Is Breivik Criminally Sane Or Insane?

According to Psychology Today (2012), the insanity defense is defined as an individual who is being charged of a crime that can recognize that he or she committed the crime, but argues that they are not responsible for it because of their mental breakdown during the crime, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity.” While this defense is considered to be a legal strategy, it can also be seen as an indication of what society may believe; “it reflects society 's belief that the law should not

Insanity- the state of being mentally ill. Could insanity be an excuse for an unforgivable crime? In the short story “The Tell Tale Heart” by Edgar Allen Poe, we come face to face with a man reliving his killing of an innocent man and learn the chilling state of mind the narrator has decreased to. It is clear he is mentally ill from the start of the story and it is constant throughout the text. The narrator is not guilty for reasons of insanity because he converses and argues with voices in his head, hears nonexistent sounds, and killed an innocent man because he believed his eye was haunting him. Some may claim that there is no excuse for murder, but this man is obviously mentally challenged, therefore should not be degraded any further

Insanity, by its dictionary definition, is the derangement of the mind. (Dictionary.com) It is used in everyday contexts, when people say “You are insane for doing that trick on your dirt bike ” or “ The traffic getting out of the game was insane last night!”. However the real definition, written by Cornell University Law School states that “A person accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime, but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity defense is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification

There are a few different types of insanity pleas in the court of law; however, just because someone pleads insane will try actually be found insane. About half of the states follow the "M 'Naughten" rule, based on the 1843 British case of Daniel M 'Naughten, a deranged woodcutter who attempted to assassinate the prime minister. He was acquitted, and the resulting standard is still used in 26 states in the U.S.: A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if "at the time of committing the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." (emphasis added) This test

The Insanity defense is mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word “insane” is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

The insanity defense “is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification indicates

The word insane is a legal term. Because research has identified many different mental illnesses of varying severities, it is now too simplistic to describe a severely mentally ill person merely as insane. The federal law states that insanity is a fair defense if " at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendants as a result of sever mental disease or defect was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts"(Knowles). The American

In criminal cases where an insanity defense is used, the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health breakdown. There are two forms of an insanity defense, cognitive and volitional. In order for an individual to meet the requirements for cognitive insanity it must be proven that the defendant had to be so impaired by a mental disease at the time of the act that they did not know the nature of what they were doing. If they are fully aware of their actions, one must prove that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. Volitional insanity, also known as irresistible impulse, states that the defendant is able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time, but suffered from a mental disease that made them unable to control themselves. Volitional insanity is common in crimes of vengeance, where very few states allow the use of this defense. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. In incompetency cases, the individual is not able to understand the nature and consequences of the case, nor adequately able to help an attorney with his or her defense. The insanity defense reflects the approach that an individual who can’t acknowledge the consequences of their actions should not be punished for the crime. In most jurisdictions a professional is bought in to determine if the defendant was not able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time of the

Society has a noteworthy part with how individuals think, what they choose, what they decide to do, and how they act. The way that Breivik will clearly assert insanity plays directly into the issue that “having a worldview that shapes our attention, informs even what we believe to be real is perfectly normal.” There are a lot of individuals who will believe the allegation that Breivik must be insane on the grounds that only an insane individual could do what he did. Yet, Breivik is so distant from the legitimate meaning of insanity; the legitimate meaning of insanity is the state of being seriously mentally ill. Breivik doesn’t show insanity when he arranged his criminal acts no less than a year ahead of time. All that he did shows phenomenal

The insanity defense has been a controversial subject for years, as it touches some sensitive topics pertaining to mental illness. In many cases the insanity defense is presented as a defense mechanism and many times an excuse. The defense will argue that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an irregular act at the time of the crime. “Even when the prosecution has met this burden of proof, the insanity defense serves as an affirmative defense for the defendant,” (Grachek, 2006). Currently there are four forms of the insanity defense which presently exist:M ’Naghten, irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham. M’ Naghten insanity defense also called the right-wrong test, for the reason that it is cognitive and focuses on the offender’s

"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that are actually successful,

Given the legal definition of insanity, proving or

The medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

The audience should also notice within the first paragraph where the legal definition of insanity could also be applied. It is here where his words begin to contradict themselves. It is here where he starts to demonstrate a mad man, by accusing the audience of coming to the conclusion that he is mad. He then goes on to imply that if he were mad, he “would be out of control, …profoundly illogical, and not even recognize the implications of his

On July 22nd at about 2:30pm, the centre of Oslo is rocked by an explosion near the government’s headquarters and panic is throughout the city. Those around the scene and who live near the area are told to evacuate. Breivik had placed a bomb in a Volkswagen Crafter near the office of Prim Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who was not in the office at the time. Breivik was later seen on surveillance cameras walking away from the parked car with a gun. The shock waves blew out all the windows on the building as well on surrounding buildings. The surrounding area was taped off and police began conducting searches in cars that were headed to the Oslo airport.