Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 10, 2012
Crime Mass Killer Anders Behring Breivik Is not Insane
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik was sane when he killed 77 people last summer in attacks he saw as punishing "traitors" who favoured immigration, a psychiatric team said on Tuesday, in a report contradicting an earlier one that found him psychotic.Breivik is certainly insane. There's no way around this fact. It stands as is.Breivik himself has insisted he is mentally stable and demanded that the attacks - the most violent in Norway since World War Two - be judged as a political act rather than the work of a deranged mind.
"The mental health experts' main conclusion is that defendant Anders Behring Breivik is considered not to have been psychotic at the time of the actions on July 22, 2011," Oslo District Court said in a statement.
1
Not necessarily. He was fucked in the head but he didn't have to be insane at the time.
You have to remember that its not the US (I would like to print that on tshirts and pass them out to american journalists). Its not the same legal system. He wasn't psychotic at the time so he cannot claim insanity. He can be given forced treatment but he was not a raving lunatic and can therefore be helt accountable for what he did because he was aware of what he was doing.
You have to remember that its not the US (I would like to print that on tshirts and pass them out to american journalists). Its not the same legal system. He wasn't psychotic at the time so he cannot claim insanity. He can be given forced treatment but he was not a raving lunatic and can therefore be helt accountable for what he did because he was aware of what he was doing.
3
Welp, not according to legal and psychological experts Chuckles. Good ol' M'Naghten Rules at play. (Well, their modern day Norwegian counterparts anyway.)
From 1843: the House Of Lords, having deliberated, delivered the following exposition of the Rules:
The jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten…
From 1843: the House Of Lords, having deliberated, delivered the following exposition of the Rules:
The jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten…
5
I think we should worry about a world where "wrong" is immediately conflated with "insane", as Charles does here. What Breivik did was clearly wrong, but a perfectly sane thought process can come to a wrong conclusion.
6
Of course you think he's insane. Otherwise, this crime would make you question the urban & socialist background of Behring. Why do I think if this was some hillbilly from the South, you would have posted at length the "crime" of his rural upbringing?
7
And a brain that we may agree is flawed can still be help accountable if that brain also knows that the rest of society believe it's bodies actions are incorrect.
(Does that make sense?)
(Does that make sense?)
8
You mean Pamela Geller has at least one non-psychotic fan? I find that a little hard to believe, but I'll defer to the experts.
9
@6 If Charles statement was random and based on him not grasping the fundaments of Norweigian law yours is based on ignorance of such a level its scary in itself.
Breivik is very much right wing - he was an active member of right wing anti immigration parties in Norway aswell as a supporter of the counter-jihad-movement in Europe. The kids he murdered where all members of a left wing youth organisation which he saw responsable for destroying Norway with socialism, feminism and interculturalism.
His "socialist background"? This better be one of those instances where you guys in the US use "socialist" to mean "everyone else" and not the actual term.
Breivik is very much right wing - he was an active member of right wing anti immigration parties in Norway aswell as a supporter of the counter-jihad-movement in Europe. The kids he murdered where all members of a left wing youth organisation which he saw responsable for destroying Norway with socialism, feminism and interculturalism.
His "socialist background"? This better be one of those instances where you guys in the US use "socialist" to mean "everyone else" and not the actual term.
10
Charles, with this post you prove to be as dangerous as you are stupid.
The "logic" you spew forth with the assumption of universal truth depends on the belief that any one has to be insane to do absolutely horrible things. So Brevik, you say, was insane. Then so was Timothy McVeigh. And so were Mao and Stalin and every single Nazi, not to mention all the members of the Spanish Inquisition and just about every roman emperor and general.
Your line of thinking ignores the human potential to do terrible things and completely eradicates personal responsibility. It is what allows more horrible things to happen. It ignores root causes and attitudes. The Rwandan genocide to you was a mass hysteria and could only happen where insanity suddenly and spontaneously infects an entire population.
It's simplistic. Idealism to the point of Nihilism. It's fucking idiotic. And it only pisses me off all the more the way you say it with such arrogance and overconfidence. You should will the nobel prize for trolling and/or being a massive dickhead.
The "logic" you spew forth with the assumption of universal truth depends on the belief that any one has to be insane to do absolutely horrible things. So Brevik, you say, was insane. Then so was Timothy McVeigh. And so were Mao and Stalin and every single Nazi, not to mention all the members of the Spanish Inquisition and just about every roman emperor and general.
Your line of thinking ignores the human potential to do terrible things and completely eradicates personal responsibility. It is what allows more horrible things to happen. It ignores root causes and attitudes. The Rwandan genocide to you was a mass hysteria and could only happen where insanity suddenly and spontaneously infects an entire population.
It's simplistic. Idealism to the point of Nihilism. It's fucking idiotic. And it only pisses me off all the more the way you say it with such arrogance and overconfidence. You should will the nobel prize for trolling and/or being a massive dickhead.
11
@10 steady! What the hell, he said he was insane which the first group of psychiatrists agreed upon based on the information available. The second group actually delved in and concluded that Breivik wasn't psychotic at the time of the attack although he does suffer from several psychotic illnesses
Charles isn't saying anyone who disagrees with him is insane - but that he considered the second groups conclusions where wrong.
Way to take one sentence and spin a whole tale from it.
(Also I've noticed something, theres this string of people who seems to absolutely hate Charles Mudede and keep popping up in the comments of everything he writes about. Is there some reason to this? Did he pee in someones tea back in 1998 or something? Or are you guys just dicks? :))
Charles isn't saying anyone who disagrees with him is insane - but that he considered the second groups conclusions where wrong.
Way to take one sentence and spin a whole tale from it.
(Also I've noticed something, theres this string of people who seems to absolutely hate Charles Mudede and keep popping up in the comments of everything he writes about. Is there some reason to this? Did he pee in someones tea back in 1998 or something? Or are you guys just dicks? :))
14
@11.
Charles’ only reason to believe the second group is wrong is that Brevik did terrible things. Charles does not refute methodology of the second group, and if he did he would have no standing because he is not a mental health expert. He offers no evidence why group 1 is right and 2 is wrong. It’s all and only because of the extreme and horrible actions Brevik committed.
That one little sentence you discard as being important is critical. It is the classic rationalization people used after WWII to sweep away the terrible potential that lives in individuals and societies. Oh, Hitler was insane. Those people were crazy. Move along, nothing to see here.
And, yes, lots of people can't stand Charles. It's because he says things like this and says rape survivors are forever and hopelessly broken and the million other hateful, ignorant, and arrogant statements he makes all the time.
Charles’ only reason to believe the second group is wrong is that Brevik did terrible things. Charles does not refute methodology of the second group, and if he did he would have no standing because he is not a mental health expert. He offers no evidence why group 1 is right and 2 is wrong. It’s all and only because of the extreme and horrible actions Brevik committed.
That one little sentence you discard as being important is critical. It is the classic rationalization people used after WWII to sweep away the terrible potential that lives in individuals and societies. Oh, Hitler was insane. Those people were crazy. Move along, nothing to see here.
And, yes, lots of people can't stand Charles. It's because he says things like this and says rape survivors are forever and hopelessly broken and the million other hateful, ignorant, and arrogant statements he makes all the time.
15
Lawyers will run around naked offering up their behind to any quack doctor who can shine some helping lite on a black hole case. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5740…
No body taints a jury like the American government and people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Nor…)
VS.
http://pbs.jhu.edu/courses/200.325.pdf
As their is no death penalty I don't get what objective can be gained from Mental health other than an attempt to persuade sentencing in a mega mass murder case?
Or just more moneys for lawyers to soak up.
No body taints a jury like the American government and people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Nor…)
VS.
http://pbs.jhu.edu/courses/200.325.pdf
As their is no death penalty I don't get what objective can be gained from Mental health other than an attempt to persuade sentencing in a mega mass murder case?
Or just more moneys for lawyers to soak up.
16
Charles,
Not sure what to make of that assessment. Clearly, Norway has different standards of mental evaluation and justice. At the end of the day and at the very least I want Breivik incarcerated for life. He's a threat to humanity whatever his mental state.
Not sure what to make of that assessment. Clearly, Norway has different standards of mental evaluation and justice. At the end of the day and at the very least I want Breivik incarcerated for life. He's a threat to humanity whatever his mental state.
17
You're going to see a lot more of these reactionary bloodbaths occur as Europe awakes from its post-war slumber. I don't think most European nations consider themselves to be of the cosmopolitan variety as is often assumed of the US. For the most part, in a large way now distinct from the pre-WW1 consensus, European nations are ethnic conclaves. When the migrant worker population, now largely citizens, are found to be too much trouble now that they are fewer demands for cheap-labor as Europe has been rebuilt from the damage of WW2, you are going to see these nations assert themselves as ethnic conclaves; it will not go well for descendents of this migrant workers; they will be afforded only second class citizenship, expelled, murdered--you get the idea.
The violence will eventually move from political to social.
I don't have any sort of personal stake in this. Keen to see what happens.
The violence will eventually move from political to social.
I don't have any sort of personal stake in this. Keen to see what happens.
18
It's entirely possible for someone to be evil and not be insane. Perhaps if people could acknowledge this, and if they could acknowledge that their friends and loved ones are often capable of committing terrible crimes, we could start confronting horrific crimes with some degree of sense and reason. As it stands, most people look for excuses why a criminal isn't responsible for his/her crimes, and, if they know the criminal personally, they will go to great lengths to defend that person, even disparaging and attacking the criminal's victims. Because apparently being friends with or loving a violent criminal is a fate worse than death. So much better to claim that a child victim of rape was asking for it, or that a black teenager was a thug who had an unprovoked gunning down coming.
19
@1 and @11. Your comments prove you know jack diddly about the U.S. legal system, so why are YOU commenting.
Anyway, the legal definition of insanity and legal determinations of insanity in the west are very different from what we consider insane in our daily lives. A lot of this is because we focus on the issue of good verses evil in our legal analysis, rather than degree of irrationality.
If I managed to obtain a high powered automatic weapon and robbed an armored bank truck in an effort to shore up the family finances, but ended up killing a guard to make my gettaway, my wife would definitely say, "You are insane." And she would be right because my actions would be so wildly dissociated from the community and rational thought, or even any degree of actual self interest. But my chances of succeeding with an insanity defense in the U.S. would be close to zero.
It seems to me that the legal definitions tend to focus less on the idea of whether the actor is capable of distinguishing wrong from right than whether the actor is capable of understanding the broad society's of distinction between wrong and right. This Norwegian guy certainly knew that killing innocent children would be considered morally and legally wrong under that dominant view, but he excused himself with, and hopes to eventually be vindicated by, the eventual triumph of his righteous political views. The monumental irrationality of his acts and his absurd belief in his own importance? It is harder to find a defense if you haven't been voted in to office first. Some kind of prior diagnosis helps, but not always, as it looks like in this case.
Anyway, the legal definition of insanity and legal determinations of insanity in the west are very different from what we consider insane in our daily lives. A lot of this is because we focus on the issue of good verses evil in our legal analysis, rather than degree of irrationality.
If I managed to obtain a high powered automatic weapon and robbed an armored bank truck in an effort to shore up the family finances, but ended up killing a guard to make my gettaway, my wife would definitely say, "You are insane." And she would be right because my actions would be so wildly dissociated from the community and rational thought, or even any degree of actual self interest. But my chances of succeeding with an insanity defense in the U.S. would be close to zero.
It seems to me that the legal definitions tend to focus less on the idea of whether the actor is capable of distinguishing wrong from right than whether the actor is capable of understanding the broad society's of distinction between wrong and right. This Norwegian guy certainly knew that killing innocent children would be considered morally and legally wrong under that dominant view, but he excused himself with, and hopes to eventually be vindicated by, the eventual triumph of his righteous political views. The monumental irrationality of his acts and his absurd belief in his own importance? It is harder to find a defense if you haven't been voted in to office first. Some kind of prior diagnosis helps, but not always, as it looks like in this case.
20
Is every single person who does something horrendous automatically insane? Certainly not.
So why is it that when what they have done has religious motives we are so quick to declare them insane? Perhaps we do not want to admit that the insanity lies within religion itself...and the human brain is simply weak and malleable.
By declaring Breivik insane, or declaring any Muslim suicide bomber insane, without any professional evaluation, we are separating religion out and taking the blame away from it.
So why is it that when what they have done has religious motives we are so quick to declare them insane? Perhaps we do not want to admit that the insanity lies within religion itself...and the human brain is simply weak and malleable.
By declaring Breivik insane, or declaring any Muslim suicide bomber insane, without any professional evaluation, we are separating religion out and taking the blame away from it.
21
No, because that lets the piece of shit off easy.
Why are white people with extreme politics invariably insane (and therefore excusable), while the sanity of people of color with extreme politics is never questioned (and their actions are inexcusable)? Oh, wait.
Why are white people with extreme politics invariably insane (and therefore excusable), while the sanity of people of color with extreme politics is never questioned (and their actions are inexcusable)? Oh, wait.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS