The inability of psychiatrists to agree on how to define categories of mental disorder has long been a subject of public concern, especially as a greater percentage of the population ends up diagnosed in one way or another. Current estimates are that one quarter of those in the U.S. will manifest symptoms sufficient to receive a diagnosis of mental illness during their lifetimes.
Yet the criteria for deciding whether a given behavior is or is not the result of a disorder remain unclear. Consider the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the man who proudly admits to murdering 77 of his fellow Norwegians last summer, and whose trial is currently taking place in Oslo. Mr. Breivik has been assessed by two separate teams of psychiatrists, who cannot agree on the basic question of whether he is sane or not. In current diagnostic systems, committing mass murder is not in and of itself evidence of mental illness.
Murderers are seen by psychiatrists either as delusional or as having antisocial personalities. Terrorists, in contrast, are treated as political actors rather than psychiatric patients. But surely some kinds of killing are the result of psychopathology, even if others aren't; the question is how to tell one type from the other. Since the killer's intentions and state of mind are key to interpreting his actions, Mr. Breivik's case is attracting special interest, because he gave himself up to authorities after the massacre (unlike many others, who die at the scene), and he has chosen to participate actively in his own defense.
The facts of what happened are not at issue. The 33-year-old Breivik, a white Norwegian, planted a bomb outside government offices in Oslo last July that killed eight people, and he then shot 69 teenagers at close range while they were attending a summer camp for political activists on a nearby island.
He says that he acted to prevent a Muslim takeover of Europe, and that advocates of multiculturalism like the young people he gunned down have created a climate that fosters excessive Muslim influence. He links his efforts to those of right-wing nationalist parties in the UK and The Netherlands, and has angrily claimed that it is only because of racism that his mental health is even being questioned. "If I were a bearded jihadist, no one would have asked for a psychiatric examination," he declared to prosecutors at the start of his trial.
The line between intentional political violence -- however despicable its ideology -- and mental disorder remains vague and subject to multiple interpretations. And psychiatrists seem strangely silent on this issue, choosing to focus their debates on the criteria for mental illnesses they can treat with medication or other interventions. Still, Mr. Breivik's case raises useful questions. Are people like him insane or extremists? What's the difference, and how do we make sense of their actions? Is it acting alone that makes a person seem more suspect?
Anders Breivik claims to be part of a broader network called the Knights Templar, but police have not located any other members. If they did, would his actions appear less pathological? Would he then be seen as part of an organization rather than a madman? Is he more like Timothy McVeigh or Charles Manson, and how can we go about deciding this?
The decision is an important one for all of us as citizens, and perhaps shouldn't be left only to psychiatrists in the first place. We all have a stake in understanding what motivates the disturbing acts of violence that increasingly unfold on the world stage.
One thing is certain: Since psychiatrists cannot agree on how to categorize Anders Breivik's state of mind, either now or last summer when he committed his crimes, this case is likely to generate continued controversy regardless of how the trial ends.
In the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping trial which received intense publicity the offender used the insanity defence to his advantage for his serious crimes against the girl. It backfired of course but how quickly this clause is taken as a riddling out of responsibility card when the going gets tough. Cowards the whole lot of them. Breivik is a man guilty of horrendous killings and gets a field day in court as the cameras light up for him. How this is allowed is beyond me but such is the injustice of this world. The evil ones will get one ultimate judgement where there is no hiding place and it is the only justice I believe in, the only true judge and the only real justice, not life sentences which equate to twenty nothing years for murder, not the model prisoner escape route and not the cushy jails with hotel like facilities for criminals to live in at the taxpayers expense. Where the deterrent is for crime is beyond me, I'm not in favour personally of the death penalty, it brings us to the level of the scum that deserves a punishment for their crimes but we need to seriously question why murder is happening day after day after day and no one bats an eyelid. Shock passes and onto the next story and on it goes ------------- very sad world.
And our cosy hotel-like prisons obviously work since Norway is a country with some of the least crime in the world, under 20% ends up in jail again after release (unlike US were its almost 70%) AND we have some of the fewest incarnation rates in general. In Norway protecting society trumps the need for revenge.
Lastly, cameras don't lit up on Breivik. Filming inside the court isn't aloud in this case (all though I personally think it should) unless explicitly said so. Press can write and publish anything and everything that is being said though, which is necessary and important because the matter affects the whole nation .
I don't want to see Breivik living in a comfortable prison. I want to see him punished. I understand his human rights but a part of me wants to believe he will understand just how much pain and horrendous suffering he has caused. Again, just my personal view.
I did think his lawyer felt Breivik was insane when he said so at a press conference. It is Breivik's biggest fear to see himself sent to a mental hospital. This is going to be a interesting side to follow - what the conclusions from psychiatrists will be at the end, given their differing views so far. I do feel a bit sceptical when people use the insanity defence on the whole because I don't think it is always insanity that makes people do these crimes and I have a very old fashioned view when it comes to punishment but that again is just my problem I suppose. Perhaps, it is just as well that it is not up to me anyway at the end of the day. Thanks for responding to my opinions. Best wishes.