Anders Breivik declared sane

[Traitorfish]

Norway's mass killer Breivik declared sane

A second psychiatric evaluation of Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik has found him sane enough to face trial and a jail term.

The findings contradict a previous evaluation, published in November, that found him legally insane.

Breivik is due to stand trial on Monday over a bomb attack and shooting spree last July that killed 77 people.

The 33-year-old, who insists he is mentally stable, was "pleased" with the new assessment, his lawyer said.

Geir Lippestad told reporters his client would defend his actions during his 10-week trial, adding, "he will also regret that he didn't go further".

Both reports will be considered by the court when it decides, at the end of the trial, whether he should be sent to a psychiatric ward or jail.

If Breivik is deemed to have been sane at the time of the killings then he could face 21 years in prison with the potential for indefinite extensions to his term as long as he is considered a danger to the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17663958

I don't think that it's overstating things to say that this has a relevance beyond determining which institution Breivik will find himself confined to. There's been a definite push from some areas of the public sphere to emphasise his alleged insanity as a way of depoliticising the case, of presenting a chasm between the intellectual circles in which Breivik moved and his actions in Oslo.

If this evaluation stands, this no longer appears sustainable. Certainly, it can still be alleged that he suffers from certain delusions, but the insulation between any such delusions and their apparent source is no absent, because Breivik's far-right politics no longer appear as the simple articulation of a mental disorder. They are no longer a form imposed onto pre-existing content, but an aspect of the content themselves. His "crusade" no longer a simple grudge against the world given superficial politically form, but a political act in itself.

Does this have any implications for other vocal opponents of multiculturalism, and if so, how broad are those implications? Is it only overt neo-fascists and white nationalists who find themselves in the firing line, or will the "mainstream far-right", parties such as the British National Party, Swedish Democrats or the Party for Freedom?

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not sure the implications are nearly as substantial as you seem to suggest (though I don't really entirely understand what your argument is). The article indicates that he was declared sane enough to stand trial, but that he was not declared sane (the important phrase being that he was found 'sane enough'). The psychiatric evaluation may well have maintained that he is mentally ill, but that his particular mental illness does not constitute a legal defence. That could mean that his far-right politics are a 'simple articulation of a mental disorder', but that he was entirely aware of the consequences and gravity of his actions. It's not a matter of having a mental illness giving you a free pass on committing crime, or as in this case, being fit enough to stand trial meaning you are free of mental illness. It doesn't necessarily make his act a political one.

 

[Cheetah]

He's not 'criminally insane' (if I've understood that term correctly). So he'll stand trial and won't be locked up in a mental institution, but rather sent to a normal prison to serve his 21 years. Though he'll also be sentenced to 'involuntary commitment' and every fifth year the 'involuntary commitment' will be extended another five years... Most likely he'll do his time in isolation, to keep him protected from the other prisoners.

What annoys me is that the media spends half their time covering this story. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of it! He's a murderer who killed 77 human beings! He did it alone, and he has admitted his guilt! Get the trial over with, lock him up, and stop pestering me with yet another story of the victims, or his childhood, or how his lawyer feels, or any other topic surrounding this case that has already been talked to death! The guy simply isn't worth all this attention.

Luckily, one of the largest newspapers in Norway has decided to make a version of their website where there will be no mentioning of the trial. I plan to use that option extensively.

 

[warpus]

One evaluation found him sane, the other one insane.

From what I've read the court will take both into consideration.

 

[trader/warrior]

I wonder how the court will make the decision. Pretty weird that we have highly qualified experts to make these evaluations, then it ends up with conflicting results and has to be decided by the court itself which is, I assume, less qualified in deciding matters of criminal psychology than the psychologists themselves are.

Sure doesn't give me a lot of faith in psychology though. From "Psychotic during the crime and during later interrogation, years of paranoid schizophrenia." to "Not psychotic, not schizophrenic." would have thought the difference would be pretty distinct.

From what I hear the second evaluation (sane) will probably have more weight as it had a lot more material available and was more comprehensive.

 

[Hehehe]

to serve his 21 years.

So the maximum penalty is 21 years? That seems a bit light for 77 murders, in my humble opinion.

I wonder how the court will make the decision. Pretty weird that we have highly qualified experts to make these evaluations, then it ends up with conflicting results and has to be decided by the court itself which is, I assume, less qualified in deciding matters of criminal psychology than the psychologists themselves are.

Sure doesn't give me a lot of faith in psychology though. From "Psychotic during the crime and during later interrogation, years of paranoid schizophrenia." to "Not psychotic, not schizophrenic." would have thought the difference would be pretty distinct.

From what I hear the second evaluation (sane) will probably have more weight as it had a lot more material available and was more comprehensive.

Psychology sure isn't an exact science.

It seems to me that some people would want to believe that Breivik is insane, as if to provide a rational explanation to what he did. I don't know whether or not he is insane, but it is possible to me that he could be sane too.

 

[Lillefix]

So the maximum penalty is 21 years? That seems a bit light for 77 murders, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps they will use they use the declaration that he is sane in order to sentence him to 21 years and then use the declaration that he is insane to lock him up in an insane asylum for the rest of his life...

 

[Hehehe]

Perhaps they will use they use the declaration that he is sane in order to sentence him to 21 years and then use the declaration that he is insane to lock him up in an insane asylum for the rest of his life...

And why would they do that? Why not declare him insane right away?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I suppose it makes sense why people would want him declared insane: so they could lock him up for more than 21 years.

 

[Cheetah]

Does this have any implications for other vocal opponents of multiculturalism, and if so, how broad are those implications? Is it only overt neo-fascists and white nationalists who find themselves in the firing line, or will the "mainstream far-right", parties such as the British National Party, Swedish Democrats or the Party for Freedom?

One evaluation found him sane, the other one insane.
From what I've read the court will take both into consideration.

Actually, perhaps I got a bit of what TF was saying...

The court will probably take both into consideration. It will also have to take into consideration politics. Both Breivik's and others. In fact, Breivik's side has called as witnesses such diverse figures as Mullah Krekar (Iraqi terrorist leader currently in Norwegian jail for death threats to some politicians; he's declared a danger to national security and several governments have tried to deport him, but Iraq still has the death penalty, so we're stuck with him for now), different debaters/columnists/bloggers - both Islamic ones and right-wing ones, politicians, professors and everything else.

AFAIK, a part of the defense will be to try and show that the danger Breivik is concerned about is, in fact, real!

The judges will try to keep the trial from turning into a circus, but I wonder...

So the maximum penalty is 21 years? That seems a bit light for 77 murders, in my humble opinion.

Yes, and no.

The maximum regular sentence in Norway is 21 years (sometimes referred to as 'life' actually). We do however, have provisions for holding dangerous individuals in 'forvaring' (Wikipedia says the English term is 'involuntary commitment', and the Swedish term is 'psykiatrisk tvångsvård'). That means that every fifth year a committee can declare him too dangerous to release and he will be stuck in prison.

Psychology sure isn't an exact science.

It seems to me that some people would want to believe that Breivik is insane, as if to provide a rational explanation to what he did. I don't know whether or not he is insane, but it is possible to me that he could be sane too.

As to the psychiatric reports... I really don't like using a science as inexact as psychology as evidence in a trial. As long as Breivik wasn't seeing giant toads and tiny, green dragons attacking him while he did it, I'm willing to say he's sane enough. But that's more of a debate on psychology itself.

 

[Yeekim]

He doesn't strike me s insane, rather as really, really evil.

 

[Lillefix]

He doesn't strike me s insane, rather as really, really evil.

He had to be pretty insane to believe that a massacre of young socialists would promote his cause. To me, his motive doesn't make sense. If I hated Muslims, I'd killed Muslims. Not socialists who are probably 80% atheists. They aren't even the most left leaning and Islam friendly party in the government. If he hadn't made this elaborate explanation about being far right and hating Islam, I'd suspect him for doing my favourite thing in GTA1 and 2(never played the others): Go on a killing spree just to see how many you can take out before the military comes. No, I think he's evil AND insane.

 

[Takhisis]

He can be stupid instead of insane, Lillefix.

 

[classical_hero]

He had to be pretty insane to believe that a massacre of young socialists would promote his cause. To me, his motive doesn't make sense. If I hated Muslims, I'd killed Muslims. Not socialists who are probably 80% atheists. They aren't even the most left leaning and Islam friendly party in the government. If he hadn't made this elaborate explanation about being far right and hating Islam, I'd suspect him for doing my favourite thing in GTA1 and 2(never played the others): Go on a killing spree just to see how many you can take out before the military comes. No, I think he's evil AND insane.

I don't think he is insane, since he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the first reaction of many people would be to blame Muslim extremists for the actions. He was banking on people to then go after any Muslim they could find and hunt them down, but he did not realise that the reaction he got from the general populace was not what he wanted.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I didn't realise it was possible to confuse a psychotic individual with a healthy individual so easily. A case of political dial-a-diagnosis? I think so. I'm not sure which one is correct but at least the court has both now to allow itself the luxury of coming to any conclusion it wants.

@Traitorfish - hold off on the conspiracy theories. I think the only motive here is to avoid showing the total weakness of Norwegian justice which is potentially going to embarass and expose itself by being forced to give max 25 years to this guy.

 

[luiz]

People of his mind frame can find "justification" for their barbarism in any form of extremism: right-wing, left-wing, religious, etc. There are plenty examples of all of them out there. I don't think his politics are all that important.

 

[Takhisis]

Political dial-a-diagnosis? WTH?

 

[JonBonham]

So does anyone think that it's incorrect to label this guy a terrorist?

 

[Ramius75]

doesnt it strikes anyone that he just want to have fun killing people?

he is probably enjoying every moment while he fired into the kids. this person might be someone totally delusion about life and probably will commit suicide by taking some others with him.

 

[wolfigor]

In my view, in this case, there is nothing of the hidden motives highlighted by Traitorfish.
The reason behind the request for a second psychiatric evaluation is pretty evident if one knows the Norwegian system and avoid to apply the preconceptions from other places.

Here there is a brief article in English that gives a good backgroud:
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/04/12/psychiatric-clash-can-change-system/

I quote 3 key passages here, but it will be good to read the entire article:

The system is based on the goal of returning all criminals to society regardless of the nature of their crimes. Those convicted are taken good care of in the meantime. Norway’s prisons have been described as “hotels” by some foreign observers, and convicts often are released well before their prison terms are up. Those committed to a psychiatric institution are also released when deemed healthy enough.

All that is unlikely to change, but in Breivik’s case, sentiment is growing that Breivik should never be eligible for parole from prison or release from psychiatric care. Many don’t want him to avoid prison, however comfortable it can be under Norwegian standards, by being ruled insane.

A string of Norwegian medical and legal experts are now suggesting that psychiatrists have had too much power in the Norwegian legal system, and gone unchallenged too often.

The prosecutors in the Breivik case also have been harshly criticized since the conflicting report was released Tuesday, for simply accepting the initial psychiatrists’ report a few months ago. Their acceptance was in line with the system as they saw it, they’ve said. Wrong, responds law professor Anne Robberstad. “Such blind faith in the system must be avoided,”

In short Breivik's case have made clear to everybody in the country the weakness of the Norwegian justice system and the court had the guts to do something for it.
It's very important to notice that the criticism is not against a system aimed at rehabilitate criminals instead of punishing them; the criticism is against blind acceptance of the capacity of some psychiatrists to always judge correctly each case.

 

[Hehehe]

The maximum regular sentence in Norway is 21 years (sometimes referred to as 'life' actually). We do however, have provisions for holding dangerous individuals in 'forvaring' (Wikipedia says the English term is 'involuntary commitment', and the Swedish term is 'psykiatrisk tvångsvård'). That means that every fifth year a committee can declare him too dangerous to release and he will be stuck in prison.

Good to hear, 21 years seems just too little for such a crime.

He had to be pretty insane to believe that a massacre of young socialists would promote his cause. To me, his motive doesn't make sense. If I hated Muslims, I'd killed Muslims. Not socialists who are probably 80% atheists. They aren't even the most left leaning and Islam friendly party in the government. If he hadn't made this elaborate explanation about being far right and hating Islam, I'd suspect him for doing my favourite thing in GTA1 and 2(never played the others): Go on a killing spree just to see how many you can take out before the military comes. No, I think he's evil AND insane.

The reason why he didn't attack Muslims is that, had he done so, Muslims would have gotten everybody's sympathies. Instead, he attacked those leftists who promote immigration.

Ideology is a powerful motivator. I daresay that most of you would kill a lot of people under the right (wrong?) circumstances (such as a war for example). All it takes is twisted morals to make killings 77 of civilians seem right. Twisted morals is not in itself a mental illness.

So does anyone think that it's incorrect to label this guy a terrorist?

I think it is absolutely correct. Breivik is a terrorist by every definition. He attacked civilians, and he had a political motivation. Terrorist is not a label that is only reserved for non-white people.