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.

Thanks for that horrible. That's really frightening about the ect. My understanding was there's not much evidence it's either harmful or safe which I thought meant it shouldn't be used (here in the uk anyway).

I prefer to think of it as a continuum of mental health - we are all somewhere on there - and where we are on it will vary from day to day, same as our physical health. So someone who doesn't have a diagnosable illness might still not be having a healthy thought process?

Of course he's not mentally ill. He knew exactly what he was doing, he was very clear that he had political reasons for doing as he did, he was murdering the next generation of leaders who he believed were bad for his country. He is a political terrorist, maybe a psychopath...

Many politicians have indirectly murdered far more, Obama for example has killed an estimated almost 3000 people in ordered drone attacks alone, including 160 children. Bush and Blair with the help of their allies murdered anywhere between 100,000 and a million (depends on source), in fact there are probably very few leaders who have a lower kill than Breivik. Nobody declares them mentally ill.

He needs to be held responsible for his actions, not have them excused on grounds that nobody sane could commit mass murder. Most mass murderers are sane. Evil is not insanity.

The difference to me crescent (hello ), is that muslim fundamentalists will single out a vulnerable person, excluded and on the edges of society, and make them feel included by interacting/'brainwashing' them, whereas Breivik worked alone, he sought out the violent ideologies.

It was something within himself which was being played out/inevitable, rather than him being preyed (no pun intended) on by group dynamics, which if the person hadn't come across they could have been a productive member of society.

It was something unavoidable because it's the person he is.

Yes that's the question , psychopathy (insert correct term here) isn't a mental illness as such, more of a difference in the brain make up. Not sure where that relates to being sane in the ?normal? sense.

I agree 100% about the continuum rhondajean - I suppose where I always struggled was defining where the 'healthy' line is - so, I worked for a long time (and now research, teach and write with and about) self harm - I thought it's unhealthy to hurt yourself in Renton ally, but was then taught by a number of people that self harm is their health-ful way of surviving, the lesser of otherwise difficult or damaging options. Probably not examining this very well! But yes, I think health and illness (physical and mental) and thus beliefs and experiences are on a continuum - I guess the amount of distress caused or experienced is where the otherwise arbitrary line is drawn? Where a person's behaviour is (rightly) defined as illegal and abhorrent (amoral not strong enough term) then that person is removed from society - whether that be to prison or Rampton is a very difficult area.

Guess it's semantics - 'evil is not mental illness' maybe? And there's not yet (though by DSM 5 there well be!) a diagnostic criteria for 'evil'.

I think insanity is the inability to understand that an action is wrong. Someone who kills because they are hallucinating and see a devil attacking them is suffering severe mental illness and is a victim of that.

Someone who kills innocent people knowing that what they are doing is wrong however they choose to justify it is just evil. Evil is sane because it requires an understanding of the wrongness of your actions and the enjoyment of causing harm to others.

I get you about self harm - my colleague is supporting a group just now who are trying to raise the issue of self harm as a coping mechanism and not suicidal ideation - they've recently got some attention from the Scottish government and seem to be making a bit of headway.

Moving back to offenders...
From reading others comments and thinking about it - I suppose one line may be where people are either treatable, or need specialised care to reduce their risk, which helps decide where they should be kept.

The risk is that the perception becomes that people with mental health issues are dangerous - because often when it's mentioned in the media, it's in connection to a horrific event like this.

I still think that being able to label people as ill is also a coping mechanism for the rest of us too when things like this happens. But then to some extent there is a risk that lets us create the concept of the "evil unwell monster" rather then addressing other societal issues that may have contributed?

I agree with that bobbledunk

Back2Two, there does seem to be some evidence that nurture can play a part in the outcome of a person who is already predosposed to psychopathy.

Take a look at this, it's fascinating Neuroscientist Jim Fallon on nature vs nurture in murderers.

I agree with bobbledunk as well, but it's what makes it possible for someone to carry out killing so many people, what mechanisms do we have (that he doesn't have) that stops us from doing the same.

Isn't a lack of those mechanisms, the knowing it's wrong but doing it anyway, an indicator that something is 'wrong', and therefore not sane, taking place?

rhondajean - Surely there is nothing surprising about the concept that DSH can be a maladaptive coping mechanism rather than suicidality? I cant believe that this is news to the government?

Agentzigzag - Its about the semantics. Sane/Insane is a legal concept, not a medical diagnosis (though obviously the two things are related to each other).

Sanity/Insanity also has a colloquial meaning, but that is not the meaning that the psychiatrists or the court are considering - they will have considered whether Beivik is sane and fit to stand trial, and whether he has a mental disorder, they will be considering whether he meets the diagnostic criteria for a mental disorder, not just 'is this behaviour at such an extreme that it should be called mental illness'.

It is a way of thinking that perpetuates stigma towards people with mental illness, IMO.

Were the people in Nazi Germany, Serbia, South Africa (where concentration camps were invented), Rwanda all mentally ill?

I agree with bobbledunk as well, but it's what makes it possible for someone to carry out killing so many people, what mechanisms do we have (that he doesn't have) that stops us from doing the same.

We see people as people. In most off the coutries I have listed above the people doing the killing thought that the people they were killing were subhuman and a threat.

If -and I know it is a ridiculous if - a zombie was circling your house and you believed it was going to kill your children what would you do? What would it take for you to kill the zombie?

I think Breivik thought of himself as part of a movement, not a lone wolf. He had an attitude almost of taking one for the team. The team being anti-multicultural extremists in Europe. He had links to many individuals and groups - including BNP.

If we think of him as acting in a vacuum and not a symptom of problems with immigration and anti Islamic groups in Europe, I think we are missing a chance to work to change these beliefs and stop more terrorism. He might have inspired someone to make similar plans right now, ill or not.

How could a sane person commit these horrible acts? I think he wrote something in his diary about giving himself some sort of "military training" using video games and mental techniques to make sure he wouldn't crumble on the day. That sounds pretty mad too but could explain the possibility of him being able to go through with it and yet be classed as sane.

RE: Brievik - i have read the Bob Hare checklist; & i'm not sure that he fits the criteria for a Psychopath.
A Psychopath would not feel the need to 'train' to be mentally 'strong enough' to kill people. A Psychopath would have no conscience - therefore he would be able to kill people without worrying about 'crumbling on the day' mentally.
Because killing or hurting people would be, to a Psychopath, like squashing an ant is to non-Psychopaths.

Even SS Einsatzgruppe went to 'Training Schools' before carrying out their genocide - google 'SS school at Rabka in Poland' - warning: it's very horrific to read about. I read about it as there is a local elderly Polish Jewish man whose sister was made to work at Rabka as a cleaner for the SS. (Luckily this man's sister was sent to camps but survived the Holocaust).
Some of the SS were definitely Psychopaths - but many SS men found it difficult to kill civillians initially, so they had to be 'trained'.
That was actually the reason for the invention of gas chambers - because Himmler was concerned about the effects of mass shootings on the mental health of the SS men. (Was Himmler a Psychopath? Probably not. I don't think Hitler was either. Mengele - yes, he fitted the criteria; as did Odilo Globocnik, & Wirth. Stalin - yes definitley).

Breivik killed for ideological reasons. He acted alone, but there are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people with similar ideologies, who are willing to kill for those ideologies. Are the Real IRA all Psychopaths - planting a bomb in Omagh & killing dozens of men, women & children isn't 'normal' is it? But can the people who planted the bomb sleep at night? Maybe not, who knows?
People who kill for ideological reasons (in armies, terrorist groups or alone) can have pangs of conscience, but they can learn (or be taught) to shut that conscience away because the belief in their ideology is so strong - they believe that the ideology is more important than individual lives; even though they may feel unhappy at the thought of killing they still do it.

I recommend reading both 'The Psychopath Test' & 'Them' by Jon Ronson; & both 'Auschwitz' & 'Their Darkest Hour' by Laurence Rees. The Laurence Rees books are depressing & horrific but give an insight into the mindset of war criminals.
Jon Ronson is very entertaining but his books pose more questions than they answer!

Bob Hare as quoted by Jon Ronson: ''if you are worried that you ARE a Psychopath - then you definitely are NOT a Psychopath.''

Back2Two - that's why i like Jon Ronson - he ends up just as confused as when he started - because humans are so very complex.

My unpolitically correct viewpoint: Norway should get Breivik renditioned by the CIA to Guantanamo Bay. He can live the rest of his life living in a cage, wearing orange pjs & getting blasted with Sesame Street.

My professional viewpoint: i'm confused... a cup of strong tea may help.

That's better. Right. Ok, Breivik is whatever he is. He killed 77 innocent people, destroying 100s of lives in the process - he has said he will happily do it again for 'the same reasons'. Throw away the key IMO.

Really interesting thread OP. I wondered this myself last night when I heard a survivor on the news saying he didn't want him to be found insane. I don't really have any answers - I'm not expert on mental health, psychosis or insanity but definitely think there's something different about an individual who can kill someone in a calculating manner and not show remorse. it would take a lot of justification to reach the point where you feel it's the right thing to kill people.
I thought this about Ian Huntley. He was on the news saying he was the last person to see the girls 'alive' (although lied about the circumstances). He was assessed and wasn't found to have mental health issues. But he was responsible for their deaths....I just find it hard to get my head around.

this man is evil he has been poisoned by his right wing views it is awful that this happened beyond words his views may have affected his mental state but i don't think he has a mental illness, most people with mental illnesses don't kill people,

No, most people with mental illnesses definitely do not kill people.

I think that some people are just evil - they may have some good qualities too but a conscience is not one of those.

It's impossible to understand when you are not a bad person yourself - that's why it's easier to think someone is ill or even a 'Psychopath' rather than 'mainly evil because they just are'.