Prison Report: Breivik "Not Psychotic"

[MarshalPurnell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16416791

The team of four psychiatric experts monitoring Breivik in prison have published their own report concluding that Breivik is not psychotic or schizophrenic, is not a suicide risk, and does not need medication. It does however appear that the prosecution is declining to challenge the original report, quite probably because the finding opens the door to keeping him in prison indefinitely. The court has yet to decide on ordering a new report on its own authority, though I don't know enough about the Norwegian justice system to say if this might actually influence it to do so.

[weemadando]

Sometimes people just believe dumb stuff and are cunts.

Mental illness may be a factor, but it certainly helps people feel better by being able to label him as "different" or "other".

[madd0ct0r]

So basically he's either going to be in jail for the rest of his life because he's a dangerous mad man, or he's going to be in jail for the rest of his life because he's a mass murderer?

I really fail to see a problem with either outcome.

[Zaune]

So basically he's either going to be in jail for the rest of his life because he's a dangerous mad man, or he's going to be in jail for the rest of his life because he's a mass murderer?

I really fail to see a problem with either outcome.

My understanding was that under Norwegian law, the upper limit on minimum sentences is 21 years, after which a parole hearing is mandatory.

And personally, I hope there is a judicial review of this, because whatever my feelings towards Breivik, having someone declared insane as an end-run around the sentencing guidelines is just plain wrong.

[Knife]

Not to defend this particular shitbag, but just because you're not psychotic or schizophrenic doesn't mean you don't have some fucked up mental problems. Then again, just because you have mental problems doesn't mean you should 'get out of jail free' or anything.

[Ryan Thunder]

Sometimes people just believe dumb stuff and are cunts.

Mental illness may be a factor, but it certainly helps people feel better by being able to label him as "different" or "other".

Normal, rational people don't go on killing sprees at political camps. Sorry if it makes you feel cool and edgy to include guys like this in whatever group you consider yourself to be in.

[Winston Blake]

Sometimes people just believe dumb stuff and are cunts.

Mental illness may be a factor, but it certainly helps people feel better by being able to label him as "different" or "other".

Normal, rational people don't go on killing sprees at political camps. Sorry if it makes you feel cool and edgy to include guys like this in whatever group you consider yourself to be in.

Well, really, 'normal' people don't commit crimes in general - all criminals are 'abnormal'. I don't think weemadando believes that the set of 'normal, rational people' overlaps with 'cunts who believe dumb stuff', nor do I think he would be proud to share group-membership with a 'cunt who believes dumb stuff'.

Regarding 'irrationality', consider the following:

• Man A believes a global Islamo-Marxist movement is trying to destroy and enslave Europe. Shoots a large number of people at a political rally, whom he believes to be collaboratoring with this movement. Shows no remorse, and shows no hallucinations or disrupted thought processes. Requires neither medication nor suicide watch. Punished with imprisonment.
  
  Man B is a Russian Neo-Nazi who justifies the killing of immigrant children by saying 'a boy will grow up to become an enemy fighter, a girl will grow up to produce more enemy fighters'. He sees himself and his buddies as fighting an unsung guerilla war for Russian national survival, which will be vindicated by history. Shows no remorse, and shows no hallucinations or disrupted thought processes. Requires neither medication nor suicide watch.
  
  Man C believes a global Islamist movement is trying to destroy and enslave Western civilisation. Joins the U.S. military and launches a drone missile at a political rally deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, killing a large number of people whom he believes to be collaborating with this movement. Shows no remorse, and shows no hallucinations or disrupted thought processes. Requires neither medication nor suicide watch. Goes to bed, gets up tomorrow morning to do it all again, and gets paid at the end of the week. Considered normal by everyone around him.
  
  Man D believes his neighbour, with whom he has frequent disputes, plans to kill him. Yet there is no evidence for this. He 'kills him first'. Shows no remorse, and shows no hallucinations or disrupted thought processes. Requires neither medication nor suicide watch. Punished with imprisonment.

Delusional premises, rational reasoning. Breivik's premises may be delusional, but his overall reasoning of 'kill the enemy', GIVEN HIS EXTREME VIEWS I MUST NOTE, seems mostly 'rational'. Delusions alone are not enough to warrant a diagnosis of psychosis or schizophrenia. If delusional beliefs alone warrants being committed to a mental hospital, then all the 9/11/fluoride/FEMA conspiracy theorists and the 4 billion people who believe in Christianity and Islam all over the world ought to be locked up.

Now, naturally, if a crime is committed, (or is discovered to be imminent, etc), then it ought to be dealt with. The way I see it, either Breivik is 'a cunt who believes dumb stuff', a horrible, cruel, harmful criminal, who is nevertheless not truly 'mentally ill'... or Men B/C/D above are all 'mentally ill' too.

[Sarevok]

If a muslim man killed nearly hundred people in a bomb and shooting spree he would be tried as a terrorist.

Why all the confusion about Brevik ?

[Simon_Jester]

Winston, we start classifying delusions as mental illness when they cause serious harm.

A man who believes that the ghost of Napoleon Bonaparte commands him to give a good life and be pleasant to all around him is harmless. Even if his beliefs are not true, why worry about them?

A man who believes that the ghost of Napoleon Bonaparte commands him to shout and revel and kill is dangerous. At that point, we may have good reason to try and get rid of his beliefs, because they are the underlying cause of his crimes. Without the delusion, he might be restored to society as a normal person.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If a muslim man killed nearly hundred people in a bomb and shooting spree he would be tried as a terrorist.

Why all the confusion about Brevik ?

Terrorism is for some sort of political goal, I don't think Brevik had any politics in mind when he did what he did.

[Eleas]

If a muslim man killed nearly hundred people in a bomb and shooting spree he would be tried as a terrorist.

Why all the confusion about Brevik ?

Terrorism is for some sort of political goal, I don't think Brevik had any politics in mind when he did what he did.

Uhm... are you serious, Chewie? Breivik was highly politically motivated. That was, you know, the original reason why he attacked a youth camp belonging to the Left. He was about as apolitical as the 9/11 hijackers.

[CaptainChewbacca]

His politics were 'I hate the left', he didn't have a goal beyond 'kill the left'.

[Eleas]

His politics were 'I hate the left', he didn't have a goal beyond 'kill the left'.

Not so. I will grant that his stated reasons are incredibly muddled, but he did express goals such as that the massacre would "make the left reconsider their policies" and serve "as a tool to market the manifesto".

Those are goals, and pretty clear-cut ones at that, and that's why I think it's wrong to call his act apolitical.

[Simon_Jester]

His politics were 'I hate the left', he didn't have a goal beyond 'kill the left'.

This isn't really true- he specifically targeted a youth camp to disrupt future leadership of the party he was aiming at. His politics were full of wrinkles you can find easily enough if you listen to rants about 'transnationalism' and the idea of Muslim infiltration of Europe, too.

[Skgoa]

If a muslim man killed nearly hundred people in a bomb and shooting spree he would be tried as a terrorist.

Why all the confusion about Brevik ?

Because defining terrorism as an extraordinary crime in and of itself - in contrast to prosecuting the constituent crimes of mass-murder, etc. - gets you onto a slippery slope as a a society.

[mr friendly guy]

Sometimes people just believe dumb stuff and are cunts.

Mental illness may be a factor, but it certainly helps people feel better by being able to label him as "different" or "other".

Normal, rational people don't go on killing sprees at political camps. Sorry if it makes you feel cool and edgy to include guys like this in whatever group you consider yourself to be in.

Depends what you are using to mean "normal" and "rational". One could mean "normal" in the sense non psychotic or with no mental illness. One could use rational in the same sense, instead of rational as how we tend to use it on SDN, ie in reference to the ability to make logical reasonings. In which case, a lot of people who are normal ie have no mental illness are not rational (using how SDN uses it) for example fundies, rabid trekkies, comic book fanwhores, racists, nationalists etc.

Might help if you define your terms so there is no ambiguity especially with such loaded words.

[Winston Blake]

Winston, we start classifying delusions as mental illness when they cause serious harm.

A man who believes that the ghost of Napoleon Bonaparte commands him to give a good life and be pleasant to all around him is harmless. Even if his beliefs are not true, why worry about them?

A man who believes that the ghost of Napoleon Bonaparte commands him to shout and revel and kill is dangerous. At that point, we may have good reason to try and get rid of his beliefs, because they are the underlying cause of his crimes. Without the delusion, he might be restored to society as a normal person.

OK, but your example isn't just about delusions. It also involves auditory hallucinations and 'shouting and reveling', which might be considered 'thought disorder'. I.e. that guy is psychotic, or at least doing a good impression of it. I was intentionally exploring the boundaries with my examples. For example, military Man C causes 'serious harm', motivated by delusions, but would be commended by his society rather than committed.

My provisional position is that being deluded, without any other problems, isn't quite enough to classify someone as 'mentally ill', and that this doesn't make them any less repulsive if they're a criminal. 'Cunts', as weemadando put it. If they're a violent criminal too, well, then they ought to be treated like one. I'm not committed to this position, and I'm open to the possibility that there are good reasons for defining mental illness more broadly.

Is your position that: a person who commits a crime purely due to delusions should be considered mentally ill after the crime, but not before? I.e. the fact that they did something harmful isn't just a manifestation of a pre-existing mental state, but that the act itself actually switches them into the 'mentally ill' category at the approximate time of the crime?

[madd0ct0r]

yeah.

I thought that was the basic laymans definition of a Mental illness - a quirk that causes harm.

[Skgoa]

Most mental illnesses don't cause harm. Which is why most mentally ill aren't in psych wards.
edit: To be more precise: mental illnesses are medical conditions, they are illnesses of the brain.

[Shroom Man 777]

His politics were 'I hate the left', he didn't have a goal beyond 'kill the left'.

If a Muslim's politics were "I hate America", and if he didn't have a goal beyond "kill Americans", would you also refuse to have him classified as a terrorizer?