Prosecutors Blame "Violent" World of Warcraft for Breivik's Shooting Spree

[Clearing the Eye]

It is mostly in TV that you see someone be sent to a mental health hospital in place of prison. The only time that will happen in reality, is if it can be proven that the individual who committed the crime is not mentally fit to stand trial and was unaware or otherwise unable to control their actions. In this case, the person is seen as not at legal fault and is instead sent to be treated so such things do not happen again.

That is exactly the question they're looking at.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17752189

The court is seeking to establish whether Breivik is sane and can be jailed.
...

If Breivik is judged sane and found guilty of murder, he faces a maximum of 21 years in jail, although that can be extended if he is deemed a threat to the public.

If he is judged to be insane, he will be committed to a psychiatric institution.

Unusually, the prosecution is arguing in favour of an "insane" verdict, while the defence (on Breivik's request) is arguing that he is sane and should go to prison.

I've been reading your links a little and the issue is indeed causing a lot of mixed feeling and confusion among the people of Norway. Because the crimes weren't tragic enough, right? Very sad.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand why the prosecution would favour the first report. Given that it's the job of a prosecutor to prove a suspects guilt and the defense to prove otherwise, wouldn't it be the reverse situation here, wherein the prosecutor favours the second report--thus being able to send him to prison? Or are you suggesting they want to send him to a a mental health hospital because he would greatly dislike it?

Ah ha. Finally found the relevant article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17710355

This question will be at the heart of the trial: whether Breivik is criminally insane or sane. Extraordinarily, the defence counsel agrees with the victims' families that Breivik is sane. The prosecution asserts that he is criminally insane. In criminal trials it is usually the other way around.

 

[SpAc3man]

They are just trying to have him declared crazy. If he is found to be insane and influenced by video games then his message holds no strength.

A man found by the courts to not be insane after he killed nearly 100 people to make his political message heard is the last thing anyone wants.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand why the prosecution would favour the first report. Given that it's the job of a prosecutor to prove a suspects guilt and the defense to prove otherwise, wouldn't it be the reverse situation here, wherein the prosecutor favours the second report--thus being able to send him to prison? Or are you suggesting they want to send him to a a mental health hospital because he would greatly dislike it?

Ah ha. Finally found the relevant article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17710355

This question will be at the heart of the trial: whether Breivik is criminally insane or sane. Extraordinarily, the defence counsel agrees with the victims' families that Breivik is sane. The prosecution asserts that he is criminally insane. In criminal trials it is usually the other way around.

Did you read about the courtroom they had made for the trial? If Breivik is indeed guilty of the crimes, he will have cost the people of Norway at least £10m (12.1m euros; $15.9m), apparently. Combine that with the number of victims and affected family and friends and you start to get a picture of how massive this event is in Norwegian history.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

They are just trying to have him declared crazy. If he is found to be insane and influenced by video games then his message holds no strength.

A man found by the courts to not be insane after he killed nearly 100 people to make his political message heard is the last thing anyone wants.

That it would make people uncomfortable is a small price to pay for justice to be carried out. We as a people can't flinch away from our duty as a community to hold people wholly responsible for their actions just because we dislike the reality that sane men are capable of horrible things. History tells us quite clearly that sanity is no preventative to horror. Besides that, the lines of sanity shift and change so often they almost lose meaning; what is sane now could well be considered barbaric and absurd ten years from now. On top of that, the lines also shift based on culture.

In my opinion, the prosecution needs to spend less time trying to prove Breivik fits their (Norway) current definition of insane and more time focusing on proving his guilt and that he is deserving of criminal punishment.

 

[MetalMagpie]

]Did you read about the courtroom they had made for the trial? If Breivik is indeed guilty of the crimes, he will have cost the people of Norway at least £10m (12.1m euros; $15.9m), apparently. Combine that with the number of victims and affected family and friends and you start to get a picture of how massive this event is in Norwegian history.

I know. It seems insane, doesn't it?

I guess - much like a funeral - how you deal with a tragic event has a huge effect on the sort of long-term impact it's likely to have. So if the trial was a complete mess, with the press barely able to report anything to the confused public, and Breivik was assassinated by some random gunman half-way through, it would leave the country feeling more aggrieved than they would if there's at least some feeling of "justice".

So maybe it's worth the money.

To be honest, I'm not sure anyone in Norway really knows for certain how they should/shouldn't deal with an event like this. It's their equivalent of the 9/11 attack for the United States (or the 7/7 bombings for the UK) and all they can really do is try to deal with the fallout as best they can.

On 9/11 and 7/7, there wasn't anyone left standing at the end of the day to be put on trial.

 

[OrpheusTelos]

WOW is violent?

Kidding aside, how is this even news?

See, I'd be more inclined to blame some combination of right-wing extremism and insanity.

Aah...

 

[Clearing the Eye]

]Did you read about the courtroom they had made for the trial? If Breivik is indeed guilty of the crimes, he will have cost the people of Norway at least £10m (12.1m euros; $15.9m), apparently. Combine that with the number of victims and affected family and friends and you start to get a picture of how massive this event is in Norwegian history.

I know. It seems insane, doesn't it?

I guess - much like a funeral - how you deal with a tragic event has a huge effect on the sort of long-term impact it's likely to have. So if the trial was a complete mess, with the press barely able to report anything to the confused public, and Breivik was assassinated by some random gunman half-way through, it would leave the country feeling more aggrieved than they would if there's at least some feeling of "justice".

So maybe it's worth the money.

To be honest, I'm not sure anyone in Norway really knows for certain how they should/shouldn't deal with an event like this. It's their equivalent of the 9/11 attack for the United States (or the 7/7 bombings for the UK) and all they can really do is try to deal with the fallout as best they can.

On 9/11 and 7/7, there wasn't anyone left standing at the end of the day to be put on trial.

Very true; the greatest affects of crimes such as murder can well be felt after the act itself is long past. Kill someone's wife, husband, child, boyfriend or whatever else and there is a long road to closure ahead.

You know the Bali Bombings? They were a number of terrorist attacks in Bali that focused on nightclubs and tourist hotspots. Fairly large bombs were used by a group of madmen in confined spaces, designed to cause as much death as possible, namely to Australian tourists (Bali is/was one of the most common places for Australian people to go abroad on holiday). 88 Australians died out of a total of about 200 casualties. The killers even went so far as to set up the explosions to go off at intervals with enough time for ambulance and relief aid to arrive at the scenes, thus killing them also.

Amrozi bin Nurhasyim was one of the masterminds behind the attack. He was nicknamed the smiling terrorist because he was smiling and joking the entire time he was on trial. It caused a lot of anger over here in Australia. He was eventually executed in Indonesia by firing squad.

 

[SpAc3man]

They are just trying to have him declared crazy. If he is found to be insane and influenced by video games then his message holds no strength.

A man found by the courts to not be insane after he killed nearly 100 people to make his political message heard is the last thing anyone wants.

That it would make people uncomfortable is a small price to pay for justice to be carried out. We as a people can't flinch away from our duty as a community to hold people wholly responsible for their actions just because we dislike the reality that sane men are capable of horrible things. History tells us quite clearly that sanity is no preventative to horror. Besides that, the lines of sanity shift and change so often they almost lose meaning; what is sane now could well be considered barbaric and absurd ten years from now. On top of that, the lines also shift based on culture.

In my opinion, the prosecution needs to spend less time trying to prove Breivik fits their (Norway) current definition of insane and more time focusing on proving his guilt and that he is deserving of criminal punishment.

There is no case for the prosecution to make if they don't seek to undermine him. He already admits guilt, he maintains his actions were necessary to make people see his political message of paranoid racism and intolerance for a changing world. Think of any well known political activist who stood for something they believed was right. Now consider if they were widely considered insane. Their message is no longer valid. A crazy Ghandi is no longer a hero who helped gain India's independence.

Breivik's message was delivered by a mass killing of innocents. Criminal insanity will help prevent people with similar views believing it was an effective method. The prosecution wants the final consensus to be that only an insane person could be so intolerant to change.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

They are just trying to have him declared crazy. If he is found to be insane and influenced by video games then his message holds no strength.

A man found by the courts to not be insane after he killed nearly 100 people to make his political message heard is the last thing anyone wants.

That it would make people uncomfortable is a small price to pay for justice to be carried out. We as a people can't flinch away from our duty as a community to hold people wholly responsible for their actions just because we dislike the reality that sane men are capable of horrible things. History tells us quite clearly that sanity is no preventative to horror. Besides that, the lines of sanity shift and change so often they almost lose meaning; what is sane now could well be considered barbaric and absurd ten years from now. On top of that, the lines also shift based on culture.

In my opinion, the prosecution needs to spend less time trying to prove Breivik fits their (Norway) current definition of insane and more time focusing on proving his guilt and that he is deserving of criminal punishment.

There is no case for the prosecution to make if they don't seek to undermine him. He already admits guilt, he maintains his actions were necessary to make people see his political message of paranoid racism and intolerance for a changing world. Think of any well known political activist who stood for something they believed was right. Now consider if they were widely considered insane. Their message is no longer valid. A crazy Ghandi is no longer a hero who helped gain India's independence.

Breivik's message was delivered by a mass killing of innocents. Criminal insanity will help prevent people with similar views believing it was an effective method. The prosecution wants the final consensus to be that only an insane person could be so intolerant to change.

But again, it doesn't matter what one would like. The truth is, "only an insane person could be so intolerant to change," is just not true.

 

[SpAc3man]

*snip*

But again, it doesn't matter what one would like. The truth is, "only an insane person could be so intolerant to change," is just not true.

It doesn't really need to be true. It is just the general attitude the Norwegian government and therefore the prosecution want to convey in their increasingly multi-national and multi-cultural country. They make money off immigrants and foreigners and it would be counter productive to appear unwelcoming.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

But again, it doesn't matter what one would like. The truth is, "only an insane person could be so intolerant to change," is just not true.

It doesn't really need to be true. It is just the general attitude the Norwegian government and therefore the prosecution want to convey in their increasingly multi-national and multi-cultural country. They make money off immigrants and foreigners and it would be counter productive to appear unwelcoming.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Just different opinions on the justice system--like that never happens, huh

 

[Galletea]

I have read a lot of studies, and playing violent games does make people more aggressive.
However, you have to be pretty fucking insane to begin with to end up killing a whole load of people and be pleased about it.
But any news is better than no news for the various channels, even if it is bullshit.

 

[thom_cat_]

Just read the comments. It made me much happier.

 

[Qitz]

Unless he was running around jumping every five seconds, turning slowly, fell over feigning a heart attack or shooting tracking missiles then I doubt he learned ANYTHING from WoW.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It is kind of aggravating that a lot of the comments on the site that article is from consist of "lol, they said WoW is violent, they have no credibility. Don't bother reading this." People like that look just as bad as the people they are fighting against--ignorant and obnoxious.

World of Warcraft's ESRB rating​

 

[redisforever]

He himself said that the video games had nothing to do with it. He said it was a way to make people leave him alone, as a disguise, really. Let him plan stuff alone without people getting suspicious.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

He has already won since people are actually actively trying to DISCREDIT him, as though he had any credibility to begin with.


Why would you need to discredit someone who killed 77 people, most of them kids, as a sign of protest or whatever to "muslims taking over his country". Aren't you actually validating his ridiculous claims by doing that? Isn't that exactly what he wants you to do?



In trying to discredit the crazy man who went on a shooting spree, they give him more credibility than he started with...cause last time I checked lone wolf conspiracy theory nuts were not credible at all! >_<


This is just...so.../facepalm

 

[Clearing the Eye]

He has already won since people are actually actively trying to DISCREDIT him, as though he had any credibility to begin with.


Why would you need to discredit someone who killed 77 people, most of them kids, as a sign of protest or whatever to "muslims taking over his country". Aren't you actually validating his ridiculous claims by doing that? Isn't that exactly what he wants you to do?



In trying to discredit the crazy man who went on a shooting spree, they give him more credibility than he started...cause last time I checked lone wolf conspiracy theory nuts were not credible at all! >_<


This is just...so.../facepalm...

The law requires more than that; you have to prove he is insane, not just say it's obvious.