Norway Prosecutor: Breivik is insane

[Dooey Jo]

Here's what real sources say about paranoid schizophrenia:

The key feature of this subtype of schizophrenia is the combination of false beliefs (delusions) and hearing voices (auditory hallucinations), with more nearly normal emotions and cognitive functioning. (Cognitive functions include reasoning, judgment, and memory.) The delusions of paranoid schizophrenics usually involve thoughts of being persecuted or harmed by others or exaggerated opinions of their own importance, but may also reflect feelings of jealousy or excessive religiosity. The delusions are typically organized into a coherent framework. Paranoid schizophrenics function at a higher level than other subtypes, but are at risk for suicidal or violent behavior.

Paranoid type: Delusions or auditory hallucinations are present, but thought disorder, disorganized behavior, or affective flattening are not. Delusions are persecutory and/or grandiose, but in addition to these, other themes such as jealousy, religiosity, or somatization may also be present. (DSM code 295.3/ICD code F20.0)

I'm guessing the "grandiose delusions" has less to do with his "Eurabia" delusions, and more his "I am a knight templar and we should be made king of Europe" delusions. I mean, really now. His demands when interrogated was that he be made supreme commander of Norway or some such shit that's so dumb you think he must be joking. It seems he was not.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Ted Kazinski lived in a filthy shack for over a decade while randomly bombing universities = Sane.

Anders Brievik lived a normal existence while planning a car bombing to distract law enforcement so he could go on a meticulously planned killing spree of political opponents = Insane.

Please explain this to me.

No, because I'm not a doctor.

However, presumably, competent psychiatrists have looked at both and come to a different decision regarding each.

Is it due to different standards of sanity by country? Maybe. Is it due to political motivations and legal loopholes? Maybe. I don't fucking know. Again, people who are presumably qualified to make a judgment on the issue have, and until someone else with similar qualifications states otherwise, I am going to believe their decision for lack of contradictory evidence.

And really, when did "It's possible for someone to someone to be intelligent/skilled in some areas and completely fucking bonkers in others" get translated to "I know Breivik's insane and I dare you to question it"?

[Bakustra]

Kaczynski is a non-starter, seeing as he deliberately vetoed the use of the insanity plea by his defense team, so we will never know if he was legally insane or not. He was examined by a court psychiatrist and determined to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia but competent to stand trial, which is nevertheless differentiated from "criminally insane." However, the Norwegian legal system differentiates from the American system as follows:

According to Norwegian law, a psychotic state of mind at the time of the crime can mitigate criminal responsibility. And, based on a detailed assessment of the accused, including more than a dozen face-to-face interviews with the man, two court-appointed forensic experts have concluded that Breivik was suffering from such paranoid delusions of a psychotic nature that would constitute legal insanity.

So Kaczynski may have been found legally insane in Norway as well, depending on whether it could be determined if he made and mailed his bombs while psychotic.

[Norseman]

I do worry about this being politically influenced, but not for the reasons you worry about it. If it was simply a question of keeping him locked up we have other means of doing so, he could for instance be sentenced for Crimes Against Humanity (30 year sentence) with forvaring that is to say containment. Under this scheme would would serve would his initial sentence and then his case would be reviewed, if he was found to still be a threat he'd be in jail for another five year, at which point there'd be another hearing, etc. We can do this five times so he would be locked away for up to 55 years. Even if he got 21 years he could still be locked away for 46 years.

However the reason I say this could be somewhat political is that a lot of people don't want to admit that something like this could happen in Norway. They don't want to admit that someone like Anders Breivik could do something like this for the reasons that he gave. It so utterly clashes with how Norwegians see their society and the world as a whole. It is so much more convenient if he is a madman, because then we can just lock him away.

On the other hand I don't want to question the professionalism of the psychiatrists involved, and I realise that my worries are probably a result of making up elaborate fantasies due to a lack of proof.

[Formless]

By that definition of insanity, everyone who believes in a religion is medically insane. Do you believe that to be the case?

Psychiatric disorders distinguish between socially appropriate beliefs and genuine delusions, you do know that right? That of course does not only include religious beliefs, but encompasses almost any belief or practice that is a result of cultural/family upbringing rather than inability to understand the world (for instance, not all conspiracy theorists are paranoid schizophrenics, most are just very gullible). The field of study relating to medical health problems is called Abnormal psychology for a reason, you know.

[Simon_Jester]

By that definition of insanity, everyone who believes in a religion is medically insane. Do you believe that to be the case?

A religious man is usually able to function in society without getting himself, or anyone else, seriously injured or killed. If so, I'm willing to live with his opinions even if I consider them absurd. I will not call him mad, not in a sense that implies that he should be hospitalized for safety's sake.

Anders Breivik holds opinions that do make him dangerous to others, very much so. If these opinions have the character of an unshakeable delusion, rather than 'merely' being a disagreement about politics, then hell yes I think it's reasonable to consider him insane, and he needs to be put in a mental hospital.

By analogy, if Raskolnikov murders a moneylender and an innocent witness because he thinks moneylenders are evil parasites, then he is not mad, he is merely someone who disagrees with me politically and has committed a crime. If Raskolnikov commits the same murders because he wants to prove that he's the next Napoleon, with the right to commit murders in the name of remaking society (to get rid of evil-parasite moneylenders) then that argues that he is mad. If his faith in his own status as the next Napoleon cannot be shaken, then he is mad, as well as being someone who disagrees with me politically and has committed a crime.

It's not his political opinions would make him mad; it's the delusions of personal grandeur.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a political bias in this case, which bothers me, especially since the most obvious reason not to simply throw him in jail ("we don't want him coming back out") makes sending him to a mental hospital incredibly perverse.

We should never send people to a mental institution with the intent that they never return, since that undermines the point of having them in the first place. And we should certainly have ways of locking up citizens whose threat to the community is too great for them to be trusted free without assuming that they must be insane.

[MarshalPurnell]

The diagnosis of Breivik seems to specifically be "paranoid schizophrenia" and not some other, milder disorder. The only DSM-IV diagnostic criteria Breivik meets would be "delusions" and potentially a "lack of emotional affect." The problem is this could describe a sociopath or even a highly committed revolutionary, and are the weakest possible grounds for such a diagnosis. Just what his delusions are is definitely in question, since his manifesto makes it clear he expected to be condemned and vilified for his actions. He spends his time trying to justify them in the context of necessary political violence, which is not what one would expect from someone incapable of recognizing the import of his actions. That definitely leaves open the question of just what about his beliefs qualifies for "delusional."

He is accused of holding an unrealistic opinion of his importance, but grandiose posturing is endemic in extremist circles. It is also endemic in political revolutionaries. Is the difference between madness and sanity a measurement of how successful a given political radical is? How is Supreme Templar Breivik insane and, say, Osama bin Laden, Emir of the 'World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders' not insane? How is Breivik insane and the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan not crazy? How is Breivik a paranoid schizophrenic and Adolf Hitler circa 1919 not also a paranoid schizophrenic? What distinguishes Breivik's particular messianic fervor from that of Timothy McVeigh, or even a random Palestinian suicide bomber? His willingness to murder people because they represent a category of persons viewed as a threat to his ideology is unusual, but by no means unprecedented or even particularly irrational depending on the circumstances.

Is it then the matter of social appropriateness created by the context of his society? So jihadist terrorists are sane because Arabic culture condones their actions, but neo-Nazis are insane because European society (allegedly) views racism as unacceptable? Does that mean neo-Nazis would become sane if they lived in a state where their ideals predominated? The willingness to act on beliefs that deviate significantly from the mainstream, especially in a violent manner, may be insane in some sense. But there are far too many cases of a dedicated, committed political minority imposing their will through violence to write that off as inherently crazy. The odds of a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist revolution in Norway are certainly tiny, but Breivik is by no means alone in holding an ideology that would view such as desirable. And the Internet makes it possible for people holding very minority opinions to come into contact with each other and create a self-reinforcing community of believers.

Unless there are significant issues that became apparent to the psychiatrists doing the report that were not reported on or factored in by other psychiatrists commenting in the media, I have a hard time seeing how Breivik can be classified as "insane." Even if he meets the weakest criteria for paranoid schizophrenia (and wasn't forced into the category because of underlying bias that, hey, only a crazy person could possibly do what he did) it is far from obvious that was not responsible for his actions in any sense that matters, legal or moral. And it raises some really troubling questions about the nature of political violence and how it should be viewed, unless we suddenly hear how Breivik is hearing voices from God that tell him to go murder Marxists and Islamist invaders.

[Bakustra]

The diagnosis of Breivik seems to specifically be "paranoid schizophrenia" and not some other, milder disorder. The only DSM-IV diagnostic criteria Breivik meets would be "delusions" and potentially a "lack of emotional affect." The problem is this could describe a sociopath or even a highly committed revolutionary, and are the weakest possible grounds for such a diagnosis. Just what his delusions are is definitely in question, since his manifesto makes it clear he expected to be condemned and vilified for his actions. He spends his time trying to justify them in the context of necessary political violence, which is not what one would expect from someone incapable of recognizing the import of his actions. That definitely leaves open the question of just what about his beliefs qualifies for "delusional."

How do you know? Did you conduct interviews with the man, like the court psychiatrists did? Are you a sort of super-psychiatrist, capable of diagnosing from limited media reports alone?

[Zablorg]

I think MarshalPurnell might be... insane.

[Bakustra]

Whoops, I missed this tidbit in MarshalPurnell's last paragraph.

Even if he meets the weakest criteria for paranoid schizophrenia (and wasn't forced into the category because of underlying bias that, hey, only a crazy person could possibly do what he did) it is far from obvious that was not responsible for his actions in any sense that matters, legal or moral.

According to Norwegian law, a psychotic state of mind at the time of the crime can mitigate criminal responsibility.

Sorry, the precepts of American law don't necessarily apply to Norwegian law.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Apparently, in Norway, the findings are not quite at an end yet. There's still a committee that must approve of it. Nevermind that even the psychiatry community in Norway is divided about the whole matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15954370

Norwegian disbelief at Breivik 'insanity'
By Liss Goril Anda
Norwegian journalist
The Norwegian public, politicians and experts alike are expressing surprise at the verdict of insanity delivered by the forensic psychiatrists assessing Anders Behring Breivik.

Many psychiatrists were quoted by the news media ahead of Tuesday's announcement as saying that he was likely to be deemed sane.
In the event, the two court-appointed psychiatrists, Torgeir Husby and Synne Soerheim, concluded that Breivik had "developed the mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia".

Breivik himself has said he found the verdict insulting and that although he had feared it, he had not expected this outcome.

The Norwegian media's general use of the term schizophrenic also fails to match their portrayal of Breivik. This makes it hard for people to understand how the verdict was reached, triggering concerns that he is "getting away lightly".

The media have given minute descriptions of how Breivik spent years planning his attacks. His ability to do so makes it difficult for many people to accept that he cannot be held to account for them.

Experts divided

In Norway, only about one in five of similar forensic assessments tend to conclude that the perpetrator was insane. This has led even some experts to question the committee's findings.

Media coverage reflects the public's uncertainty at the verdict.

The website of the broadsheet newspaper Aftenposten carried a headline on Tuesday evening with a quote from a Swedish psychiatrist expressing surprise. He points out that Breivik does not appear to have been hallucinating at any point during the attack.

Svenn Torgersen, professor of psychology at the University of Oslo, pointed out to the newspaper Dagbladet that Hitler and Stalin would have been unlikely to receive the same diagnosis as Breivik.

Meanwhile, journalist and commentator Anders Giever remarked in the newspaper VG that although Breivik's statements might seem delusional to outsiders, he has most likely been supported in his view of reality by other users of the extreme right-wing forums he frequented.

The name of Quisling, leader of Norway's collaborationist government during the Nazi occupation, is frequently brought up in debates on web forums as a comparison.
Do somebody's extreme opinions preclude them from being held responsible for their actions?

There is also concern as to how this verdict will affect those directly affected by the attacks.

Lawyer Brynjar Meling, representing several of the victims of the attacks, has already requested a second opinion on the verdict.

Progress Party member Per Sandberg expressed surprise and outrage at the verdict in an interview with Norwegian public broadcaster NRK.

"The verdict cannot be accepted," he said. "Victims must be certain that he will not be released any time soon."

Sandberg added that his party, of which Breivik was previously a member, would call for a review of how one determines whether a person is fit to stand trial.

But Dagfinn Hoybraten, the previous Christian Democratic Party leader, told the broadcaster that he disagrees.

"We are fortunate to have an independent justice system in Norway, and therefore politicians like us need to keep from telling them what they should be doing," he said.

Liberal party leader Trine Skei Grande agreed, saying that the current regulations must be abided by.

Soul searching

The report will now be examined by the Forensic Commission, who are free to give further comments or ask for more work to be done.

Lawyers have however pointed out that they are unlikely to attempt to overturn the verdict of such a thorough report.

The trial will proceed in much the same manner as if Breivik had been found sound of mind. Evidence will still be examined, and the court has the final say as to
whether or not they believe Breivik is guilty of having carried out the attacks.

However, they usually heed the forensic assessment, which in all likelihood means he will not be sentenced to prison, but sectioned instead.

Some are less surprised by the verdict, pointing to Breivik's manifesto as evidence of his delusions.

Web forums also emphasise that this outcome is not entirely negative. If sent to prison, Breivik would have ample opportunity to stoke right-wing extremist opinions among fellow inmates as a sort of martyr.

Being under treatment in a high-security mental health unit will, if nothing else, would severely limit his ability to do so.

Lawyer Carl Bore, also representing some of the victims, told NRK that although he is surprised, he sees no reason to doubt the committee's verdict.

He points out that Norway has done a lot of soul-searching since this summer.

"People ask themselves how this could happen, and look for scapegoats," he said. "Maybe we can more easily move on as a society when we see that it was simply caused by a sick person."

Surprise or not, Norway's struggle to cope with this manifestation of right-wing extremism is sure to be affected by the verdict.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As usual, Bakustra is more intent on defending his own version of reality than arguing the facts that we can see are being debated as much by equally skilled professionals in Norway and Sweden as by commentators here. I think Fingolfin has kindly dealt with his strawmen by posting that article, so thank you for winning our arguments for us.

[Bakustra]

As usual, Bakustra is more intent on defending his own version of reality than arguing the facts that we can see are being debated as much by equally skilled professionals in Norway and Sweden as by commentators here. I think Fingolfin has kindly dealt with his strawmen by posting that article, so thank you for winning our arguments for us.

I'm sorry your state of mind is so fragile that I could impart such a terrifying impression on it as to render you incapable of disagreeing with me except through passive-aggressive sniping. Do you have suggestions for means by which I can render you capable of, at least, direct insults, even if conversation (civil or otherwise) is somewhat beyond you?

But if we're going to be making snipes, I'm sorry your friend is so pathetic he can't get up the gumption to directly address that Norwegian definitions of legal insanity do not rely on the ability to comprehend the rightness or wrongness of the action, but on the diagnosis of certain disorders. This does not rely on whether Breivik actually suffered from those disorders, but I see that comprehension was abandoned in the sheer glee you felt at the thought of tearing into me. I will repeat myself, in the ever-decreasing hope that you might listen and comprehend: this does not rely on whether Breivik actually suffered from those disorders. I gave it a bold coat too, so that you might find it easier to read.

You two chucklefucks, to be crass, also are frankly disgusting in your attempts to denigrate an entire field of medicine by claiming yourselves to be the equals of professional psychiatrists, though now you will hide behind the shield of Fingolfin_Noldor's article as though it were all that stood between you and the abyss, again because somehow I am simultaneously so pathetic a figure you write about how "everybody" (you, Purnell, and an association of plastic army men or something, I guess) thinks I'm an idiot and yet I'm so terrifying you're unwilling to directly address what I say.

Finally, I have to laugh at your use of "us". What, this is a team effort now? Youse guys against the world? Oh wait, the world is on your side in this post, so it's you, the world, and everybody else declaring that it is impossible for Anders Breivik to have suffered from paranoid schizophrenia against me, I guess? And I suppose those posters who directly fucking contradicted you but you've ignored because, again, you have a twisted and vile relationship with me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bakustra, you're the enfant terrible of this board and directly contribute to making it almost worthless to post at. It's with a sense of incredulity that one imagines someone so delusional, fanatical, and immature ever being a functional adult in society. The fact that the administration never calls you on your lunatic bullshit is singlehandedly wrecking these forums by making it possible for you to wreck every thread you shit on by posting in without the slightest response. The rules have become a shield for you to destroy any kind of debate with, and I guess it's up to someone who doesn't really care anymore like me to be honest and just say it.

[Flagg]

Bakustra, you're the enfant terrible of this board and directly contribute to making it almost worthless to post at. It's with a sense of incredulity that one imagines someone so delusional, fanatical, and immature ever being a functional adult in society. The fact that the administration never calls you on your lunatic bullshit is singlehandedly wrecking these forums by making it possible for you to wreck every thread you shit on by posting in without the slightest response. The rules have become a shield for you to destroy any kind of debate with, and I guess it's up to someone who doesn't really care anymore like me to be honest and just say it.

So... Ad hominem?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bakustra, you're the enfant terrible of this board and directly contribute to making it almost worthless to post at. It's with a sense of incredulity that one imagines someone so delusional, fanatical, and immature ever being a functional adult in society. The fact that the administration never calls you on your lunatic bullshit is singlehandedly wrecking these forums by making it possible for you to wreck every thread you shit on by posting in without the slightest response. The rules have become a shield for you to destroy any kind of debate with, and I guess it's up to someone who doesn't really care anymore like me to be honest and just say it.

So... Ad hominem?

There is a point at which the rules of debate, already intended for a structured format, break down comprehensively rather than just partially when dealing with a message board. Bakustra is a demonstration of this point. He makes the thread about himself rather than the actual topic, so attacking him is perfectly appropriate.

[Flagg]

Bakustra, you're the enfant terrible of this board and directly contribute to making it almost worthless to post at. It's with a sense of incredulity that one imagines someone so delusional, fanatical, and immature ever being a functional adult in society. The fact that the administration never calls you on your lunatic bullshit is singlehandedly wrecking these forums by making it possible for you to wreck every thread you shit on by posting in without the slightest response. The rules have become a shield for you to destroy any kind of debate with, and I guess it's up to someone who doesn't really care anymore like me to be honest and just say it.

So... Ad hominem?

There is a point at which the rules of debate, already intended for a structured format, break down comprehensively rather than just partially when dealing with a message board. Bakustra is a demonstration of this point. He makes the thread about himself rather than the actual topic, so attacking him is perfectly appropriate.

Then report him. There was an actual interesting discussion until you showed up to shit all over it because you hate Bakustra.

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't get how Buck Ustra's "hey guise maybe the professional criminal psychiatrists who interviewed the guy may know more about XYZ than some shmucks on the internet" becomes "the disease at the core of our great society eating the apple from within and stifling our intellectual growth with the mind-killer that is fear (and/or contrarian assholery) rargh".

However, as Fin's article also mentions, I personally dunno how the whole "the guy was just insane" thing is going to affect the whole societal introspection and self-analysis of extremist (right wing) ideology. Like what some said in that Black Friday pepper spray thread, it will make it easier for people to just say the perpetrator was just some nutter and shrug it off, make it easier on their minds, rather than confront the fact that non-insane people can do these kinds of things, and that in certain kinds of conditions, non-insane people can turn into murdering monsters.

[Lord Zentei]

^ Stanford Prison Experiment. Milgram Experiment.

Yes indeed, regular (i.e. non-insane) people can be monsters.

[Simon_Jester]

Then report him. There was an actual interesting discussion until you showed up to shit all over it because you hate Bakustra.

Yes. She herself was participating in it, if you check back.

I think what it's coming down to is:

Side A:
"We don't see the evidence for declaring Breivik insane, as opposed to just being a murderous criminal."

Side B:
"Trust the psychologists who know the case."

So. Do we take the psychologists' word at face value? It would help if we knew why Breivik is being declared insane. Does he have persistent delusions of personal grandeur? Is his personality and behavior when dealing with his captors making them think he's insane?

A lot of that is information we can't access, but without it I can understand a natural reluctance to take the psychologists' word on blind trust. Not when there are political and cultural reasons for a verdict of insanity that don't have anything to do with Breivik's mental state.

[MarshalPurnell]

Then report him. There was an actual interesting discussion until you showed up to shit all over it because you hate Bakustra.

Hahaha. What has Bakustra actually contributed to the discussion? Well, there's his assertion that since none of us have a degree in psychology, we have no grounds to criticize or question the diagnosis of Breivik. That's certainly useful and incisive, isn't it? Not at all a pathetic attempt to butt into a conversation and score some imaginary points in his pompous effort to demonstrate his intellectual superiority.

Yeah, he's already claimed that it doesn't matter if Breivik actually has the mental condition he was diagnosed with. He even bolded it for us small and inferior minds to recognize. That pretty much says he has nothing to contribute at all, and is only in the thread to play off of other posters - in other words, he is trolling. Of course, if he paid the matter more attention he would realize "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not what is at stake, and that report thus doesn't bear on Breivik's legal culpability anyway. It is for sentencing guidelines and not to establish responsibility for his actions. He also, typically, completely ignores the broader thrust of my post, which is how political violence should be seen in light of Breivik being considered "insane," which is a serious topic, in favor of his usual tactics of flailing about to win points at any cost; of course, he's too inept to actually do so.

[Flagg]

Like I said to Duchess, if you have a problem with Bakustra, report him instead of shitting up the thread with ad hominem bullshit. The fact that you resort to such tactics makes you A) look like a sore loser douche, and B) Effectively concedes the argument.

[MarshalPurnell]

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

[Simon_Jester]

Purnell, not to actually disagree with your opinion of Bakustra, but... why didn't you report him?

[Flagg]

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.