Oslo psychiatrists declare Breivik insane

[Skybird]

Brandnew news just in from German Die Welt. If that conclusion would stand, he could not be held responsible by legal means, and would not be punsihed by prison penalty (but most likely be send to an asylum). The report is based on 13 interviews they held with him. Original source Die Welt is basing on, is the online edition of "VG", which seems to be a Norwegian newspaper (I do not know for sure).

Edit: VG= Verdens Gang, a newspaper indeed.

[Biggles]

Hm, I seem to recall that the longest a man can sit in jail in Norway is 24 years. I wonder if the same applies to someone who is sent to an asylum? One thing for sure, I don't want to see that monster out on the streets again.

[Skybird]

More news. The report is the result of assessments of Breivik's planning, and the mentioned interviews.

With both I have a problem.

Ignore the ethical side, keep your blood cold and look at his intention, plan, and execution. Considering his intention and his plan, preparation and execution was extremely good, his "mission" was effetive as far as the resulting mission score goes. What is left to be labelled as insane, is his motive then.

Considering that psychology and psychiatrie has no real sensors, in an objective, technical meaning, to measure the state of a conscience or a soul. A psyachological questionaire for clinical purposes, is no real test. An interview is no measuring device. Interpreting both is a highly subjective affair. It is reproted the psychiatrist holding those interviews, consaiders Breivik to have a psychopathic personality structure. A psychopath is a person who has no ability for empathy or for emotional sensation of himself, he thus cannot differ between good and evil on the basis of creatures suffering or not suffering from his actions. A psychopath thus claims the right for himselof to manipulate others in any way he wants, or to make them objects of his own desires, may it be to lie to them to gain an advantage, may it be to skin them alive for whatever the reason is - because the others to him are no subjects, but objects.

But Breivik stated clear views on political conditions he was/is angry about. He did not act for his own advantage only, to gain something that he wanted, but he wan ted to acchieve something in a missionbary meaning, he wanted to "free the world", and set a symbolic example, a warning call. In my understanding of the antisocial personality disorder and the older term psychopathy (deriving from the older triadic classification system of psychiatry), this does not justify to label him a psychopath. Which again leaves us qwith one thing only thta gets labelled insane here: his motive.

So on both points, the interviews and the executuonjh of the deed, it seems to me the conclusion to see him as insane is not based on the deed itself or the personality of the man, but on his motive.

And this then turns my attentionj to another implicit problem: we are living in a socialsied environment we like to call a solidaric consensus-society. From beginning on, and increasingly in the present clash of conservatism with left and foreign ideologies, we note that any off-straying opinion that leaves the path of political correctness, of unlimited tolerance and favouring unconditional peace (even if that peace turns into a messianic social pacifying that becomes terrporising in itself), gets brandmarked not only as an opposing opinion, but as reactionary, inhumane, injust, non-solidaric, anti-social - as sick, as insane.

I wonder if this again struck in the case of Breivik. That the tolerant society simply cannot admit the fact that there are "normal" people in the world that differ in their views and opinions from the wanm ted and correct mainstream opinion. People that cannot be pressed into the usual harness of labels and desciptions of what kind of opinions are normal and acceptabel, and what not. We live in the belief today that our oh so civilised and tolerant reasonability has made opinions not able to agree to our canon of opnions - almost unimgainable. And if we meet such views, we demoinise them. We must make it clear that such opinions cannot be part of a world that by any means still is the normal world, the world we live in. Such perverted views - must be insane, must be sick, must be located outside our understanding of what the normal world is.

I met this problem oh so very often in my psychology days, over ten years ago.

I think parts of what I try to explain, are relevant for why Breivik gets declared "insane". It is for ideologic reasons. The pressure to collectivise all thinking and opinion in to a pool of agreed correct and acceptabel content only, now has helpeda worst criminal and a butcher to avoid being held responsible in the meaning of the law. Instead, he now is labelled as "ill".

I totally reject this view. I think he should be brought to court and jailed for murder and put into security custody afterwards.

[Skybird]

The latest news entry from the BBC now says they declared him a paranoid schizophrenic. These categories might be slightly easier to catch than "psychopathic/anti-social personality", but still - at least not the BBC reveals details that would make that conclusion all that naturally by itself.

I have always been hesitent in giving diagnostic labels in psychology and psychiatry, and I belong to that camp that thinks that some of these diagnostic categories maybe simply does nto exist. Burnout, for example - to me, that is a non-starter.

I tend to have such reservations about "psychopathic personality", too.

Also, psychology easily walks into a trap of mistaking the consequences emerging after an event or action for the preconditions that precede said event or action.

The problem with declaring mental abnormality is that all such classifications necessarily base on an assumption of what "normality" is. But that "normality" is a totally depending state itself and anything but self-declaring.

[CCIP]

Personally, I would leave these judgments to experts - they know a lot more than we do from the (oft-sensationalized) news media. We haven't interviewed and observed this guy, they have.

Considering the things he's done, and some of the justifications he made for them - I definitely wouldn't consider the diagnosis implausible.

[Tribesman]

With both I have a problem.

The main problem being that he shares many of Skybirds views and his "manifesto" contains many of skys favourites.

Considering his intention and his plan, preparation and execution was extremely good, his "mission" was effetive as far as the resulting mission score goes
:doh:
The only good thing is that he ddn't get the result he wanted any more than any other of the numerous murdering pricks who want to kick start a race war have got their results.
One more slightly good thing is that most of the idiots he linked to in his loony rant are running a mile from what they had said.:yeah:

careful planning and preparation mean he ain't a nut??????
obsessive compulsive disorder, mental asylums are full of them especially the paranoid delusional ones.

I think parts of what I try to explain, are relevant for why Breivik gets declared "insane". It is for ideologic reasons.
What you try to explain is for your own ideological "reasons".

[Jimbuna]

From the BBC link:

"I don't see how Behring Breivik's opinions set him apart from war criminals, who are tried in court as if they are sane," said one man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

I personally hope he is never released out into the public arena again.

[Skybird]

From the BBC link:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

I personally hope he is never released out into the public arena again.
If he is send to a psychiatry, he will be assessed every three years - and if the doctors declare him helathy, he could be set free at any of these trials.

The same media mega stunt every three years. You gotta learn how to love it!

Once again, like so often it seems to me, the loosers are the victims and their relatives. The justice system spits in their face, it seems to me. The more I heared in the news today about the issue, the more I think that my thoughts I wrote earlier in this thread are hitting the nail right on top.

[Rockstar]

Send him to Tadmor for his evaluations.



.

[Sailor Steve]

A friend of mine once expressed the opinion that "insanity" is more cause for punishment, not less. He felt that if the person really is insane then all the more reason to put him down now so he can't hurt anyone else.

Me? I don't know.

[mapuc]

On the danish evening news TV-A. A danish psychiatrist was surprised of this diagnosis. As he said

He have planned this for years.

In an another news I heard that if he got jailed, he will not last long, before he get killed.

So maybe he's playing "stupid" to prevent this and not end in jail.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

If he is send to a psychiatry, he will be assessed every three years - and if the doctors declare him helathy, he could be set free at any of these trials.


Well I sincerely hope that is not the case :nope:

[Skybird]

Personally, I would leave these judgments to experts - they know a lot more than we do from the (oft-sensationalized) news media. We haven't interviewed and observed this guy, they have.

Considering the things he's done, and some of the justifications he made for them - I definitely wouldn't consider the diagnosis implausible.
I were no psychiatrist (result of studying medicine) but clinical psychologist (result of studying psychology), but the difference is not that immense. Stereotypically, psychiatrists do drugs and psychoanalysis, psychologists to behaviorism and humanistic therapies. Both use the same classifications of diseases, the DSM and the ICD. In clinical reality, both cooperate closely.

From a psychologist's point of view, I must tell you of some simple facts that speak against the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

Formally, there are three primary criterions for a diagnosis of schizophrenia:
- accustic hallucinations
- delusions of lunacy (=Wahnvorstellungen)
- cognitive thought disorders (=Denkstörungen).

Formally, at least two of these must be fulfilled , else you usually do not give the diagnosis of a schizophrenia.

I do not even take into account secondary symptoms. Decisive for the diagnosis is that two of the three primary symptoms must be fulfilled.

Breivik has planned his deed over years, logically, rationally, and with great cleverness. It is very unusual to see this kind of long-termed planning and execution from a schizophrenic person. Not impossible, but very very unusual. This speaks against delusions of lunacy.

His world view may be seen as dangerous or unacceptable compared to the society'S canon of views and values and political consensus, but in itself it is logical and compelling and rational a model, and it has striking links to facts from reality. This speaks against delusions of lunacy, and cognitive thought disorders.

He hid his plan and preparation, and thus was necessarily aware of the need to do so. Which means he knew he was violating above mentioned canon of society'S views and rules and values - he was aware of his own worldview, but also of the different worldview of the environment he was living in. Which also speaks against delusions of lunacy.

His planning and preparation was precise, as was the perfection of his hiding. Maybe cold-blooded and aiming at massmurder, but precise, rational and right up to the needs of his objective. This speaks against thought disorders, biut speaks for a high sense of realism.

He is not reported to have had accustic hallucinations at all.

And paranoia: his enemy he wanted to take aim on, was a general movement in the world towards what he considered as bad and evil: a shifting towards socialism, alienation of cultural identity, and Islam. But note that I often get called an "islamophobe" when I make a rational criticism of Islamic ideology and history. A phobia also is a clinical category, and calling me islamophobic means that the person doing so considers me as ill, as mentally deranged, as insane: obviously I am nuts, I have a tic which is a tic and thus must not be answered to on rational grounds, because it is right this: a tic, a phobia, a clinical symptom that cvannot be countered by argument and so must not be answered by argument. Very comfortable for the one making the claim I am "phobic"!

It is the same when you wipe off the table the criticism of somebody by calling it just the statements of a paranoid. Calling him a paranoid or a phobic - in this context serves the same purpose.

But especially Sweden has big problems with Islamic migrants. I just point the finger to Malmö where the sh!t really has hit the fan, but there are so many other hotspots of massive problems as well, in Scandinavia, in Holland, Germany, England, France. Refering to these problems and calling them by their name, is anything but phobic or paranoid. It is not irrational but rational to mention them and take them as what they are instead of deceiving the public debate about their existence.

Breivik'S unforgivable sin is not so much his world view. It is the consequences he drew from then: undiscriminated massmurder of the socialists' youth just because they gathered and held anti-Israeli debate meetings with known anti-Israeli speakers there (a small detail the international media "forgot" to report about). The deed is what he has to be hold responsible for, the deed of cold-blooded mass murder.

Indeed I think that my opening comments in this thread on how the unwanted thoughts of somebody violating the politically wanted and politically correct consensus opinions on certain things get declared invalid by claiming them to be insane and a sick mind'S thoughts, are correct. The debate on the issues should be prevented by declaring those not agreeing to the wanted answers as "mentally ill". They did the same in Mao's China. In the Third Reich. Today, you are mentally ill if you do question islamic ideology and migration, socialism and ecologic practices (that at closer look often are anything but oh so ecologically helpful). The anonymous pressure of politically corrected opinions decide whether you are healthy, or insane.

Says something about the state of things in our home countries. I witness the same in the totally black-and-white painting and excessive demonising of the political opponent when it comes to environment-saving issues. Green politics. Leftist politics. EUism. Reps and Dems in America. Do not agree with the wanted opinions, and you are the scum of the earth. The villain. The xy-phobic. The destroyer of the good and valuable. The racist. The Nazi. The terrorist-sympathiser.

The diagnosis for Breivik imo is very very questionable from all what we know about the man, and formally is unsupportable. But it acchieves one thing: the issue he wanted to direct attention to, get completely ignored and forgotten. And while it was wrong and evil that he committed undiscriminatory mass murder, many items of his criticisms are correct and totally matching reality. But becoming aware of the latter unwanted detail - is to be prevented. And so he gets declared a lunatic who must not be taken as serious and can be simply ignored.

Stamp "Discussion prevented" on top of it. File closed. Next.

[Skybird]

Well I sincerely hope that is not the case :nope:
It is possible. They must reassess him every three years. If they conclude by their assessment that he poses no threat to the public anymore, they must release him.

[Tribesman]

Stamp "Discussion prevented" on top of it. File closed. Next.
Is that like putting on an ignore feature when people point out how crazy you are?:rotfl2:

[Platapus]

A friend of mine once expressed the opinion that "insanity" is more cause for punishment, not less. He felt that if the person really is insane then all the more reason to put him down now so he can't hurt anyone else.

Me? I don't know.

I would not agree that there is all the more reason to punish him, but I do strongly agree that with insane violent criminals there is all the more reason to lock them away from society.

Who is the greater threat to society
1. Man kills his business partner to get the entire company
2. Man kills everyone with green eyes

In my opinion we need to get away from the verdict of Not guilty due to insanity and instate a verdict of Guilty and Insane. With the understanding that such a person would be first committed to a mental institution.

If, after treatment, the doctors see no reason to keep the patient in the hospital, they would be transferred to a suitable prison to serve their sentence.

I don't understand this once cured all is forgiven mentality. Society has the responsibility to treat the mentally ill. But once that treatment is finished (either successfully or unsuccessfully) there still needs to be the basic accountability that I feel is important for any society to survive.

I would also like the mental professionals to reexamine exactly what they mean by "insane". I can understand that some insane people could be forgiven but other types I can't.

But it is a complicated issue.

[Skybird]

Our understanding of holding somebody responsible for something he did, and to punish him, bases on the implicit preassumption that he has had - by his mental status - the choice to commit a crime or not. Responsibility comes with the freedom to choose. Freedom of choice comes with responsibility.

The correction in the law should therefore go at another direction.

A mentally deranged person may not be able to escape for example his inner voices or a hallucinations - the schizophrenic being driven by inner voices to slaughter somebody becaseu her fire-red hair was evil and a signt hat she was a demon th eat the world.

The person that got intoxicated by accident or without his knowledge or responsibility also may produce a mental status in which he commits crimes without knowing that he commits a crime. Exposure to a chemical agent at work due to accident or unsifficient security measures by the company. Mis-produced medical drugs, or a mistaking with the wrong drug by a nurse.

But then there are those who voluntarily poisen themselves, by alcohol for example. You have the choice to drink or not, or to drink more than is good for you or to stop before it is enough, or to ask somebody to take care of you so that you do not drink too much. Therefore, since you have these choices, you are responsible for the deeds you commit while being in a state of being drunk. A drunk person committing a crime while being drunk - therefore should be held responsible by law the same way as if he had not drank anything at all, no matter whether he causes an accident, a riot, or a crime. You are responsible for how much you drink, and whether you handed over the keys to your car right in time or not.

[CCIP]

On the other hand, if you have a completely irrational, paranoid fear of being persecuted and channel this fear towards a particular group through compulsive, calculated behaviour for many years, that doesn't make the initial paranoid state that caused it any more rational or conscious. You don't choose to wake up one day and start seeing enemies everywhere - and his views and behaviour do look a bit too extreme and solitary to be acquired.

The issue of protecting society from these people is, in my view, totally separate. There should be no less protection of the public from people with irrational tendencies and complexes than from criminals, but I think differential treatment of them from the common criminal is justified. As long as both their diagnosis and their treatment is genuine, I see no issue. I don't see how that's something that flies in the face of the victims' families, either - unless you believe in retribution and revenge as basis of the justice system. I just don't see what anyone has to gain from a sick, delusional man being confined to a solitary cell for the rest of his life. Nor do I believe for a second believe that any of this means that he will walk free in any foreseeable future. He might as well be in a place where, if nothing else, experts would benefit from studying him on a constant basis.

[Skybird]

Second assessment now says Breivik is not insane.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17663958

[CCIP]

Sounds like the person happiest with this assessment is Breivik himself.

[August]

Apparently they have now reversed their ruling and have declared him sane.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17663958

A second psychiatric evaluation of Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik has found him sane enough to face trial and a jail term. The findings contradict a previous evaluation, published in November, that found him legally insane.

[Skybird]

:D...

[Karle94]

Too bad our insane asylums aren´t like the ones in the Soviet Union. At least then he would truly suffer the suffering he deserves.

[Oberon]

So, it's the choice between a comfortable room with meals provided for you and...a comfortable room with meals provided for you. :hmmm:

[Karle94]

So, it's the choice between a comfortable room with meals provided for you and...a comfortable room with meals provided for you. :hmmm:

Afraid so. If I were a homeless, I would do unspeakable crimes so I´d have a shelter and food.

[Jimbuna]

So, it's the choice between a comfortable room with meals provided for you and...a comfortable room with meals provided for you. :hmmm:

Afraid so. If I were a homeless, I would do unspeakable crimes so I´d have a shelter and food.

If that's the case then hopefully he will be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

[Karle94]

If that's the case then hopefully he will be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Saw on the front page of a newspaper that he might rot in the joint for the rest of his life. I pray to Thor that he does.

[Jimbuna]

Saw on the front page of a newspaper that he might rot in the joint for the rest of his life. I pray to Thor that he does.

Rgr that :yep: