that even his horrific crimes cannot force an exception in those rights.

To reduce rights for anyone harms the integrity of the human rights act... no person should be exempt, no person should have reason to make exemptions... you set the precedent of granting exceptions to human rights, then what's to stop someone adding more exceptions? No rights for criminals... becomes no rights for suspected criminals - then anyone accused of a crime loses all rights... how about no rights for anyone who disagrees with the current government? No rights for people doing "immoral" things - who gets to decide morality? There are people who think a beer is immoral, shall we remove all human rights for anyone who ever drank a beer?

By making the Human Rights of ALL humans inviolate and immutable then we're all protected from whatever whims an immoral ruling body might want to do. And because of that, waking up a prisoner every hour so he can't sleep... locking him in isolation forever... must be wrong, and if it's wrong, then right the wrong. We want to say we're better than Brevik, that we're the goodies and he's the baddie ... well, that means treating him with the respect he didn't treat others with - because we're the goodies not in spite of it.

Hear fuckin' hear!!


=D>

lloyd

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

UnclePsychosis;1044942" said:

Norway has one of the best rates of recidivism in the entire world. I'm fairly happy to trust that they know what they are doing.

This. Lowest reoffending rate in the world, lowest prison suicides, very hi rehabilitation & education of offenders.

And the law is applied equally to all. As it should be.

We should be copying them.

The scandi countries IMO are by far the most socially developed in the world. Take any social or health measure and they are all way up there. I think (seriously) it has a lot to do with their climate. Because it is so fecking cold and bleak up there, a lot of the year, they have a very large focus on quality of life, family, and society.

maximum sentence of 21 years too. So he will be out.

They won't let this mentalist out, there's processes in place that allow extreme cases to be held indefinitely-like we have over here. Including sexual murders, ones involving kids, police and mass killings.

He'll likely die in prison.

Snap

he is mental, that's for sure.

lloyd

Snap said:

he is mental, that's for sure.

I'm no psychiatrist but I'm happy to diagnose from afar, he definitely needs medical attention rather than being thrown in a cell for the rest of his life.

PolarityMan

lloyd said:

Snap said:

he is mental, that's for sure.

he definitely needs medical attention rather than being thrown in a cell for the rest of his life.

Again I'm playing devil's advocate here but why?

If he is never going to be released anyway then what is the point of attempting to rehabilitate him. I'm not criticising necessarily but that particular phrase is trotted out almost automatically and I think it grossly over simplifies some situations and at worst can be used as a way to absolve responsibility so I don't like it when people use it as a throw away comment.

lloyd

PolarityMan said:

lloyd said:

Snap said:

he is mental, that's for sure.

he definitely needs medical attention rather than being thrown in a cell for the rest of his life.

Again I'm playing devil's advocate here but why?

If he is never going to be released anyway then what is the point of attempting to rehabilitate him. I'm not criticising necessarily but that particular phrase is trotted out almost automatically and I think it grossly over simplifies some situations and at worst can be used as a way to absolve responsibility so I don't like it when people use it as a throw away comment.

He's a human being and therefore is deserving of living a life that is free from ailments if it's possible to treat them.

It's not about rehabilitation in this sense it's about treating a medical condition. It could well open his eyes up to the enormity of the crimes he's committed even if it took 20 years, I'd like to think of him realising what he'd done and spending time thinking about it.

Would you treat a prisoners broken leg, dental pain or stab wound? 

Regardless of what they've done we as a society will treat those that have a medical need.

At the very least it will make him easier to deal with for those that are tasked with detaining him.

If you're in the kill the fucker camp then it makes no sense I guess. Perhaps it would be best all round to just kill people like this as they're essentially worthless to society and have ruined many peoples lives. I'd want him dead if he killed a family member of mine to be honest, but only after a period in jail.

PolarityMan

I'm definitely not in the kill them and be done with camp, and I'm all for treating him humanely but psychiatric care is expensive, ongoing and has a poor testability for success, unlike a physical injury. So in a world of finite resources I wonder if these might be better spent on prisoners who actually stand a chance at rejoining the general public. 

It is a fair point about making him easier to deal with though. 

Drew_TNBD

I'd pump him full of LSD and make him face the pure horror of what he's gone through and what he's done.

lloyd

PolarityMan said:

I'm definitely not in the kill them and be done with camp, and I'm all for treating him humanely but psychiatric care is expensive, ongoing and has a poor testability for success, unlike a physical injury. So in a world of finite resources I wonder if these might be better spent on prisoners who actually stand a chance at rejoining the general public. 

It is a fair point about making him easier to deal with though. 

I take your points, I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole thing.

Part of me says put a bullet in people like these-rapists, child killers, peado's etc

Part of me says lock them up in a cell for the rest of their lives.

Part of me says give them psychiatric help.

I don't know the answer and wouldn't want to be in a position to make the call either.

I think that as a humane society everybody, whether they're locked up or not for whatever reason should get the same medical care, extending to psychiatric conditions, regardless of the cost. 

If an independent psychiatrist thinks someone needs it, then they should get it, I suppose that is the benchmark. I think otherwise it becomes a cruel and unusual punishment akin to torture-some would say that he's deserving of that.

PolarityMan

lloyd said:

If an independent psychiatrist thinks someone needs it, then they should get it, I suppose that is the benchmark. I think otherwise it becomes a cruel and unusual punishment akin to torture-some would say that he's deserving of that.

Psychiatric care is such a tricky one. I'm going off on a wild tangent here and not related directly to Breivik but imagine someone where the nature of their disorder makes them happier.

Lets say for example who is utterly delusional but they are content and happy living in a world that only exists in their own head.

The clearly have a disorder and "need" psychiatric help but is it necessarily the best thing for them to treat them? 

I also really think that this kind of care only stands any chance of success with a wiling participant who actively wants to get better. Given what I've heard about Breivik I suspect he is intensely narcissistic and would not fall into this category.

lloyd

PolarityMan said:

lloyd said:

If an independent psychiatrist thinks someone needs it, then they should get it, I suppose that is the benchmark. I think otherwise it becomes a cruel and unusual punishment akin to torture-some would say that he's deserving of that.

Psychiatric care is such a tricky one. I'm going off on a wild tangent here and not related directly to Breivik but imagine someone where the nature of their disorder makes them happier.

Lets say for example who is utterly delusional but they are content and happy living in a world that only exists in their own head.

The clearly have a disorder and "need" psychiatric help but is it necessarily the best thing for them to treat them? 

I also really think that this kind of care only stands any chance of success with a wiling participant who actively wants to get better. Given what I've heard about Breivik I suspect he is intensely narcissistic and would not fall into this category.

You mean people that actually believe in God don't you

BigBearKris

I'm not entirely sold on this whole "he needs help" approach. He knows what he did. He planned it - and planned it well - first, the bombing, then the Utoya massacre. He's proud of what he's done and wrote a few-hundred pages manifest to back it up. He sits there and laughs, nazi-salutes in the court in front of cameras, which he's well aware of, winning case against the country who treats him almost like he's the victim here.
He'd have a right amusement reading that thread too I think.
I do have love for people and I help the less fortunate ones as a part of my profession but he rejected the right to be helped with his actions.

Myranda

lloyd said:

PolarityMan said:

I'm definitely not in the kill them and be done with camp, and I'm all for treating him humanely but psychiatric care is expensive, ongoing and has a poor testability for success, unlike a physical injury. So in a world of finite resources I wonder if these might be better spent on prisoners who actually stand a chance at rejoining the general public. 

It is a fair point about making him easier to deal with though. 

I take your points, I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole thing.

Part of me says put a bullet in people like these-rapists, child killers, peado's etc

Part of me says lock them up in a cell for the rest of their lives.

Part of me says give them psychiatric help.

I don't know the answer and wouldn't want to be in a position to make the call either.

I think that as a humane society everybody, whether they're locked up or not for whatever reason should get the same medical care, extending to psychiatric conditions, regardless of the cost. 

If an independent psychiatrist thinks someone needs it, then they should get it, I suppose that is the benchmark. I think otherwise it becomes a cruel and unusual punishment akin to torture-some would say that he's deserving of that.

There's a reason we don't put some of these in prison for ever, let alone kill them... If they know that they will go to prison forever or die they might as well kill any witnesses (i.e. the victims)... thus increasing the risk.