Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[Warren Dew]

In Norway, an insanity defense requires a defendant be psychotic - so out of touch he cannot control his own actions - while committing a crime.

Thanks for the clarification. Psychosis basically means loss of touch with reality.

It's not clear exactly what reality he lost touch with. Clearly he understood the realities of how to kill people. Perhaps the psychiatrists didn't think it was realistic for him to expect to change the political regime through violence?

I'm not a big fan of insanity exceptions. It does make sense from the standpoint of retribution, but not from the standpoint of prevention, which I view as a stronger justification for imprisonment as a penalty.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

I've written about evil before. (Not Safe For Squeamish.) http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... an#p213817

[Schneibster]

I don't have a lot of faith in modern psychology to explain who is sane and who is not, at least not with respect to legal proceedings. I believe that this guy was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, as the shrinks said he was, but does that mean he wasn't mentally capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, legal from illegal? He seems to have known perfectly well that he was committing a crime; planned it well in advance, hid his intentions, and had a rather articulate justification for it. A person whose mental problems prohibit him from distinguishing the illegality of what he's doing also has no need for hiding his intentions or providing political excuses for himself.

Ask this guy why he killed them. The answer is a psychotic delusion. Do you really believe that someone who believes something psychotic doesn't have diminished responsibility? Think about this. Put yourself in his place: if you believed that, no better yet imagine if it were actually true, would it be a consistent action to conclude that there was a larger interest, involving the lives perhaps of thousands or millions, that justified the execution of these few?

[Schneibster]

In Norway, an insanity defense requires a defendant be psychotic - so out of touch he cannot control his own actions - while committing a crime.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1fIKINyFu

In an e-mail, University of Oslo psychology Professor Svenn Torgersen explained, "At least every three years, he can be assessed. If he is non-psychotic, and in addition considered no threat to other people, he will be free, and no new court case. Yes, many psychiatrists and psychologists are surprised."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1fIKa7OMD

Consider these words from Breivik's terrorist manifesto: "Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike." For a man not in control of his thoughts or actions, he sure did what he wanted to do.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1fIKmVHTp

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Schneibster]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

The entire justification for his actions is built on a psychotic delusion. You're just criticizing him for being smart.

[Schneibster]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

I've written about evil before. (Not Safe For Squeamish.) http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... an#p213817

A powerful and moving story.

Where is the line between psychotic delusion, and political opinion?

Suppose his finger was broken when he was tortured?

You were not wrong. Then or later. Nor was the Gunnery Sergeant. IMVHO.

[Ian]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

The entire justification for his actions is built on a psychotic delusion. You're just criticizing him for being smart.

"Psychotic delusion" is incorrect. He had a political grievance. Quite a few people consider it to be a legitimate one, but would never go through with what he did. I'm criticizing him for being ruthless.

[Schneibster]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

The entire justification for his actions is built on a psychotic delusion. You're just criticizing him for being smart.

"Psychotic delusion" is incorrect. He had a political grievance. Quite a few people consider it to be a legitimate one, but would never go through with what he did. I'm criticizing him for being ruthless.

He wants to start a Crusade and "stem the evil tide of immigration."

He's a toon.

[Ian]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

The entire justification for his actions is built on a psychotic delusion. You're just criticizing him for being smart.

"Psychotic delusion" is incorrect. He had a political grievance. Quite a few people consider it to be a legitimate one, but would never go through with what he did. I'm criticizing him for being ruthless.

He wants to start a Crusade and "stem the evil tide of immigration."

He's a toon.

Sure he's not fully sane. But wanting to stem the evil tide of immigration is hardly a bizarre political opinion, much less a psychotic delusion. My point is: he knew perfectly well that he was committing a crime in the process of launching his "crusade". Plenty of despicable acts have some hateful political justification behind them - that doesn't make the people perpetrating those acts clinically insane.

[Schneibster]

I think some people, maybe even those psychologists who evaluated him, want to believe that isn't any real evil in the world, just some people who themselves are suffering from some diminished capacity. I say that's nonsense. This guy was clear as a bell about what he intended to do and about the reactions, legal and media-wise, that would result.

Crazy? Sure. Too crazy to understand that he was doing something illegal and he couldn't control himself? Not even close.

The entire justification for his actions is built on a psychotic delusion. You're just criticizing him for being smart.

"Psychotic delusion" is incorrect. He had a political grievance. Quite a few people consider it to be a legitimate one, but would never go through with what he did. I'm criticizing him for being ruthless.

He wants to start a Crusade and "stem the evil tide of immigration."

He's a toon.

Sure he's not fully sane. But wanting to stem the evil tide of immigration is hardly a bizarre political opinion, much less a psychotic delusion.

So deciding you can stem the evil tide of immigration by murdering people is normal?

OK.

He's a toon.

My point is: he knew perfectly well that he was committing a crime in the process of launching his "crusade". Plenty of despicable acts have some hateful political justification behind them - that doesn't make the people perpetrating those acts clinically insane.

I'm just going to repeat the above point. I think that murdering people deliberately is something only toons do. It never works out; anybody with a brain knows they come after you, no matter what it takes. You can read it in the newspaper every day.

Punishment is stupid if it's the only thing used. It works sometimes. Not usually, and particularly not on the insane. It's like punishing a dog for stealing something when you forgot to feed him. What are you trying to train him to do, not want to eat? Good luck with that. Betcha it doesn't work.

[Ian]

I'm just going to repeat the above point. I think that murdering people deliberately is something only toons do.

This is where we differ. IMO, one does not have to be insane (i.e. unable to distinguish a crime from not a crime) to kill people deliberately. One only needs to have an excuse, and be ruthless enough to do it. Insanity is not a prerequisite.

[Schneibster]

One man's excuse is another man's reason. You gotta find out where exactly they departed from reality.

I'm lookin' at pictures of the guy, he's a toon. Just like the guy who shot Gabby.

[Ian]

I don't think they're in the same league of insanity.

Think of all the people who kill others and nobody gives a thought about their sanity. The body count racked up by drug cartels in Mexico is astonishing, but nobody is saying they must be insane. Apparently, having a profit motive makes you ruthless but still sane when you kill lots of people, but having a political motive makes you ruthless but insane when you do something similar.

[Svartalf]

Killing people whose life is inconvenient to you for profit reason is socially unacceptable but logical.
Spree killing random victims whose deaths don't really advance your political agenda (other than discrediting it by having it associated with raving lunatics), especially when said agenda is in itself of dubious rationality and coherence, does lead one to doubt your grasp on reality.

[Ian]

I have no doubt that the guy was a nut case with some ridiculous opinions, but the legal definition of insanity is what's at the heart of this. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is a legitimate legal defense, but in this case was his mental capacity so diminished that he couldn't understand what he was doing was a crime? I'll never believe that assessment of his mental state.