Anders Breivik's lack of "mens rea"

[presence]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17733869

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[SUP][1][/SUP] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the NECESSARY elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

When you read through the BBC article above and you take into account what you know of Anders: You really are left asking yourself, what do you do with this man? He has killed 77 people and he, quite apparently, "closed fist salute", genuinely believes he is both sane and has committed this act to defend his country.

Agree with him or not, that stare is undeniably the unapologetic, cold hardened look of a combatant warrior-class patriot.

"In his opinion, these acts have been legitimate and lawful and there's undoubtedly an obvious and evident fear that a new series of offences of the same nature will occur."

'Self-defence' Following the indictment, Judge Arntzen asked Breivik: "Do you plead guilty completely or in part to these charges?"

The defendant replied: "I acknowledge the acts, but not criminal guilt - I claim I was doing it in self-defence."

The barbaric nature of the murders aside... this man believes he is a patriot that has acted to defend his nation from "multiculturalism" and "radical Islam"

His MIND is NOT guilty.


This presents a very intriguing paradoxical legal quagmire.


He didn't get "mad" and go out a shoot a bunch of people. He acted very level headedly and did what he believed was "right" to defend himself / his country.

I'm not saying I support him or his acts... I'm just saying its a very interesting paradigm to wrap your mind around.

He's in no way guilty in his own mind; he's not schizophrenic, in his world; which is a plausible alternative "fremdenhass" perspective on reality; his nation is under attack and he's just been captured by regime in power (which he believes to be building a xenodochium for evil multiculturalists) while attempting to defend it.

Perhaps he needs to be held as a Norwegian POW and tried for war crimes?

???

------------------------------
Edit to add:

Interesting... I came up with that last idea on my own, then I did a google search: "norway military court"

And I found the headline:
Norway Killer prefers Military Tribunal than Criminal Court.

The man accused of last year’s Norway terror attacks will tell his trial he believes he should be facing a military tribunal not a criminal court.

I understand the hesitation to give into the desires of someone that has killed 77 people... but do you think a military tribunal for war crimes is the appropriate action for Anders given his apparent lack of "mens rea" or "insanity".

I certainly could see this perspective resolving the paradox.

presence

 

[mczerone]

He had intent to carry out the act. That satisfies the criminal mens rea requirement, whether or not he thought the act was "bad".

 

[presence]

He had intent to carry out the act. That satisfies the criminal mens rea requirement, whether or not he thought the act was "bad".

But does it? If his "INTENT" was to defend his people/nation?

If I intend to kill someone because I believe they are posing an immediate threat to my family... that does not qualify as "mens rea"; the intent of my mind was not to act with "guilty malicious intent" but instead with "defensive intent".

What the actor believes the act to be is quite important to the element of "mens rea". This is why if you beat somebody up who is hurting your family member you are generally innocent, but if you beat somebody up who hurt your family member yesterday... you are generally guilty. Its the same act; one is with malicious intent, the other with defensive intent. Its all in ones mental perspective of "what is" the act; revenge or defense.

I can see Anders more as an "enemy combatant" guilty of war crimes / "terrorism"... than a criminal guilty of murder. In his mind, Anders was at war on that island; he had a mission (however misguided) to defend his people.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve life in prison or to be hung... he is a threat to society (as we generally accept it). But I do think a fair trial needs to take into account his mental perspective, which I don't think is one of criminality any moreso than insanity.

He believed, and continues to believe he is and acted as a "combatant". That is his state of mind. Not malicous, not insane; simply combatant. A combatant killing spree is very different from a malicous killing spree and it makes much sense of the quagmarical paradox which the psychologists first painted as an "insane" killing spree.


presence

 

[presence]

"I have carried out the most spectacular and sophisticated attack on Europe since World War II," Anders Behring Breivik told the court.
[]
"These acts are based on goodness, not evil," he said
[]
As he closed his statement, pressed by the judge, Breivik said that he acted to defend Norway against immigration and multi-culturalism.
[]
his attacks were "cruel but necessary... to save Europe from an ongoing war".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17737085

This is the same mentality a US soldier must take on when heading off to war.

He's appears a lone-wolf combatant enemy of the ruling state, far moreso than criminally guilty of malice and definitely moreso than acting without sanity.

presence

 

[pcosmar]

But does it? If his "INTENT" was to defend his people/nation?

Nope. I believe it crosses the line, and is therefor a crime. And I have little doubt that he deliberately planned and carried out an attack.

Why he did that,, is not really relevant.
He violated (thou shall not do murder) the rights of others. He went on the offense and did so against unarmed and otherwise innocent targets. Deliberately.
He did not attack armed enemies or a direct threat. This was not defense.

Regardless of his motivations, or his beliefs.. It was wrong. (crime)

 

[No Free Beer]

The dude killed 77 innocent people.

He should be the 78th.

 

[No Free Beer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17737085

This is the same mentality a US soldier must take on when heading off to war.

He's appears a lone-wolf combatant enemy of the ruling state, far moreso than criminally guilty of malice and definitely moreso than acting without sanity.

presence

So, if I think my neighbor is infringing on my rights (although he is not), I can kill him because I think it's justified?

With all due respect, don't be a fucking idiot, presence.

 

[Demigod]

The dude killed 77 innocent people.

He should be the 78th.

He can only get 21 years of prison under their legal system.Unless they put the shooting and bomb victims apart and then get him convicted on 2 accounts for 42 years of prison.

Although what he did was completely discussing and sick when you read what he had gone trough life you can see how easy anyone could have fallen into his shoes.

 

[tod evans]

I can understand the theory, and see the necessity for mens-rea in a criminal prosecution.

But.............Just because I can justify in my own head annihilating groups of people doesn't mean I get to walk away.

There really is a time when the lawyers need to be shipped off and the farmers called in to dispense justice.

 

[roderik]

He can only get 21 years of prison under their legal system.Unless they put the shooting and bomb victims apart and then get him convicted on 2 accounts for 42 years of prison.

Although what he did was completely discussing and sick when you read what he had gone trough life you can see how easy anyone could have fallen into his shoes.

Many humans had childhoods a thousand times worse than his and have not killed anyone.

He cowardly killed unarmed teenagers. In full body armor.
He didn't even get to use any of the crap he put on that armor, because he never engaged an armed person.
He's a coward and should be treated as such. You know the saying "Give me liberty or give me death?"
I wished he would say that, because then everyone will understand what to do with him.

I mean, try to fathom this. He spent years preparing bombs, weapons and a full body armor to kill unarmed teenagers?
No, he most certainly did not. He bailed after the bombing and decided to take the easy way and not take any risks.
He's afraid to die, else he would have waited for the SWAT right where the bomb went off.

Sick coward. Mental or not, he does not deserve to be fed and kept alive by the state.

 

[thoughtomator]

I'm just going to point out here that Sweden made political opposition to immigration illegal, which made a Breivik pretty much inevitable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

 

[roderik]

I'm just going to point out here that Sweden made political opposition to immigration illegal, which made a Breivik pretty much inevitable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

Norway, not Sweden. This is like saying Germany and Belgium are the same country.

And besides, what a disgusting thing to say in this context. I'm shocked.
How does the term Revolution apply to killing unarmed teenagers?
Are you kidding?

 

[bolil]

Hmmmm. His mind is not guilty after murdering like 70 kids... its not a legal quagmire its the mark of a PSYCHOPATH... he would have done well as an American Cop though.

 

[thoughtomator]

right, sorry Norway. Norway and Sweden actually used to be the same country, it wasn't all that long ago historically.

 

[thoughtomator]

How does the term Revolution apply to killing unarmed teenagers?
Are you kidding?

They were the children of the political elite, not just some random set of kids. In a war that would not only be a valid military target but an extremely high-value one, due to the demoralizing effect on the enemy - and the elimination of the next generation of enemy leadership.

If you want to make any sense of this (rather than just posture self-righteously) then you need to come to terms with the fact that in Breivik's eyes, he is fighting a war.

If you object to acts of war killing presumably innocent non-combatants, then you might want to make yourself aware that the US military - in YOUR name and with YOUR money - kills more innocents on a daily basis, with even less justification.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

He can only get 21 years of prison under their legal system.Unless they put the shooting and bomb victims apart and then get him convicted on 2 accounts for 42 years of prison.

Although what he did was completely discussing and sick when you read what he had gone trough life you can see how easy anyone could have fallen into his shoes.

He didn't go through shit in life. He was a spoiled brat most of his life who hung out with "graffiti gangs" and got his ass kicked by "Muslim gangs" and had extremely crazy views. Boo hoo let's kill 77 people.

 

[roderik]

They were the children of the political elite, not just some random set of kids. In a war that would not only be a valid military target but an extremely high-value one, due to the demoralizing effect on the enemy - and the elimination of the next generation of enemy leadership.

If you want to make any sense of this (rather than just posture self-righteously) then you need to come to terms with the fact that in Breivik's eyes, he is fighting a war.

If you object to acts of war killing presumably innocent non-combatants, then you might want to make yourself aware that the US military - in YOUR name and with YOUR money - kills more innocents on a daily basis, with even less justification.

I need to come to terms? I don't think so. In fact i couldn't care less about his motives.
Also i am not an american and do not condone any of the US military actions.

 

[thoughtomator]

I need to come to terms? I don't think so. In fact i couldn't care less about his motives.
Also i am not an american and do not condone any of the US military actions.

This raises a number of questions as to what you are doing here at all. Let me start with a couple of them:

1) Why are you on a forum dedicated to a US Presidential candidate if you cannot vote nor donate nor participate in the campaign? If you understand RP at all then you should be able to understand how offensive a foreigner's attempt to influence another nation's internal politics is.

2) Why are you on a thread about Breivik's mens rea if you couldn't care less about his motives?

 

[roderik]

This raises a number of questions as to what you are doing here at all. Let me start with a couple of them:

1) Why are you on a forum dedicated to a US Presidential candidate if you cannot vote nor donate nor participate in the campaign? If you understand RP at all then you should be able to understand how offensive a foreigner's attempt to influence another nation's internal politics is.

2) Why are you on a thread about Breivik's mens rea if you couldn't care less about his motives?

I'm influencing your nations politics because i'm a member of this forum?
You find it offensive that RPs policies appeal to me, across international borders?
I'm shaking my head in disbelief. This is the worst i ever got treated by an RP supporter.
Shame on you.

 

[thoughtomator]

You are behaving badly, throwing around emotional trigger words in lieu of intelligent argument or logical discourse. You join a thread to vociferously deny your willingness to discuss the actual topic of the thread, and come back for it repeatedly. You're in no position to help the campaign that is under way - you can't vote, donate, or help organize. You say that RP's policies appeal to you while violating one. You ask questions and freak out at straightforward, rational answers.

How is a reasonable person supposed to perceive such behavior? As well-intended and innocent?

Have you the slightest ability to step outside yourself and evaluate your own behavior?