Could Breivik (who murdered 77 people in Norway) ever be described as NOT mentally ill?

[AgentZigzag]

Could someone who deliberately chose to murder 77, mostly young, people for an ideological cause, be classified as not mentally ill?

Surely the act of believing such a thing was a 'necessity' indicates he has mental health problems i.e. that something other people have that stops them killing people wasn't there?

But could the level of planning to do such a thing only possible if a person had a level of 'sound mind'?

Just to pre-empt some points that might come up-
-I don't think mentally ill people are 'nutters' or 'mentalists', and know people with mental health problems are more likely to have violence meted out on them than be the perpetrators of violence
-I don't mean any disrespect to the victims or families of the victims asking the question, I was thinking about the 'grey' areas of mental illness where someone's diagnosis might not fit neatly into a category from the DSM
-I haven't spoken to Breivik or know anything about his mental health, so am not passing comment on whether he is mentally ill or not, but am thinking about a wider definitions of people who try to rationalise killing lots of people.

I don't find it insulting at all Kladdkaka, I'm thinking more along the lines of whether it's possible for someone who isn't mentally ill to carry out such a deviant and 'against the norm' act. If he's not ill, then what do you think could have provoked him to do it? Can someone rationally take that decision?

Dawndonna, that's what I was on about really, you can have indicators that say someone fits into such and such a category of mental illness, but it's all about interpreting those indicators, and having the fact that he's killed so many must count somewhere. Is it possible to not take that fact into account when deciding on his sanity?

I suspect most people with delusional psychosis would be unable to plan, plan again, and conduct the acts he did though?

I believe he understood as well his actions were illegal but didn't care.

I don't think it's a case of psychopaths 'not understanding' right and wrong, it's more that they just don't care. They'll avoid being caught not because something is wrong but to avoid unpleasant consequences for themselves. Wheras in this case Brevik wanted to be caught, he wanted his day in court. He wants to be discussed and he wants the attention of psychiatrists discussing and analysing him because it satisfys his Narcissistic need. It supplies him with the oxygen of attention he craves.

In his mind if people had to die to supply him with that then they are just objects to be eliminated systematically in order for him to achieve his aim. Attention.

Again mental illness is not the same as personality disorder. You can google the diagnostic criteria if you wish - google either ICD-10 and look at chapter F, or look at the DSM-IV.

And personality disorders ARE curable in most cases - but the time and resources needed are not there.

I said he was probably mentally ill based on the reports on him , he has been assessed twice by 2 teams both of which have concluded a disorder/illness of some kind they just dont agree what exactly.

The term sociopath i do understand isnt really used now , im not an expert by any means - i meant that people who have those traits can commit offenses because their brains are physiologically different. I dont think thats an excuse by any stretch of the imagination.

I do think anyone can commit murder depending on the pressure on them at the time eg. family in danger and that people who commit some of the more "horiffic" crimes probably do have something different/wrong with them we just dont understand it enough yet.

'It's interesting also, that he is desperate not to be classed as having a mental health affliction. Does that yearning actually mean he has? IYSWIM?'

I was trying to get my head round that one as well Shakes, I had to re-read the bit saying it was the prosecution who was trying to say he wasn't sane because it's usually the other way.

What kelly said. Im never anywhere near as articulate as id like to be.

He is clearly extremely high functioning. I would imagine he would be highly capable of planning something of that magnitude, psychotic or not.

People arent evil. People are people, some of them have differences in their physiological make up which can lead to them doing awful things.

I agree with Kladkaka.

And I'm not impressed with 'personality disorders' being lumped in with meantal illness. They are descriptions of behaviour.

I've only read the first few pages of his psych report but his thoughts seem disordered, chaotic and paranoid.

Personality disorders tend to represent the extremes of human behaviours. I'm not entirely comfortable with them being lumped under the umbrella of mental illness.

fireice has it.

There is too much confusion in the minds of the public between mood disorders and personality disorders, psychosis etc

I am not really sure Psychopathy is an illness or even a personality 'disorder' as such, as I said Psychopaths are neurologically different from the average person but they are not necessarily ill/psychotic. Two different things.

As is well known, one of the defining features of psychosis is disordered thoughts - which would imply a degree of inability to plan and commit such an act. Not a single person I've known with psychosis - over 10 years - would have been able to plan and commit two coordinated atrocities while in an acute state. In a non acute state, the people I work with are high functioning but NOt at that stage psychotic. They have full abilities to take reaponsibilty for thei actions when well.

Yes I see what you mean. He seems so changeable; chaotic thinking etc is clearly documented in his reports. But it's unusual for a psychotic chap to plan something ao meticulously. Delusional disorder then?

Here we are diagnosing him from our impressions from media etc. It's no wonder the psychiatrists in Norway can't agree.

So you think it's possible for someone with a psychosis to plan and carry out such an atrocity and be fully responsible for it HorribleDay, but paradoxically, to be in the state of mind to carry it out (ie think it was an acceptable thing to do) they'd have to be in an acute state which would render them incapable of carrying out such an intricate act?

Isn't that what's being discussed about the insanity defence horrible ? That he may be psychotic but not in an acute state at the time meaning that insanity cannot be used as his defence ? Or something like that I think ?

If he's not ill, then what do you think could have provoked him to do it? Can someone rationally take that decision?

The Nazis in WW2 weren't mentally ill. They took decisions to exterminate people in a cold, calculated and totally (to them) rational way. They believed in the Final Solution. People who kill other people like this, often for political reasons, do so because they have mentally categorised certain groups of people as somehow sub human. Once you have done that, then you can start to justify pretty much anything. Breivik took the decision rationally because it was planned out and incredibly organised. If he was irrational, it would not have been like that. I believe he had such strong political views that he can then justify his actions as being part of a bigger picture. He sees those with different beliefs to him as 'less than human' and worthy only of destruction to somehow prove his point or make the world a better place by getting rid of those he sees as wrong. I don't know if he's mentally ill or has a personality disorder or not. But I don't think you have to be 'insane' to take decisions which can only be described as evil.

As someone who has had delusional psychosis I think that's exactly what he has. He was found to be psychotic at the time by the first psychiatrist to assess him, only more recently was he declared sane. I would like to know what medication he's been put on, if any, since it all happened. I thank God every day that I am not by nature an aggressive person!

Could the debate over his mental health be because, in Norway, if deemed mentally ill (however defined there) then he can be detained indefinitely in a secure hospital, but if sane and guilty the maximum sentence is 21 years?

What about all the freaky neo-nazi, anti government groups in the US? Those people have all sorts of vile views and conspiracy theories. It doesn't mean they're mentally ill.

Well to put it simply is he mad or bad?

He could have an underlying psychotic illness or personality disorder. But lots of people have these without turning into killers. I also think its easy to give him the label of mental illness to help us 'escape' from the reality of what he has done.

However, there is something so delusional about him.

I don't believe that people who have psychosis as a diagnosis - in whatever it's many forms - have psychosis all the time. I think they have episodes of psychosis. Most people I've worked with are fully functioning in between episodes. People who have psychosis can, like anyone, also hold beliefs which are unusual or even abhorrent to my way of thinking. They could choose to act on various beliefs when unwell. But when unwell, acutely unwell, they would not, in my experience, be able to plan and carry out such a sophisticated attrocity. Hope that makes sense - been up for many, many hours with toddler DS and working for 10 hours today!

Delusional disorder - possibly - but then one person's delusion is another's religion etc etc. Many of his reported beliefs, from his speech in today, are not far removed from the likes of the BNP.

I don't want to come across as being picky OneWay, but the forces that influenced the Nazis in WWII to do what they did were different to Breivik IMO.

He was one person on his own making separate choices, the Nazis were a legitimate elected political party in a desperate country with a tradition of anti-Semitism making it 'easier' to accept the murder of lots of people. The mechanisms that 'made' some kill other people themselves, is again different (like the processes that make it acceptable to torture), it depended on other people.