Mad or bad?

The Breivik case in Norway resurrects some old questions like is he mad or is he bad?  I hesitate to enter the fray because it is a quagmire of language, meaning, pseudo-science, legalese and good, old-fashioned gut-feelings, still, let's give it a try.

I would start by accepting that insanity does exist.  If a man regularly dresses up as Napoleon and insists that everyone refer to him as 'Emperor' then he is insane, or demented, or irrational to the point where his actions are no longer his responsibility.  In other words, his conduct is not freely chosen from a list of alternatives, he is merely a puppet subject to the delusion with which he suffers.  Do you lock him up?  Well, I would suggest that it depends on whether his actions are likely to hurt him or others.

But if a man goes out and shoots dead 77 strangers, is he mad?  You might say that such behaviour is as demented and irrational as 'Napoleon', above.  But is it?  Lots of people for different reasons have gone out and killed strangers en masse.  We briefly considered Che Guevara yesterday and he was but a mere apprentice in the killing game.  The reason that lies behind their mass murdering activities is claimed to be politics, as though that made a difference!

Breivik uses politics as his excuse.  In doing so he exhibits rational, you might call it super-rational, thinking.  He views the world about him and comes to some conclusions which are not without foundation.  He thinks - and I stress the word deliberately - that his country in particular and Europe in general is under threat from an Islamist invasion.  You may disagree with him but it is not an irrational opinion because it can be backed up by facts and figures.  (That does not make it true, of course, because there will be contradictory facts and figures to take into account.  My point is that it indicates a thinking, rational man at work.)  He comes to the conclusion that an act of what I can only describe as "shock 'n' awe" is required in order to bring about a radical shift in political opinion and activity.  Again, in political circles that is hardly an original strategy!

One other thing must be borne in mind when pondering these difficulties.  I am happy to state with complete conviction that the vast majority of psychiatry is pseudo-science.  Psychology, as a description of general human behaviour has merit - but only applies in the general and hardly ever in the particular.  The fact that these useless disciplines have maintained an influential grip on judges and juries is one of the more malignant characteristics of our current legal system.

In my view, Breivik is bad not mad and should be 'hung by the neck until he be dead' to use an old phrase I would dearly love to see return.

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

I agree with you about the madness bit. Genuinely mad people give you daft reasons for their strange beliefs, but Breivik's reasoning is clear and he speaks lucidly. He knows what he wants, and he has merely chosen a repugnant and evil way of trying to get it.

I disagree over the penalty, though, Abhorson!

[dearieme]

The Guardian waits two generations to find a huge neo-Nazi conspiracy, and then the fucker turns out to be a lone loony. It's just not fair!

I'm inclined to be glad that he's not loony by legal standards, then I realise that it doesn't really matter if you can't hang the bugger.

[Andra]

Yes, he does speak rationally and holds views that certainly have some merit but really, does a sane person go out and brutally murder 77 innocent strangers?
I have my doubts.
Still, I can see no reason for keeping him alive for the next 50 years or so but, that's life, since the do-gooders and the god-botherers changed the rules.

[rogerh]

I reckon he is mad, give his trial one more week, pronounce him nuts and lock him away forever. The Norges need to find a way of cutting off the oxygen of publicity and to show him for a pathetic loveless non-functioning being. Pour decourages les autres.

To have his publicity extinguished forever will be as good a punishment as we can hope for.

[David Duff]

But, 'W', I do like to live my role. Abhorson repeatedly insists that his 'trade' is a 'mystery'!

You have a point, DM, in that teh choice appears to be between a nice cosy Scandinavian cell with hot & cold running women or a ward with the same facilities.

Andra, the world is packed full of people sane people who would happily murder 777,777 people or more if they had half a chance. Most of them either run countries or want to run countries!

Problem is, Roger, that his publicity has already been spread. Even as I write some nutter is already plotting on how to out do Breivik.