Anders Breivik: An Insane Debate
When you hear the term insane, what do you think of? Do you imagine homeless, drunk people, staggering down the street? Do picture asylums filled with long haired, wild-eyed patients, restrained by a strait jacket?
Or perhaps you see Anders Behring Breivik, the man responsible for the deadliest attacks in Norway since WWII. The man that in just over three hours killed 77 people in a bomb attack and a shooting spree. Many thought that Breivik was insane, just a broken man with a broken mind. Others believed he was a terrorist, out to bring down the government. Either way, it was decided, he was a murderer. But even after a Norway court declared him sane and sentenced him to 21 years in prison, the most important question still remains; how is it possible that this man is not insane?
But what exactly is the definition of insanity? In terms of the law, someone who is found insane is someone who is unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and is subject to impulsive and erratic behaviours.
This explanation seems to fit in with Breivik’s first psychiatric evaluation, prior to his trial. Breivik, it was suggested, seemed to be suffering from paranoia schizophrenia, a condition in which a person believes that someone, either an individual or an organization, is plotting against them. The court seemed happy with this analysis, hoping to categorise Breivik’s actions as those of a madman, someone who could be locked away in an asylum somewhere in the countryside.
But family and friends of those killed in the attacks were not going to stand for that. They knew that if Breivik was declared mentally unsound then he would be cared for in state-of-the-art facilities, and more importantly, he would be allowed to appeal his sentence every three years, making it far more likely that he would be released early.
Breivik was therefore subject to a second psychiatric evaluation. It concluded that he was not psychotic prior to or during the attacks, and this time he was diagnosed with narcissist personality disorder. This second analysis meant that Breivik was fully accountable for his actions on and before the 22nd of July, 2011.
In a strange twist of events however, it appeared that both Breivik and the public wanted the same outcome from the trial; Breivik to be declared sane. But while the public just wanted a longer sentence for the killer, Breivik worried that if he were found to be insane then his political message would lose its credibility, making him just another ‘crazy.’
But since Breivik was now deemed responsible for his crimes, the world waited with bated breath to see what could possibly have caused a man to kill 77 people in cold blood.
However, if the world had hoped to get any sort of justifiable answer, they were sorely mistaken.
Accused of “destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society” and “creating serious fear in the population,” Breivik responded with a 13 page statement, outlining his personal beliefs, and the reasons behind the attacks.
Breivik is a far right-wing extremist fuelled by a hatred of Muslims and Marxists. In a manifesto he published on the day of the attacks, Breivik speaks of his loathing of multiculturalism, at one point describing it as ‘evil;’ “Multiculturalism is an evil ideology that forces itself upon us.” Breivik finished his statement with the following; “The attacks were preventative attacks in defence of Norwegian culture and my people. I acted from the principle of necessity on behalf of my people, my religion, my ethnicity, my city, and my country.”
In the next breath he demanded to be acquitted of all charges.
After reading both his statement and manifesto, it is obvious that Breivik spent a long time planning for his attacks. He even went to the trouble of buying a farm so he could legally buy the 6 tonnes of fertiliser he used to create his bomb. He also bought a police officer uniform, used to lull the teenagers he killed into a false sense of security. Upon arrest Breivik went quietly, not resisting the SWAT team that caught him. In court he informed the world of his beliefs, calling for others to follow in his lead.
Despite his 21 year sentence and sanity ruling, we still need to ask ourselves if these are the thoughts and actions of a sane man. However one sentence is all we need to sum up the vicious killer.
Anders Breivik is perfectly sane but completely mad.
Alicia Brown
Bibliography
Hamilton, A. (2012) ‘Anders Breivik’s Opening Statement, Day 2 (April 17, 2012)’ [online] http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/anders-breiviks-opening-statement/ [accessed: 6 September 2012]
Thermopylae, A. (2012) ‘The Commander Ander Breivik’s Report’ [online]. http://breivikreport.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/anders-breivik-trial-friday-august-24.html [accessed: 4 September 2012]
Orr, D. (2012) ‘Anders Behring Breivik’s not a terrorist, he’s a mass-murderer’ [online]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terrorist-insane-murderer[accessed: 3 September 2012]
Left Flank. (2012) ‘The Breivik verdict: Justice for his victims & a setback for the Right’ [online]. http://left-flank.org/2012/08/25/the-breivik-verdict-justice-for-his-victims-a-setback-for-the-far-right/ [accessed: 6 September 2012]
Tietze, T. (2012) ‘The importance of the Anders Breivik verdict reaches beyond Norway’ [online]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/anders-breivik-verdict-norway1 [accessed: 4 September 2012]
Loughnan, A. (2012) ‘Anders Breivik is guilty: the fine line between bad and mad’ [online]. http://theconversation.edu.au/anders-breivik-is-guilty-the-fine-line-between-bad-and-mad-9068 [accessed: 29 August 2012]
Beaumont, P. (2012) ‘Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer’ [online]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/anders-behring-breivik-norway-attacks [accessed: 29 August 2012]
I agree, Alicia. It’s disturbing to see the lengths that Breivik went to, to achieve this massacre, though as you said, a mental asylum is not the place for a cold blooded killer like Breivik. I’m glad that he was judged to be guilty (and sane) and not insane (even though his actions contradict this), as a state of the art facility is no place for a vicious killer like Breivik.
I agree, but for a different reason. I think that according to your definition of insanity Breivik is probably sane, as he can understand the consequences of his actions (whether or not he is deluded as to the reaction of the rest of the world). The reason we see him as insane is that his ideas are so alien to us. His beliefs are so different to ours that when we see him defending them with as much vigour and belief as we would our own, we see what we wish him to be: a gibbering madman. The truth is that he is as much in control of his actions as anyone else, however the circumstances of his life have led him to believe that what he is doing is right. He is of course wrong, the culture that he (and we) live in decrees that his actions are morally reprehensible, however his beliefs make him blind to that fact. I would be interested to see what kind of an upbringing he had; his nazi views must have had some sort of trigger. Who knows, maybe his great grandfather was a nazi. Whatever the case is, his views are so foreign and his actions are so morally inconceivable to us, that he might as well be an alien as far as our understanding of him is concerned.
An engaging read Alicia. Thoroughly researched and you ask challenging questions. I’m interested Ryan’s idea that Breivik and his views are ‘alien’ to us. In a sense this seems similar to identifying hm as insane in that it distances him from our world and means his ideas are not a threat. However Breivik was influenced by and an influence to people on the far-right. He shared ideas with those who speak against multiculturalism, immigration and attack Islam. These are common views in many parts of the world and I wonder his wasn’t an extreme example of growing intolerance to others.
Alicia,
Looking into a proper understanding of the definition of insanity was an interesting perspective and brought out a better appreciation of the final verdict. Taking the time to research Breivik’s manifesto also added to your argument about his state of mind. After browsing the references and considering your analysis I think your concluding statement is spot on.
Anyone who kills 77 people in cold blood is clearly insane, simply because anyone in their right mind would not contemplate such a heinous act. Interviews revealed he never demonstrated any remorse and it is reported that he said if given the opportunity he would do the same again
However, Breivik is not your stereotypical madman, the “wild eyed” lunatic with irrational cause and more likely to take his own life than face the world. His crime was very pre-meditated and carefully planned. He had no intention of killing himself, but went quietly when arrested, because he wanted the trial as a stage for stating his beliefs.
Yes, Breivik knew what he was doing, so technically he is sane, but the idea of committing mass murder to supposedly protect Norway from multiculturalism is clearly madness.
I agree that it is probably best for Anders Brievik to be locked away and serve his time for his murders rather than have what could be more of a comfort in an asylum. Brievik deserves a harsh punishment for his murders and the lengths he went to, I agree that by our views his actions would seem insane. However, Ryan makes a good point that his values seem alien to us but may seem like the correct thing to do to help his country. Brievik could well have grown up in a different society and had different principles to us; he may have a different opinion on what is right and wrong. In saying that though Brievik stated he acted on behalf of the Norwegian people and I am sure there are plenty of Norwegians who would disagree with this and not condone this, especially family of the victims. This is a well written piece that poses several questions however it would have been good to get more of your view on the topic.