CLEAN: Norway awaits for the verdict on Breivik

The transcript discusses the concept of insanity in legal cases, questioning the assumption that planning a crime indicates sanity. It argues for a fair trial and justice for all, regardless of the crime committed. The speaker emphasizes that everyone deserves a just trial without torture or extreme punishment, reflecting on personal views about justice and legal processes.

What does the speaker think about the possibility of the person being declared insane after 20 or 21 years?

• The speaker thinks it would be appropriate.

• The speaker strongly opposes it.

• The speaker believes it is unlikely.

• The speaker is indifferent about it.

How does the speaker view the argument that planning an action indicates sanity?

• The speaker agrees with it.

• The speaker finds it logical.

• The speaker is unsure about it.

• The speaker dismisses it as a layman's explanation.

What does the speaker suggest about the person's psychiatric evaluations?

• They suggest insanity.

• They are inconclusive.

• They are irrelevant.

• They indicate sanity.

What is the speaker's stance on the type of trial the person should receive?

• A biased trial.

• No trial at all.

• A fair and just trial.

• A quick trial.

What does the speaker believe about extreme punishments for the person?

• They are justified.

• They are necessary.

• They should be avoided.

• They are inevitable.