FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: kefkaownsall on June 21, 2012, 11:57:32 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18530670
I honestly do not know what to think of this. Does Norway have lower standards on what constitutes legal insanity since in America it's really hard to get an insanity verdict.
-
First of all this was the prosecutions claim that they believe him to be insane. The court might disagree.
Anyway, this does not mean that he gets released. If declared insane he will be locked up in an institution and the prosecution also said that if it is decided that he is sane they demand 21 year sentence in jail.
In either case he will spend the next few decades locked up.
-
Just because this clearly disturbed individual was declared insane does not mean he's getting off scott free. Dude's going to be locked up in a mental ward until his doctors say he's fine.
Ironbite-and after what he did...don't expect him to be walking the streets in a year.
-
Just because this clearly disturbed individual was declared insane does not mean he's getting off scott free. Dude's going to be locked up in a mental ward until his doctors say he's fine.
Ironbite-and after what he did...don't expect him to be walking the streets in a year.
Oh I know but I dunno he would probably be sane by American standards
-
The prosecution is choosing to go the insane route because that is the only way that Brevick will serve a sentence longer than 22 years because he can be locked up in an asylum for as long as they want. it is basically a loophole in their legal system.
Think about it for a minute, if you were the prosecution, and you knew that this man planned and killed 77 people and is completely unrepentant and is even proud of his actions, and you knew that the maximum he could stay in prison if found guilty is a mere 22 years wouldn't you try and pull a loophole to get him locked away for longer? Seriously, 22 years is less than 1/3rd of a year in prison for each victim. The lives of those 77 people is worth less than 1/3rd of a year. That is pathetic.
-
It seems to me that the prosecution is revealing it's intentions a little too clearly to the judge, they want this scumbag locked away for life and they are more likely to get that outcome if he is declared insane. That said to win a court case it seems like a bad tactic to say "we are in doubt whether or not the accused is insane, but declare him insane anyway". If you cast doubt on your own legal argument how is that going to work in your favor?
-
The prosecution is choosing to go the insane route because that is the only way that Brevick will serve a sentence longer than 22 years because he can be locked up in an asylum for as long as they want. it is basically a loophole in their legal system.
Think about it for a minute, if you were the prosecution, and you knew that this man planned and killed 77 people and is completely unrepentant and is even proud of his actions, and you knew that the maximum he could stay in prison if found guilty is a mere 22 years wouldn't you try and pull a loophole to get him locked away for longer? Seriously, 22 years is less than 1/3rd of a year in prison for each victim. The lives of those 77 people is worth less than 1/3rd of a year. That is pathetic.
No they can keep him longer if he is found to be a danger
-
Kefka's got the right of it. The general sentiment in Norway (and this is straight from a dear friend of mine directly affected by what happened) is that yeah, he's going to be found completely off his nut, and he's going to be in the happy house wearing a love myself jacket for the next 21 years. But there's no chance in FUCK that he'll be released. He's exceedingly likely to be found to be a danger to others, and he'll be staying in a nice padded cell for the rest of his existence.
-
Kefka's got the right of it. The general sentiment in Norway (and this is straight from a dear friend of mine directly affected by what happened) is that yeah, he's going to be found completely off his nut, and he's going to be in the happy house wearing a love myself jacket for the next 21 years. But there's no chance in FUCK that he'll be released. He's exceedingly likely to be found to be a danger to others, and he'll be staying in a nice padded cell for the rest of his existence.
So then, this finding of "insanity" is purely a tactical maneuver by the court. They can keep him locked up indefinitely instead of sentencing him to 21 years, which is what Norway laughably calls a "life" sentence.
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
-
I swear to Odin's Hammer, Fpqxz, if you start going on about how multiculturalism is bad again... She and the rest of Norway have had enough of people like you and Brevik going on about how you must not let anyone emigrate to Europe if they come from a predominantly Islamic country.
Shut the fuck up, and sit down, you GIT!
EDIT: Removed some phrasing after I let my emotions get the better of me.
-
The bizarre thing here is that HIS lawyers are desperately insisting that he is sane, which would result in him going to hard-time prison for 21 years minimum, and likely more under the extended sentence policy. The PROSECUTION, on the other hand, is arguing that he is insane, which would mean technical acquittal and treatment in a mental institution until such time as he is deemed sane and safe for society.
I know that he has fucked up ideologies that he somehow feels would be de-legitimized if he were declared insane, but I dunno....decades of anal rape vs. treatment in an institution? I know which one I would take and screw the ideology.
-
1. There is a difference between "the prosecution" and "the court."
2. 21 years is a pretty long time to be in jail. In fact Norway does not have a "life-sentence" their maximum sentence is 21 years (it can be extended indefinitely if the criminal poses a danger to society at the end of served time) or they could sentence him to 30 years for terrorism. In comparison, Finland has a life sentence that has no "written maximum lenght" it only ends if/when the president pardons the prisoner. Usually life sentence lasts about 13 years. (It does have a minimum lenght of 12 years and after that time they can be paroled.)
3. Being locked up in an asylum is not an "get out of jail free card" he would still be isolated from the society (and probably from other patients as well) and kept from harming anyone.
-
I swear to Odin's Hammer, Fpqxz, if you start going on about how multiculturalism is bad again...
First of all, I have just as much right to my opinion as you have to yours. The multiculturalism thing wasn't even the central point of my post.
Secondly, what are you going to do, beat me up over the internet?
If you have an actual objection to anything I've posted, you're welcome to go ahead and refute it. Otherwise follow your own damn advice.
EDIT: My spelling sux0rz
-
The bizarre thing here is that HIS lawyers are desperately insisting that he is sane, which would result in him going to hard-time prison for 21 years minimum, and likely more under the extended sentence policy. The PROSECUTION, on the other hand, is arguing that he is insane, which would mean technical acquittal and treatment in a mental institution until such time as he is deemed sane and safe for society.
Ah, my mistake then. It is a tactical maneuver, nonetheless.
I know that he has fucked up ideologies that he somehow feels would be de-legitimized if he were declared insane, but I dunno....decades of anal rape vs. treatment in an institution? I know which one I would take and screw the ideology.
Please...Scandinavian prisons are easy time compared to prison in the USA or most developing countries. Besides, just going to prison is in no way a guarantee that he will be sexually abused (admittedly though, it makes it more likely).
And as I mentioned in an earlier post, his actions have already delegitimized his ideologies.
-
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
-
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
No, just the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the horrific nature of his offense has already removed whatever legitimacy his political cause may have had, at least in the eyes of the political elite and most of the general public.
Seriously, Breivik killed a bunch of kids. I see this as little more than the European version of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC to protest what he felt was an unaccountable Federal government. And what happened afterwards? A bunch of civilians (including children) died, the militia movement got a ton of negative publicity, and McVeigh got a shot of the joy juice at Terre Haute Federal Prison. Nobody won, everybody lost.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cult"; to the best of my knowledge, Breivik acted alone.
-
I swear to Odin's Hammer, Fpqxz, if you start going on about how multiculturalism is bad again...
First of all, I have just as much right to my opinion as you have to yours. The multiculturalism thing wasn't even the central point of my post.
Secondly, what are you going to do, beat me up over the internet?
If you have an actual objection to anything I've posted, you're welcome to go ahead and refute it. Otherwise follow your own damn advice.
EDIT: My spelling sux0rz
I'm impressed. I'm actually at a loss for words from your abject idiocy. I'm tired of you. Go away.
-
I'm impressed. I'm actually at a loss for words from your abject idiocy. I'm tired of you. Go away.
(http://www.memecreator.net/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world/showimage.php/2443/I-don%27t-always-regard-other-people%27s-emotions,-but-when-i-do,-i-ask-U-Mad-Bro%3F.jpg)
-
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
Ultimately Brevick being sane hurts his case because he is showing that sometimes Christians are as bad as Muslims
-
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
No, just the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the horrific nature of his offense has already removed whatever legitimacy his political cause may have had, at least in the eyes of the political elite and most of the general public.
Seriously, Breivik killed a bunch of kids. I see this as little more than the European version of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC to protest what he felt was an unaccountable Federal government. And what happened afterwards? A bunch of civilians (including children) died, the militia movement got a ton of negative publicity, and McVeigh got a shot of the joy juice at Terre Haute Federal Prison. Nobody won, everybody lost.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cult"; to the best of my knowledge, Breivik acted alone.
I'm sure there are plenty of racist and sectarian groups that view Breivik in a high regard and would be willing to kill more people to advance it.
I'm not sure what legitimacy segregation and bigotry has, but every group has its extremes.
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
Ultimately Brevick being sane hurts his case because he is showing that sometimes Christians are as bad as Muslims
He was an agnostic and at most a very liberal Christian. I think being insane hurts his cause because it makes the racist sexist, ect people look crazy-and rightfully so.
-
No, just the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the horrific nature of his offense has already removed whatever legitimacy his political cause may have had, at least in the eyes of the political elite and most of the general public.
Seriously, Breivik killed a bunch of kids. I see this as little more than the European version of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC to protest what he felt was an unaccountable Federal government. And what happened afterwards? A bunch of civilians (including children) died, the militia movement got a ton of negative publicity, and McVeigh got a shot of the joy juice at Terre Haute Federal Prison. Nobody won, everybody lost.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cult"; to the best of my knowledge, Breivik acted alone.
I'm sure there are plenty of racist and sectarian groups that view Breivik in a high regard and would be willing to kill more people to advance it.
I'm not sure what legitimacy segregation and bigotry has, but every group has its extremes.
Sure, there are probably people who sympathize with Breivik, just as there were (and still are) those who sympathize with Timothy McVeigh, or Osama Bin Laden, or {insert name of terrorist/criminal here}. Hell, here in the NY/NJ metro area, there are people who will get all misty-eyed and nostalgic about the glory days of the Mafia.
You can't really avoid having a few isolated individuals or groups latching onto stuff like this. But the general population tends not to like these sorts of acts of mass violence, which is why I said what I said about Breivik's legitimacy slipping away long before the insanity decision.
Truth be told, at this point, I think the controversy is less about how the insanity decision will make Breivik look, and more about whether or not the guy was actually mentally ill, or capable of conceiving of the wrongness of his actions. I know very little about Norwegian criminal law, but I'm sure that their insanity standard is quite different from what the Common Law-based countries use.
EDIT: clarification
-
While I would surely agree that the minimum and medium security institutions in Scandinavia are certainly, by US standards, pretty easy time, no maximum security institution is a cake walk, no matter where it is.
Plus, like pretty much all prison systems in the world, there are significant gang issues in the prisons, and of course those gangs all fall along racial/religious boundaries. Brevik gets sent to actual prison and he will have to deal with the Muslim gangs, probably by being welcomed into the Aryan ones. This is a prisoner who will simply have no choice but to get heavily involved in gang activity in prison, which is pretty much a gift-wrapped invitation to extend his sentence indefinitely beyond 22 years. Not that I think for a moment he would actually survive two decades. That's a long time to be watching over your shoulder 24/7 for a shank with your name on it.
-
While I would surely agree that the minimum and medium security institutions in Scandinavia are certainly, by US standards, pretty easy time, no maximum security institution is a cake walk, no matter where it is.
Plus, like pretty much all prison systems in the world, there are significant gang issues in the prisons, and of course those gangs all fall along racial/religious boundaries. Brevik gets sent to actual prison and he will have to deal with the Muslim gangs, probably by being welcomed into the Aryan ones. This is a prisoner who will simply have no choice but to get heavily involved in gang activity in prison, which is pretty much a gift-wrapped invitation to extend his sentence indefinitely beyond 22 years. Not that I think for a moment he would actually survive two decades. That's a long time to be watching over your shoulder 24/7 for a shank with your name on it.
Unless, of course, he is placed in solitary confinement/administrative segregation or some sort of protective custody. In which case, his main enemy would be boredom and depression. I know if I were to go to prison, I would pick AdSeg over GenPop any fucking day of the week.
Given the politically sensitive nature of this case, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the treatment he would get if he were to go to prison.
-
As long as he's locked up and can't hurt anyone else, who cares what more happens to him? He's a monster and deserves whatever shit he gets.
-
The sad thing here is that there are no winners in a case like this. Breivik believed he could stop the Islamization of Europe by killing a bunch of kids at a retreat. Now the kids are dead, Breivik is going away for life, and his cause is irrevocably tarnished by his stupid and violent actions.
So what you're saying is that is he was declared insane it would hurt his cult more than being not insane?
No, just the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the horrific nature of his offense has already removed whatever legitimacy his political cause may have had, at least in the eyes of the political elite and most of the general public.
Point to make...there is no legitimacy in this or any other cause protesting what is essentially the political destiny of the world. It's change for the better and I for one welcome it with open arms.
Ironbite-arms that will crush out any stupidity.
-
He's a monster and deserves whatever shit he gets.
I would be careful not to dehumanize him to the point where you become like him.
-
Point of reference he called himself a templar and other Christian terms. So I dunno not putting him in prison could hurt Norway's image abroad.
-
He's a monster and deserves whatever shit he gets.
I would be careful not to dehumanize him to the point where you become like him.
There's a difference between saying Breivik is a monster and saying all Christians are monsters because Breivik is Christian. Anyone who deliberately hurts children is a monster and deserves to rot in prison. I don't give a damn what happens to him. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who hurt children. That doesn't mean I'm going to become like him, hating entire groups of people for the actions of a few.
-
He's a monster and deserves whatever shit he gets.
I would be careful not to dehumanize him to the point where you become like him.
There's a difference between saying Breivik is a monster and saying all Christians are monsters because Breivik is Christian. Anyone who deliberately hurts children is a monster and deserves to rot in prison. I don't give a damn what happens to him. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who hurt children. That doesn't mean I'm going to become like him, hating entire groups of people for the actions of a few.
I wasn't talking about Christians as a group, I was talking about Breivik.
Dehumanizing people, especially criminals, is dangerous. It leads to situations like privatized prisons where humans are exploited for slave labor -- and that's okay with the civilians because "they're just criminals after all"
Oh, sure, he's an extremely dangerous man who needs to be locked away for the rest of his life. That much is certain. But remember that he is human. A potentially insane human, but a human nonetheless.
-
Actually Zach in Norway many prisons especially the min to mid level ones do have the prisoners go through actual rehab and job training. Like there is this Island with Ipods pay phones where they teach them actual skills
-
Actually Zach in Norway many prisons especially the min to mid level ones do have the prisoners go through actual rehab and job training. Like there is this Island with Ipods pay phones where they teach them actual skills
That's good. Teaching people who do not fit into society to, well, fit into society is always a good thing.
Norway's judicial system seems to have a good head on their shoulders. Seems to.
That's not quite the same thing as slavery, where prisoners are exploited for hard labor to the point where their physical health suffers, not to mention their mental health.
-
There's a difference between saying Breivik is a monster and saying all Christians are monsters because Breivik is Christian. Anyone who deliberately hurts children is a monster and deserves to rot in prison. I don't give a damn what happens to him. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who hurt children. That doesn't mean I'm going to become like him, hating entire groups of people for the actions of a few.
I wasn't talking about Christians as a group, I was talking about Breivik.
Dehumanizing people, especially criminals, is dangerous. It leads to situations like privatized prisons where humans are exploited for slave labor -- and that's okay with the civilians because "they're just criminals after all"
Oh, sure, he's an extremely dangerous man who needs to be locked away for the rest of his life. That much is certain. But remember that he is human. A potentially insane human, but a human nonetheless.
I know you meant just Breivik. I was arguing that calling one person a monster does not lead to dehumanizing an entire group. I do get the problem with seeing criminals as lesser. I hadn't considered that. But I do want to say, in my defense, I don't see all criminals as being the same, either.
Anyway, I only meant that I'm not going to care too much if he experiences boredom-induced depression or gets himself in trouble with a rival gang or something. He's brought all that on himself. Someone in jail for something ridiculous, like a minor drug offense or libel, they shouldn't go through any of that.
Edit: adding quotes for clarification.
-
Fair enough, then.
Personally, I don't care what happens to him, just as long as what rights he maintains aren't violated.
I doubt he'll ever be able to fit into society, so indefinite imprisonment sounds like the best option.
-
I know if I were to go to prison, I would pick AdSeg over GenPop any fucking day of the week.
Amen to that, my brother.
-
At this point I'm seriously scratching my head, how did a discussion on this guy lead to people suggesting that his "cause" was tarnished by his actions? The guy was a xenophobic bigot, his "cause" is the cause that threw Europe into the second world war.
I mean this was the creep that wept, not for his victims but for his stupid anti-Muslim propaganda screed film (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/accused-shooter-anders-breivik-weeps-during-trial-after-creepy-anti-muslim-video-plays/). That's his cause, piss on that cause!
Frankly I don't want this asshole raped in jail, shanked, tortured, bashed or anything else. I'm not lowering myself to his level and I don't like the idea of that happening to anybody. That said I DO think the option where he gets put away in perpetuity is the best one. Can't shoot any more kids that way!
-
Frankly I don't want this asshole raped in jail, shanked, tortured, bashed or anything else. I'm not lowering myself to his level and I don't like the idea of that happening to anybody. That said I DO think the option where he gets put away in perpetuity is the best one. Can't shoot any more kids that way!
This. Lock the bastard away, throw away the key, and move on with life, without letting him hold anyone back.
-
Honestly. It doesn't matter to me if he is tortured and his "human rights" are violated. Kill 77 people, your life and everything about you is forfeit
S'all I have to say on this matter
-
I'm impressed. I'm actually at a loss for words from your abject idiocy. I'm tired of you. Go away.
(http://www.memecreator.net/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world/showimage.php/2443/I-don%27t-always-regard-other-people%27s-emotions,-but-when-i-do,-i-ask-U-Mad-Bro%3F.jpg)
AdminHat On
This is your Official Warning. Knock it off. Stop antagonizing people. I wasn't sure if you were unintentionally antagonizing people... but now, I'm pretty sure. And it's pissing me off.
Knock It Off.
-
The jaded cynic in me wonders: Is Breivik bullshitting everyone? I mean, he's making grandstanding statements that he's not insane, rather he's ideologically driven (as if the latter precludes the former), while at the same time coming out with the most ludicrous statements about Sex and the City and Eurovision. He says that to be ruled insane and committed for the rest of his life would be the worst thing ever then acts in a way that makes just such a thing inevitable.
-
The jaded cynic in me wonders: Is Breivik bullshitting everyone? I mean, he's making grandstanding statements that he's not insane, rather he's ideologically driven (as if the latter precludes the former), while at the same time coming out with the most ludicrous statements about Sex and the City and Eurovision. He says that to be ruled insane and committed for the rest of his life would be the worst thing ever then acts in a way that makes just such a thing inevitable.
Given his actions, and his lack of any remorse or empathy it is a reasonably easy call to say that he is insane. While we all find his actions to be that of a terrorist and despicable. I cannot help but feel that Breivik is well and truly crazy. After all, this is a man who honestly believes that killing a bunch of children will somehow stop Islamic immigrants from entering the country, and he further believes that history will remember him as a hero. He is clearly delusional, and probably sociopathic.
While the sane and insane pleas may be grounded in judicial tactics, the pleas themselves do not seem to be wrong. If he was to be sent to prison even with the knowledge that he would be considered a threat and kept beyond 22 years, wouldn't it be the same as saying someone like him is a perfectly sane and normal member of society?
While we all want him to rot away in some small corner isn't the most correct thing to do is actually treat him for his psychosis?
-
Given his actions, and his lack of any remorse or empathy it is a reasonably easy call to say that he is insane. While we all find his actions to be that of a terrorist and despicable. I cannot help but feel that Breivik is well and truly crazy. After all, this is a man who honestly believes that killing a bunch of children will somehow stop Islamic immigrants from entering the country, and he further believes that history will remember him as a hero. He is clearly delusional, and probably sociopathic. While the sane and insane pleas may be grounded in judicial tactics, the pleas themselves do not seem to be wrong. If he was to be sent to prison even with the knowledge that he would be considered a threat and kept beyond 22 years, wouldn't it be the same as saying someone like him is a perfectly sane and normal member of society?
While we all want him to rot away in some small corner isn't the most correct thing to do is actually treat him for his psychosis?
Where do you draw the line between a toxic ideology and a psychosis? Do you declare it to be psychosis if only one idiot is doing it and an ideology of there are ten or more? Plenty of people do things in the name of "causes" that can seem completely psychotic, setting themselves on fire, strapping bombs to themselves and letting them off near men, women and children, raping and torturing people during wartime. What's the line of delineation between a mad act and a bad act for a "cause"?
-
A quote from my Norwegian friend that was personally affected by this, via her LJ:
"The prosecution has asked for psychiatric care. From their closing argument it is clear that they are not certain he was/is psychotic, that they are very much in doubt, but that the doubt should be in favour of the accused. This of course is a very important principle of the law in terms of guilt, but others have argued that while guilt demands beyond a reasonable doubt, the demand to prove sanity is much lower and should be based on probability. What the judges decide, we shall see. He'll be put away for good in any case.
Of course, Breivik did his sanity claim no favours in his final remarks, which included going off on how Sex and the City represents a disease of sexual liberation, how sending Eurovision entries with contestants that had other ethnic backgrounds in addition to Norwegian is a mockery of all Norwegians, how he's not a child murderer because the average age of those he killed was over 18 (nevermind that he murdered two 14-year-old and a lot of others that were below 18), that calling him so is an act of treason, how the best solution would have been to give him and people of similar opinion their own country to rule but if they don't get it they will have to take over other countris, how history and his 'brothers' will judge and how another attack can come from his 'brothers' (the implied threat if we find him guilty) and kill as many as 40.000. All of this of course is to him defense of his murder of 77 people."
For those interested in my friend's posts, she's misscam on LJ.
-
Where do you draw the line between a toxic ideology and a psychosis? Do you declare it to be psychosis if only one idiot is doing it and an ideology of there are ten or more? Plenty of people do things in the name of "causes" that can seem completely psychotic, setting themselves on fire, strapping bombs to themselves and letting them off near men, women and children, raping and torturing people during wartime. What's the line of delineation between a mad act and a bad act for a "cause"?
Much for the same reason that listening to heavy metal music does not cause kids to go on killing sprees at school, having a toxic ideology does not mean that a person will go on a killing rampage. As has been pointed out, he was regularly conversing online with a group of others who shared his ideology. The point is that they shared his ideals but did not go on a rampage that killed 77 people.
The point you make about people doing bad things during times of war is a good one though, and I agree that during times of duress people do bad things. There are a number of factors involved including group think, social stigma and prestige as well as plain base survivalist instincts.
The point I am trying to make with Brevick is that despite having a toxic ideology and actually acting out in such a horrific manner (also note, you cant really call his actions a result of acting under external stresses, Norway is a peaceful country.) His cold pride and guilt free belief that what he did was right is what sets him apart. It shows a remarkable lack of empathy on his part which is a pretty good sign of sociopathy. Further his belief that he will be remembered as a hero despite the fact that even if his attack somehow did manage to stop all immigration he would still be seen as a murderer is a clear indication of personal delusion.
-
I guess no one can say that this particular nasty was acting under any kind of duress.