It happens almost never . Defender Unni Fries presided over such conflict with his own client's wants, and at three psychiatric experts, when she Wednesday asked the court to consider Philip Manshaus as insane. Fries trembled in her voice when she told him that this was her own conscience.
the Day before, they were the experts of crystal clear, have no doubt and completely agree: They see no signs of psychosis and believes Manshaus rather not have any personality disorders. The last is very unusual, such diagnoses are the rule and not the exception for mass - and seriemordere. The three psychiatrists believe Manshaus is purely ideologically motivated, shows no signs of remorse and has great will to repetition.Johanne. Inherit. Benjamin. Andrine. Comment
this is Why the prosecutor's historically strict claim on its space: 21 years of detention with a minimum time of 14 years. No one else has in modern times been forvaringsstraff with more than 10 years the minimum time. Such claims should be closed down with great caution, but is intended for just such cases as this. Manshaus is dangerous and the community must be protected from him.
There rests a deep seriousness over forsvarerens claim. If Manshaus was insane when he killed his sister and went to the attack on the Al-Noor mosque in Bærum, he shall be considered innocent and be sentenced to forced mental health care. 40 per cent of all this joke in Norway is about just this. Often is not utilregnelighet a theme in court, and when it is it is the experts ' conclusions almost always to the reason for the judgment.do you Think often that you could have been killed 22. July? Comment
With forsvarerens claim aroused Manshaus case even an echo from the 22. July. The conflicting expert reports on Anders Behring Breivik and the subsequent criticism of The forensic commission was a trauma for rettsmedisinen. The hardcore debate after the first report about utilregnelighet led as known to a new report, a long series of testimonies, and a dom who knew Breivik sane. It is both sensible and human about the psychiatric assessors has had the matter in mind when they have considered Philip Manshaus. But the desire to understand the radicalization entails also a danger of ignoring the disease.Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError CLEAR: During formulated at the in the trial against the kill - and terrortiltalte Philip Manshaus (22), the la prosecutor Johan Øverberg a claim about the historical severe punishment. Show more
There is no contradiction between political extremism and mental illness, the mentally ill can just be extra vulnerable to radicalisation. I have no pre-requisites to consider whether Manshaus can be psychotic. The central trauma of his life has in fact been dealt with behind closed doors in court.Extremism is not faceless even Leader
In the Asker and Bærum district court has Manshaus had fulfilled his desire to spread the toxic ideas he is inspired by. His free explanation was pure propaganda for the right-wing extremist conspiracy theories, with emphasis on "The big switch", that a liberal elite deliberately switch out the white european population with people from other cultures. The manifesto that inspired the Manshaus, written by Christchurch-terrorist Brenton Tarrant, has been detailed documented in court. The terrorist has been posting about his his racial hatred, but also hatred against the gays, against the media and against the muslims. Homohatet was also a theme for psychiatrists, since Manshaus previously have professed themselves as bisexual and had a male lover.
Fries mean one must go back to traumatic events in the Manshaus' childhood and adolescence in order to understand his state of mind. The circumstances surrounding the moras death, other traumatic experiences in the family and a genetic såbarhet for mental disorders was central in her procedure. But these themes have neither the press, scientists or the public had any insight in. In open court has these issues as far as been mentioned.
the Important parts of the testimonies of the key witnesses have gone behind closed doors. In its own ruling writing the district court that these are important for understanding the defendant's development.A danger for the rule of law Leads
Thus has the public no opportunity to ettergå the psychiatrist's conclusions.
The right was Manshaus asked if he remembers his mother. He replied that day that she died is the first memory he has. It is in itself a trauma. There is also talk of a suicide under dramatic circumstances, making it essential to understand the terrorist. Only the father has revealed details in open court.
It is easy to understand the family's desire to keep the deeply private matters for themselves. If the experts are right, this is unimportant to understand the terror. But about Philip Manshaus is so ill that his defense think, can this concealment lead to a possible this joke.
This is deeply problematic and a danger for the rule of law. There is one thing we should have learned of the controversy around 22. July-the trial, it is precisely how critical openness can be.What is it with Norway? Comment
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!