I've seen this story a thousand times. Someone is abused in some manner, becomes an abuser, and the cycle repeats.
I struggle with reconciling these cases because there's two drastically different perspectives you can look at it from:
1. Brevik is a mass murderer and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
2. Brevik is a victim who was never given a fair shot at life to begin with. He was moulded into the horrible person he became.
What is the point of transition where we stop treating someone like a victim and begin treating them like a criminal? How many serious offenders have been raised in such a damaging way that you could argue they're not exactly responsible for any of the awful things they ended up doing?
It brings doubt to how we handle serious criminals in modern times.
One Dunedin Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Heal... result shows that a "disadvantaged" childhood combined with a certain set of genes leads strongly to anti-social adults (well, men). The same genes with a good childhood tends to result in entrepreneurs.
This result really hit home for me, because I was removed from a badly dysfunctional mother when I was ten, and now run my own startup.
It seems to me that as a society, we should be a lot more focused on raising our young - failing them incurs the direct cost of their crimes and a lost opportunity cost of the businesses they might have developed.
I'm not a fan of punitive jail sentences for exactly this reason, and I feel like the purpose of prison should be two fold:
1) Primarily to remove dangerous or disruptive individuals from society for as long as they continue to pose a danger.
2) Rehabilate and educate people who became criminals due to a poor upbringing or lack of opportunity, and to move people into medical or psychiatric treatment when relevant.
I don't think punishment vengeance or deterrence should be considered at all. Obviously certain people are going to be irredeemable and should be kept in prison for the rest of their lives. But it shouldn't be because they 'deserve' it for whatever reason, but because they're likely to go back to crime on release. I think certain white collar criminals should be as likely to serve long sentences as people who commit armed robbery, depending on their motivation and background, etc.
Rehabilitation and sequestration are ways to protect and help people after a crime has been committed and presumably after the victim has suffered.
Punishment for deterrence--if it actually deters--can do something else entirely, it can prevent the suffering of the innocent and prevent new criminality by increasing the suffering of the guilty.
That's a good point. The more we learn about psychology, the more we realize a lot of criminal behavior is based on a chemical problem that is usually treatable. Adam Lanza comes to mind. What he did was probably the most horrible thing I've heard of, but the illness that caused him to do it was treatable.
The prison system in the US is supposed to be to rehabilitative rather than punitive. We aren't punishing people, we are fixing them. At least that's how it was described in the 80s. Based on sentencing in the last 30 years, that's hard to believe anymore.
Google "Jeanette maples". My wife took the call from the EMTs. Later on her dispatch department was told all about it by the detectives that worked the case.
The really really awful crap isn't public knowledge. This is one case where the death penalty is very much appropriate.
> What is the point of transition where we stop treating someone like a victim and begin treating them like a criminal?
A possible answer: proportional response. Breivik dealt out much more damage than he ever sustained. If a child has his ice cream taken by another child, and goes on to crush his ice cream bandit's larynx and watch them slowly suffocate and die, I no longer care about the ice cream. Breivik is a monster of the highest order who watched and prolonged his destruction. "Being a victim" is, in cases like this, irrelevant.
At least in terms of how we view people like him, and how we handle similar criminals.
Certainly, and analyses like these always ignore the fact that there are absolutely people (a majority?) who had horrifying childhoods and who don't end up mass murderers because of it. The truth is twofold: these people are absolutely responsible for their actions (as anyone should be, I personally think 18 is too high) but we can at the same time recognize that society's worst (and Breivik is undoubtedly in that category) do not necessarily choose to become the worst, and that the psychological conditions that make it seem like it's ok to kill people are not entirely within their control.
Incidents like these are a public health issue like any other: they point to broader deficits in societal attitudes towards medicine. Specifically in these cases it is the extreme stigmatization of mental illness in much of the Western world (for lack of a better term and not to say that it's nonexistent outside the West, just that I don't know) that makes it difficult for people to receive the care they want and need.
In most countries personality disorders are not regarded as mental illnesses.
Personality disorders have an early onset and have life-long patterns. Psychological and medical treatments are rarely effective. There is line somewhere between what people are and medical condition. When stress response or something goes awry in the young age, it may be impossible to reverse it or treat it. It's what person is.
Same person can be both victim and criminal. Criminals typically have impulse control problems and punishment don't work as effective deterrent.
This is why criminology and criminal justice systems in Nordic countries puts less weight on punishment. Separating criminals, partial rehabilitation or wearing them out in the system is best that criminal system can do. What people 'deserve' is just revenge seeking and vulgar attitude. It's probably rooted to religious belief in a soul.
Personality disorders are mostly diagnoses for life, sure, but some people do manage to grow out of them often through stuff like CBT/DBT. Even when they don't grow out, properly identifying personality disorders is immensely important and the treatment gap makes this far more difficult than it should be.
Some countries (like ex-USSR) also practice _punishing_ for a crime in prison -- further humiliating and abusing convicted person. Don't know if there's a reason (if ever were), but some people argue that it helps to reduce future crimes by other people ("don't do that, or you'll get to prison, you know what they do there"). Can't tell if it's supported by statistics.
In other countries, like Norway, justice systems are the other way around -- besides removing criminals from society, they also bear a job to re-socializing criminals -- treating them humane and helping them to find a job after the prison.
These other responsibilities affect answer to your question.
Yes. Not every person "damaged" in this manner gets a life sentence, having committed lesser but still serious crimes. How we treat them in prison and afterwards matters, and an understanding of the causes helps.
Punitive, harsh incarceration likely creates/exacerbates a bunch of damaged people with little hope of a future afterwards.
Agree that you can't let him out on the streets. However, protection needn't just be reactive. On the basis that prevention is better than cure is better than amputation, wouldn't it be great if we did a bunch more multi-disciplinary research into the why's and wherefore's and used that to inform everything from in-vitro genetic screening, child rearing, education, health policy, policing and judicial responses?
Personally, I believe there are too many interests at play that are quite happy not to have their methods questioned, and "preventing the next psychopath" has an element of the Y2K problem, in that, if successful, all you get is "Was that really necessary? Are you sure you didn't overstate the problem? Did we really need to spend all that money?"
Well, it also depends on how you want to treat him once you remove him from society too. If you want to state that he is just "full of pure evil," then maybe you just want to treat him really poorly.
It doesn't absolve them of their crimes. It doesn't throw anything into doubt. You can throw in some therapy if you'd like, but these are unfixable people who've done terrible things. They shouldn't ever step onto a street again.
Unfixable is a strong term and I think a concept that represents a lot of the core issues in our justice system today.
The justice system should be in pursuit of a healthier society. Throwing intelligent, capable human beings into a cage and removing them from the economy is costly in many ways.
And even if full rehabilitation cannot be achieved, surely there are partial solutions at hand.
I don't think you can class the likes of Breivik with common criminals or run-of-the-mill manslaughter/hot-blooded murderers, or even professional killers. Breivik is a self-professed enemy of society, he sees foreign armies all around him which he is entitled to fight with lethal force. There is no solution for that but to keep him away from anything and anyone. This is not even punishment, this is simple protection of the species. Even if there were a cure effective 99.99% of the times, society simply cannot afford the 0.01% risk.
By all means treat him as best as you can, but he just can't be released in society anymore. The best you can hope from him is that he becomes a great monk.
Some people are actually unfixable and destined to commit horrific acts of violence, this we know unequivocally.
The only way we can prevent it is by screening and monitoring people before it happens, and we've got a pretty good idea of the precursors for this kind of thing.
I doubt society would consent to such interference in order to prevent a few deaths from these rare individuals.
Additionally for true prevention we would need to stop certain people from having and raising kids, now... that's a can of worms I am not sure will ever be opened.
You can't undo the awful things they did, but I try to avoid language constructs like 'these are unfixable people' in favor of 'we don't know how to deal with this.'
One one level I find Ander Brievik appalling because he was willing to murder a bunch of innocent people to uphold the nazi ideology which finally gave him a sense of identity and direction. While he must have had a gaping void at his center in order to go to such lengths, it's not so surprising that a badly alienated person clings to a radical ideology that offers them the social and emotional validation they crave, even at a far remove.
On the other hand I'm similarly disturbed at the people who originate and promote ideologies of this kind and who target their arguments precisely at such psychologically vulnerable types, in the knowledge and expectation that their ideas will be acted on by others. Brievik's manifesto, for example, heavily plagiarizes a monograph on political correctness by William Lind, co-founder (with the late Paul Weyrich) of the ultra-libertarian Free Congress Foundation. Lind is an influential military theorist who has done a lot to shape the debate on modern counterinsurgency; also a self-described 'neo-Victorian' and not-so-secret proponent of genocidal policies. But he hasn't shot anyone in person, so that apparently makes it OK.
I'm very much anti-censorship and in favor of maximizing personal freedom of expression, but this inevitably leads quandaries like how one should respond to an ideology that argues for the elimination of other peoples' political rights or even existence. Traditionally for liberals 'the solution to bad speech is more speech,' but this notion is predicated on the assumption that rational discourse is the norm and that fair competition obtains in a 'marketplace of ideas.' Increasingly I don't think that either is true that we have run into the limits of the market as social arbitration mechanism because it's apparent that you can attract people to authoritarian politics almost as easily as you can attract people to any other kind of brand.
I'm not sure how you systematize this; I don't really agree with Germany's approach of heavily censoring any expression of nazism in public discourse but I can see why they adopted it. For me the rule of thumb is that I won't give the time of day to any ideology that purports to sort people by their personal characteristics rather than by their behavioral ones or employs fallacies to achieve the same ends (eg 'members of (group) did these bad things, people with (characteristics) are members of (group), therefore said people are bad). Now on the individual level you can employ forensic debate to pick apart someone's specious argument and force them to a position where they either affirm or abandon that ideological identity. But on a collective level that's not really practical and what frequently ensues is a race for the lowest common denominator of political discourse, to the point that point that crackpot outfits are now treated like credible sources in debates on the news.
The internet has disrupted the media business in no uncertain terms, but it's highly questionable whether the public is actually better informed as a result. There's a lot more data available, and for news junkies like myself that's like an endless supply of free heroin, but our political discourse looks less and less like a creative exchange of ideas and more and more like an elaborate trading card game.
What if we discover a tumor in his brain that caused this and after removing it he will be a perfectly sound and reasonable person? Should we keep him in forever? What about death penalty?
The point of transition is always the same... control. If we could change the things that were wrong with such people, and then it was a choice for them to be so changed or remain as they are (and in jail)... that's how you transition from one way of life to another.
Unfortunately right now we don't have that kind of ability; the best you have is the educated guess of some doctors or parole officers. We're stuck because on one hand we understand that this guy was sick, but on the other hand he's sick in a way we can't fix, and he's dangerous. If it were a physical ailment with the same qualities, we'd still feel a combination of pity and revulsion.
This is also now well supported science. The ACE study (http://acestudy.org) revealed that children who have adverse experiences in their early life dominate social dysfunction and even after one significant adverse experience have dramatically different life outcomes from other people. Allowing children to be abused is a major social problem that costs all of us terribly.
You leave out the critical question: how do we best protect society? The cycle of abuse, and circumstances that explain how abusers become abusers, does not absolve us from the necessity of protecting potential victims. It does, however, forces us to treat inmates humanely and to not engage into pure 'retaliation'. There's little evidence that punitive sentences actually do anything for preventing crimes. You can acknowledge the dangerousness of specific individuals and the necessity of preventing (further) crimes, while understanding how they got there.
It's also critical to intervene early. By the time they're adults, or have started a criminal career, it's much more difficult for someone to change. At this point potential sentences, however 'punitive', do very little dissuasion.
It's important to not forget genetics in the role of this.
There are genes that cause anti-social behaviour, depression, alcoholism, and so on. Such people, when untreated, are quite likely to be bad parents.
Their children, will indeed show a similar pattern to the parent's, but childhood abuse/neglect would be more a symptom than an underlying cause of a terrible family history.
We know that because of twin and adoption studies.
In many of such scenarios, what predicted a messed-up psyche was not the family someone grew up with. Instead, it was either family they were born into (adoption), or a set of genes (different correlations for mono/di-zygotic twins).
My mistake if that's how I make it sound. I agree, you can be both. But in many cases we don't try them in court as both. We pick one. In this case it was decided he was sane.
'Sane' has nothing to do with criminal vs victim. It's also a myth that you get off easy if you're legally declared insane - sentences for those people are so routinely longer than regular prison sentences, that lawyers advise against pleading insanity.
In any case, if you're a defendant in criminal court, you're being tried as a criminal, whether or not you're a victim. Defendants aren't declared 'victims' and tried differently.
In one case, it is a crime that happened recently and resulted in many deaths.
In another case (with the same individual) it happened way past the statute of limitations and to a single person.
Judicial systems are not really designed to handle systemic shifts (with the exception of supreme courts) and are specifically limited in where they can weigh judgement on.
For the systemic changes modern governments use legislative bodies.
Using the word "sane" isn't helpful here because it has a very narrow legal definition.
A person with a psychotic illness may well not be "insane" in the eyes of the law if they were not operating under their illness at the time of their crime.
"As the trial for Breivik's bomb-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people entered its second week, the far-right fanatic told a court that he was the victim of a "racist" plot to discredit his ideology. He said no one would have questioned his sanity if he were a "bearded jihadist." "
What worries me about this is the detailed nature of this account. Surely every one of us has had quite a few painful years: imagine if it had all been recorded in dry, bureaucratic detail.
I'm reminded of the story about æroplanes and the mythical average pilot: just as no pilot is actually average (and, in the original story, that's why cockpits designed for the average were bad for everyone), might it not be that none of us is statistically normal, and thus every one of us is thus abnormal, and hence dangerous to the bureaucratic state?
None of this is meant to minimise Brevik's horrific crime, of course. But I'm worried about this level of detail being available for anyone on the planet. I don't know what the solution is: obviously, it's now possible to record lots of details about anyone, and just as obviously, it's possible for those details to be made available. That implies that those details will be made available, and so we as a society must come to terms with that.
Still, it's a bit chilling that a State can track a man down to that level of detail.
You eventually realize that it's next to impossible to hate someone when, if you were born into their situation, with their genetics, their environment, their condition, you would very likely have done the same exact thing. There's a tragic amount of predetermination in life.
You might, but then again you might choose not to. I reject the idea that it's just predetermination, that undermines the concept of agency. I come from a similar or possibly worse background, I find Brievik's problems extremely relatable and thus find him extremely interesting on a personal level. On the other hand I've never initiated violence against anyone else, even though I'm a long way from being a pacifist. I have a code of conduct and while it hasn't profited it me much in material terms at least I derive moral satisfaction from it.
I don't disagree with your basic premise, and cannot even fathom what its like to have your formative years defined by such tragic and insurmountable circumstances...
That being said, there are a lot (probably a considerable majority) of people who have gone through the same or worse, and never commit an act comparable to the methodical slaughter of 70+ innocent strangers.
Am I the only one to cry out bullshit! The guy is a terrorist, period. He deserves to pay for what he did. I survived a genocide and you don't see me go around and kill people.
No one is saying his childhood absolves him of any responsibility. The article is merely looking at his upbringing. It's apples and oranges where you compare genocide to child abuse.
It's remarkable there was any awareness of his predicament at all. All too often it seems that society is only sensitive to the more obvious forms of abuse (sexual and physical). Yet I suspect psychological abuse is far, far worse. I bet if you looked deeply into the lives of U.S. school shooters you'd find a similar story.
The real lesson here is: if you're a borderline woman, do NOT have children. If you do, give them up for adoption. We as a society should be ready and willing to forcibly separate children from borderline parents.
To say nothing of what it does for public faith in any officials administering such policy. It's not hard to imagine a large group becoming entirely untrusting of, for example, the police by such a brash pursuit of family-breaking.
A tragedy, but not an answer to my question. Is there a fundamental difference between this and putting people away for murder, or is it just a matter of making sure we get it right?
We imprison murderers and thieves based on objective proof of their crimes. Separating children from their parents because of undesirable personality traits seems much more subjective.
>The real lesson here is: if you're a borderline woman, do NOT have children. If you do, give them up for adoption. We as a society should be ready and willing to forcibly separate children from borderline parents.
Of course we should reserve the right to remove children from abusive situations, but depriving people of the right to have children? You can't just cast everyone with BPD as a raving lunatic incapable of real human connection, it's a caricature and furthermore it's wrong. They are still people just like everyone else and are capable of the same things we are. People with BPD are absolutely capable of being good parents. The fact that there is not better treatment for BPD I believe is due to social stigma surrounding it (do you know about the treatment gap?) and making blanket statements like "don't have children if you're borderline" does not reduce stigma.
I stand by my statement. I care more about children (not to mention the other people they will harm) than about the feelings of an adult with BPD. My hope is that such an adult would do the responsible thing and choose not to have children, and spend that energy on making themselves better (which is a difficult, lifelong and worthy task).
No, it's not an easy policy to enforce, or to enforce fairly. The diagnosis is inevitably subjective. This is a fundamental difficulty in dealing with all forms of psychological abuse. If only there was an equivalent way for kids to come forward with bruises and broken bones or saying "Mommy touched me in my naughty place"! But this is precisely why BPD adults should not to have kids, because the harm is extremely difficult to detect. Prevention is better than cure.
I'm not an expert, but I strongly suspect that the harm of psychological abuse is 10-100x the harm of physical or sexual abuse, both to the child and to society. But too often people say "it's none of my business" even when they would have said something if there was a broken bone.
I certainly empathize with your urgency, to the point of making deliberate decisions to not be a parent myself because I don't want to perpetuate my dysfunctional behavior patterns, but forcibly separating people on technical grounds is inherently problematic. Babies, bathwater etc.
>I care more about children (not to mention the other people they will harm) than about the feelings of an adult with BPD.
This isn't about anyone's "feelings," this is about not affording people fewer rights because they carry a specific medical diagnosis.
>My hope is that such an adult would do the responsible thing and choose not to have children, and spend that energy on making themselves better (which is a difficult, lifelong and worthy task).
Again, you're oversimplifying, not everyone with any mental illness is the same. With proper treatment and patient understanding, people with BPD can absolutely be stable and well-adjusted enough to form a family. I'm not sure why you think they can't? Would you say the same of depressed people, because of the likelihood that they might off themselves while the child is at a crucial stage of development? I'm not making this personal as a way of scolding you morally, but I personally suffer from unipolar depression, ADHD, and gender dysphoria, all of which could conceivably make me a worse parent if you allow them to define who I am as a person.
These are absolutely difficult questions, and their ramifications require a depth of consideration you don't seem willing to give them.
>No, it's not an easy policy to enforce, or to enforce fairly.
This is sort of the whole problem though, and once you take out this bit, it becomes tautologous very fast: would I eliminate
any and all factors that harm children and their development in theory if I could? Absolutely, but that's not what we're discussing here. The moral content of these proposals can't exist outside the legal framework that would make them possible, and so other things must be taken into account.
>The diagnosis is inevitably subjective. This is a fundamental difficulty in dealing with all forms of psychological abuse.
Of course, and as always the focus needs to be on the harm it's causing the kid and not on the parent's theoretical potential for successful child-rearing based on inherent qualities of their character or mental illness. I'm sorry to draw this comparison, but that's how the religious right justifies banning gay adoption when kids grow up just fine with gay parents. You're pathologizing borderline personality disorder as defined as being a bad person, and it doesn't work like that. There are ghastly parents who are awful to their children but suffer no discernible mental illness themselves, and there are parents who suffer from mental illness but raise great children in spite of their own suffering and while coping with it. It's just not that simple.
>If only there was an equivalent way for kids to come forward with bruises and broken bones or saying "Mommy touched me in my naughty place"!
I'm a little uncomfortable that you're so focused on women here, because it's not just women who suffer from BPD, and there's a lot of research that suggests the stigma around it and around mental health care is what prevents men from seeking treatment, because mental illness is a sign of weakness and patriarchal society demands that men be strong, violent, and largely unemotional. See for example Wikipedia's gender section on BPD, which is itself a great cross section on why mental illness is seen as feminine in Western culture and how there are tons of men who meet the criteria for ASPD or BPD but we ignore it because the qualities of those disorders are often seen as positive when they're exhibited by men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorde...
Particularly I don't understand why you're tying this to sexual abuse, because it's not really related to BPD and making it seem as such is enormously offensive to the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness who are not sexual abusers. It also denies people who do commit sexual assault and abuse responsibility for their actions under the guise of pathologizing them, when really the solution to sexual assault is to teach people why sexual abuse is bad (genuinely) and work on fighting rape culture. Being a rapist is not a mental illness.
>But this is precisely why BPD adults should not to have kids, because the harm is extremely difficult to detect. Prevention is better than cure.
Yes, but you seem to think we could prevent stuff like this from happening by screening for mental illness in parents, which I'm not convinced would do less harm than good even if you had a perfect screen. If we can prevent it, we should, but that does not extend to violating civil liberties and basic human rights.
>I'm not an expert, but I strongly suspect that the harm of psychological abuse is 10-100x the harm of physical or sexual abuse, both to the child and to society.
I'm not sure how you would quantify that, but I disagree. I think it seems that way because mental illness and the other results of psychological abuse are vastly misunderstood by most people and psychiatric treatment is both politically controversial and culturally stigmatized.
>But too often people say "it's none of my business" even when they would have said something if there was a broken bone.
Definitely, and this is an enormous problem both with how we treat mental illness in our society and how we think about it. But I think the attitudes that would define people by their illness as you seem to want and slot them into moral categories as such are part and parcel with what is backwards about that attitude: being diagnosed with a mental illness is a guarantee of having that illness and little else with regards to behavior (sometimes even less, as you mentioned that diagnoses are subjective even though well-trained psychiatrists absolutely can often recognize these things without too much trouble.)
The moment you go blaming social problems on mentally ill individuals is where you jump the gap from raising awareness of mental illness to stigmatizing people and putting them in a box based on a diagnosis. The former is an admirable and extremely important goal, and the latter is an unenlightened continuation of present regressive attitudes towards people with mental illnesses.
Most people with BPD don't know they've got it, and neither does any authority. You'd be creating a system where people would avoid getting medical care because the government would take their kids away. A system where only those people who show up on the radar lose their kids (and current laws are already able to remove them if the kids are abused).
Getting legally involved in domestic issues is incredibly difficult, even without mental health being involved. There is no way to do what you're asking without being an oppressive police state engaging in surveillance and eugenics.
And why stop at BPD? What about those kids with abusive parents who aren't BPD? Where does it end? Where do the kids go? There already aren't enough foster parents to go around, and life as a ward of the state is far worse than life with most BPD parents.
I think psychological abuse is an incredibly difficult to solve problem for precisely those reasons. But I also believe psych abuse causes far, far more suffering in children (and society) than physical or sexual abuse. Fair enforcement is bound to be a difficult, perhaps intractable problem. But I stand by my view that BPD people simply shouldn't raise kids, with or without gov. enforcement.
Wow reading the account of his childhood was very eye-opening.
For starters, I should say I've never hurt anyone willingly, not in any serious way at least, nor for any length of time. Secondly, my parents are happily married as were their parents, my home life was mostly fine. My dad is an emotional black hole but I love him.
What I found strikingly similar to Anders was his emotional reaction to people, being distant, few friends, fake smiles that I usually have to try very hard to make them be believable. He obviously got hurt by people in his life and learned to depend on himself to keep his ego intact, and that's my experience as well.
I have a deep desire to be normal but I know i'm not. Up until about 9 or 10 I was a pretty normal kid, but then my family moved across the country. I knew nobody in the new town. Before the move I had a best friend, several other friends and I had a pretty happy childhood overall. I'm convinced I had ADD because I was extremely hyper-active and my primary outlet in my new school was to draw, most of my worksheets until about middle school were filled with random doodles. I day-dreamed constantly, I was always behind on work because I could rarely focus on doing any one thing for more than a few minutes.
So in my new school, I had an extremely hard time making any friends. I have one I would consider a close friend, though the older we get the more distant we seem to become. So all the ADD-fueled mannerisms that I thrived on before moving, that my old friends accepted me in spite of them, all worked against me at the new school. I didn't fit in anywhere at my new, much larger school. I never really got into fights or was overly picked on, but I always felt rejected just for being me.
DUring high school at a job, one of my bosses told me once "You're a really serious guy, you know that", because I seldom showed any emotion. At the time I took it as a compliment. I'm much more emotive these days, but the damage to my personality has been done. I live alone, haven't had a girlfriend in over a year and I generally have very little contact with people outside of work, and only at work. I really seldom desire any, though I do love to be in small company as long as i'm not the center of attention. My old childhood friends really are strangers to me now, I tried to reconnect with most of them but the person I was back then isn't the person I am today.
I guess I just wanted some more insight into this. I certainly don't mean anyone harm, but everytime I see a psychological profile of a serial killer, I always see a part of them in me, the desire for time alone and the lack of adherance to most social norms and the general distance with people both physically and emotionally. My neighbors I'm pretty sure are afraid of me simply because I seldom have any guests and I keep to myself for the most part, especially after my last girlfriend moved out over a year ago. I really don't know any of my neighbors very well at all even though I've lived here over 5 years.
I want to be a normal, people enjoying person, I have that drive in me, but something stops me. Not sure why I posted, but there are a lot of wise people who post here so I'm curious what input they might have (good or bad).
Sucks I can't really read the article because some-custom scrolling or scripts are breaking the vim-fx FF plugin and the normal-scrolling doesn't even move the page.
If Chrome, give vimium a try. I have no such issues with Chromium 57.0.2987.98 + vimium + ublock origin + umatrix. The only scripts running are served from '*.tv2.no', but even with blocking those the article loads fine, albiet without images.
I struggle with reconciling these cases because there's two drastically different perspectives you can look at it from:
1. Brevik is a mass murderer and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
2. Brevik is a victim who was never given a fair shot at life to begin with. He was moulded into the horrible person he became.
What is the point of transition where we stop treating someone like a victim and begin treating them like a criminal? How many serious offenders have been raised in such a damaging way that you could argue they're not exactly responsible for any of the awful things they ended up doing?
It brings doubt to how we handle serious criminals in modern times.