Norwegian commentary about court case

Aftenposten

A convincing verdict in terror case

District Court judges and 22 July Commission members have faced many of the same challenges:

Expectations have been running high. The landscape is unclear and confusing. Well established power being challenged.

For the Commission was represented by a self-conscious governmental apparatus and concealing police.

For the district court had the form of a secure prosecution and a psychiatric oligarchy.

Both the District Court and the Commission had to find their own way through this. It is now done. With two clear and independent leaders, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Alexandra Bech Gjørv, in the course of about two weeks, created an invaluable foundation that we as a nation can move forward with less trauma than we otherwise would have had.

This will place the two women central to the grand story that is now printed on July 22nd-place of tragedy in future national consciousness.

Heavy settlement
The five District Court judges takes a sharp confrontation with single-minded experts and an uncritical forensic commission.

Systematically throughout the forensic psychiatric canvas scrutiny. And just as systematically Husby / Sørheim report picked apart.

The main objection is crystal clear: The two psychiatrists have never been genuinely interested in other explanations of Anders Behring Breivik's life and actions than to place him safely in psychiatry solid - and at times - fixed terms.

Therefore, they have been consistently wrong. Anders Behring Breivik's violent extremism can not be explained away by morbidly do it. He's part of our time. This is absolutely central perspective Thurs the 1st expert totally have disregarded. Therefore, they have not understood the man they observed, but consistently misinterpreted him.

It's brutal, but it's true.

Scandal Commission
Just as true as when the court notes that the forensic commission has not done its job.

Completely uncritical has left the weaknesses of the first report pass, while doing his best to brace legs for the other. The court said it directly, but it's in the cards: This Commission has made prestige trump academic honesty.

Right Psychiatry is many years called judges without cap. With good reason, it is argued that the court often abdicates in the face of this little verifiable expertise. So it was not in the courtroom 250

Rather, it reeks of common sense and legal common sense when the court considers the various reports against each other. Equally important, the court sees the whole picture where many have only seen bits and pieces. For it is the overall presentation of evidence which has convinced Anders Behring Breivik five judges that he is beyond a reasonable doubt can be held accountable for the accident he staged.

Self-examination
It was a misjudgment when prosecutors asserted in its argument that the evidence was not strong enough to convict the accused to 21 years' detention. Equally wrong was it to build criminal allegation so heavily on an expert report an earlier could be seen not measure up. And it would have been a disaster for the matter of prosecution and the defendant is successful in its strong and unanimous opposition that it would appoint new experts.

As we now know: There was an independent law who insisted on more experts. Today we know that the rock matter from a judicial scandal.

Both the Attorney General and the defender must today be a sobering thought that they had gotten their way in the winter, yes, then we will have a completely wrong verdict. Without the two new experts - Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen - would Anders Behring Breivik now been on the road to compulsory psychiatric care.

Such must invite introspection with prosecutors. And already the evening news last night was attorney general Tor-Aksel Busch commendable clear in its self-criticism on this crucial point. It was important for the credibility of the prosecution.

The sample consisted
Yesterday tingrettsdom is clear, direct and logical.

At the same time it's open final word on the future of democracy a judgment that is deeply rooted in our society's shared values.

Full article: Norwegian commentary about court case