I don't think it's the likely outcome. But I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

People throughout history have always been bedazzled by ideologues who act in service of some political goal without any fear of punishment at the hands of established authority. It conjures up all kinds of parallels with classical heroic myths and taps into qualities of character we like to aspire to but rarely achieve (the ability to act in a purely uncompromising manner - which is the basis for half the output of Hollywood - from "Dirty Harry" to "The Hurt Locker"icon_wink.gif.

I think society is particularly susceptible to the dubious attractions of a character like Breivik because there are seemingly so few people these days willing to stick their necks out and make a stand on, well, anything. Roll the clock back a hundred years and Belief was not in short supply. Belief in religion. Belief in science. Belief in the impending socialist revolution. Belief in a new united Germany etc. etc. Sure, many of these beliefs were unfounded, amounted to little or in some cases were lethally counter-productive. But they were there and people were passionate about them. Since then Belief has seemingly been brought to its knees by a corrosive mixture of moral relativism, cynicism, sophistry etc. leaving not much more than the Cult of Me.

I'm not saying the bulk of society is teetering on the edge of condoning Breivik's actions. But I suspect there will be a portion who admire his risking everything for a cause without admiring the cause or the methods. If that makes sense.

I think you're vastly overestimating the likelihood of Brevik ever being seen as anything other than a murderous psycopath by the vast majority of Norwegians. Once his trial is over the oxygen of publicity will be removed, and he'll start to age and look anything but the gallant defender of the Aryan race. I doubt he'll ever be more than a magnet to anyone other than the already lunatic fringe.

Charlie Manson attracted admirers despite his racism and murderous intent. He had a lot of supporters who mistakenly thought he was some kind of misunderstood hippie. But what people are attracted to is the 1969 version of Manson and his soundbites - not the 74-year old gibbering loon that he is today. Had he been executed (he originally got the death penalty before California repealed it) he'd be far more of a cult icon than he already is. The sort of opposite of Che Guevera - who had he lived would probably be seen as more of a buffoon than pinup boy.

I expect Breivik will fairly soon go down the same route, but much faster than the far more charismatic Manson. After all, if you're attracted by Nazi-style ideology, why follow a guy who killed less than a hundred people when you can follow someone who killed millions?

Which part of "I don't think it's the likely outcome" did you not understand?

What you said was:


BR probably reads that in a similar way to me: you don't think it's likely; but you not only would not rule it out (which would I suppose cover an "it's a remote possibility" scenario); you prefaced it with the word "certainly" - this considerably firms up your "wouldn't".

So on a scale of "how likely", the impression you gave me is you think the chances of that outcome might be around 3/10. Which i would agree is vastly overestimating it. IMHO of course.

I would 'entirely rule out' the chances of him every being glorified by anyone other than already disturbed people and those who are determined to 'shock' everyone else some way or another.

You're entitled to your impressions. Just as you are entitled to inject your definitions into my words and then argue that they are wrong.

I don't think I've much to add to this othe than to say that you couldn't pay me enough to be Breivik's lawyer.

Is that because you'd have to deal with him personally, or because your job would be to defend him? I imagine the role of a criminal defence lawyer could often involve trying to defend people they can't stand, and whose actions are horrible. Someone has to do it though.

Both. On a personal level I find his political views abhorrent, and on a higher level I couldn't defend someone with those views. I know what a defence lawyer is expected to do but Breivik is completely undefendable to me.

The lawyers are defending the process of law, whatever he's done he has to be processed correctly. I suspect that Norwegian prisons are actually relatively plush compared to most and he's expecting to put his feet up and spend the next however long spouting crap and writing important letters etc. and having eager journos fighting over the rights to his exclusive ramblings. Here's an idea - prisoner exchange with North Korea? They can have him and Norway can cough up the 50 Euros needed to keep him for the next 100 years.

What gives you the idea Norwegian prisons are soft?

Where did you get that the lawyers are defending the process of law from? His lawyers only job is to get him off the hook by whatever method, nothing more adventurous than that.
It's a judge's job to defend and define law.

Surely the point is whether or not they are effective.

If I remember correctly, Scandinavian justice as a whole is 'softer' than what most of our electorate screams for – yet they have a far lower rate of recidivism. One wonders why.

A defence lawyer's job is not at all to "get the client off the hook". For one thing, the vast majority of defendants plead guilty. It is simply to advance the case for the defence within the law and within the rules, to the best of his/her ability.

Many lawyers defend clients they personally despise, but do so rightly as part of the wider picture to defend the process or rule of law. Since if a defendant can't get a lawyer, then what sort of a system of justice would that be?

In the UK, we have the "cab rank rule". It requires barristers to take a case "regardless of the nature of the case, or the conduct, opinions, beliefs of the prospective client or if the client is being financially supported in order to guarantee that lay clients will always be able to find an advocate willing to represent them, so maintaining access to justice".

The [iwhole point[/i of this is to defend the process of law.


I am no expert on Norwegian law, but don't see that the judge would have to "defend" the law in any way. Surely the judge's role in relation to the law is simply to decide (in case of doubt) what the law is, decide on the facts (to the extent they are disputed), and how the law applies to the facts of a given case?

We saw Mr Breiviks compassionate side during evidence giving today.
Apparently he consciously attempted not to sacrifice anyone he judged to be under 16 years of age.

I wonder if he took time out to ask them for some ID before he carried on blasting?