The defence did not call it that, he did. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 22/06/2012 11:58:55 PM
I don't see what's backwards or bizarro about that. This isn't an US court thriller where the prosecution is out to proof the (possibly crazy) person is sane so they can sack him for the longest time possible (or even fry him).
Without having read much about the current state of the case maybe the prosecution is just doing what feels right for them and not what some people may expect or hope.
The defense has a lot of nerve calling it "necessity", of course. I hope he never sees the light of day again.
Without having read much about the current state of the case maybe the prosecution is just doing what feels right for them and not what some people may expect or hope.
The defense has a lot of nerve calling it "necessity", of course. I hope he never sees the light of day again.
It is very odd, because so much of his behavior was completely logical and rational, while so much of his other simultaneous behavior was utterly insane. It almost makes me wonder if he has brain tumor like Charles Whitmans.
In this instance, Breivik says he knew and knows murdering children was reprehensible, that he would and should be universally vilified for it: Perfectly rational. He then turns around and says he committed what he admits was an atrocity because it was an unavoidably necessary lesser evil to defend Norway and "cultural" (not religious) Christianity from matriarchal multi-cultural "cultural" Marxism: Wholly irrational. The entire case is like that.
The lawyer is merely entering the plea his client instructed, though we might debate whether doing so serves his clients interests as well as will.