Strong psychiatrist's defense of own conclusion that ABB is judicially insane

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of Anders Behring Breivik's mental state in relation to his actions and the conclusions drawn by forensic psychiatrist Torgeir Husby regarding whether Breivik is "judicially insane." The conversation touches on legal definitions of insanity, the implications of these classifications, and the psychiatric evaluations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about Husby's conclusion of Breivik being "judicially insane," while acknowledging that Husby provided solid reasoning based on Breivik's personality changes and self-perception.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between judicial insanity and clinical insanity, with some participants noting that the definitions may vary by jurisdiction.
  • One participant suggests that Breivik exhibits signs of psychosis, complicating the understanding of his motivations and mental state.
  • Participants debate the concept of "cognitive insanity," which refers to a lack of understanding of the nature of one's actions, as a potential defense for Breivik.
  • There is mention of the "irresistible impulse" defense, which is less frequently accepted and relates to losing self-control during the act.
  • Some participants reflect on the challenges of successfully using an insanity defense in the US legal system, noting that many individuals with severe mental illnesses can still be judged as understanding right from wrong.
  • Anecdotal references are made to cases where individuals acquitted on insanity grounds faced challenges in subsequent legal proceedings, raising questions about the effectiveness of the insanity defense.
  • Humorous remarks are made about the idea of a "profound stupidity defense," highlighting the complexities and perceived absurdities within the legal system regarding mental health defenses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the definitions and implications of judicial versus clinical insanity, as well as the effectiveness of insanity defenses. Multiple competing views remain regarding Breivik's mental state and the validity of Husby's conclusions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the variability in legal definitions of insanity across jurisdictions and the complexities involved in psychiatric evaluations for legal purposes. There are unresolved questions about the specific nature of Breivik's mental health issues and the criteria for judicial insanity.

arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
138
Strong psychiatrist's defense of own conclusion that ABB is"judicially insane"

While I personally do NOT share forensic psycjiatrist Torgeir Husby's contested conclusion that ABB was "judicially insane", his explanation on Thursday of his views showed that he had solid reasons (degree "solid" that can be epected in the psychiatry field) for his conclusions.
His main points were:
a) The mother's testimony, that ABBs personality deteriorated/changed severely from his re-moving into his childhood home from 2006, and
b) That it to Husby (and to his colleague Sørheim) was, in their convewrsations with Breivik, that he figured himself in an extreme degree to be The Great Saviour, i.e, thar Breivik thought himself had some "holy duty" to perform through his massacres.

Furthermore, Husby was clear that he certainly was not the ignoramus of political extremism he has been ridiculed as, but that it seemed to him that Breivik's political extremism was less of a determinant of his actions than Breiviks grossly inflated, and reality-absent self-image and sadistic inclinations.The "jury is still out" whether ABB is to be declared sane or insane, but, at least, Husby has shown himself as a professional, and I do no longer entertain the speculation that he was prompted to his conclusion concerning ABBs judicial sanity on basis of maximizing the probability that ABB could be held incarcerated for life by getting him declared insane.

Husby is an honest hard-working psychiatrist, and his assessment of ABB cannot be dismissed easily,
 
Biology news on Phys.org


Judicially insane may not be the same as clinically insane but is a distinct classification from the other depending upon the law of a country. There definitely is some overlap from clinical to judical. Moment of passion defense, where one loses all control, would fall into the judically insane category, but that has been ruled out even by Brevik himself.

It would appear that he has some kind of phychosis and they are having trouble pinpointing what it actually is that caused him to have delusions of grandeur and saviour, and subsequentially perform his 'great' deed ( no one as far as I know has come to his defence that what he did was necessary or or for legitamate reasons )

Husby has shown himself as a professional, and I do no longer entertain the speculation that he was prompted to his conclusion concerning ABBs judicial sanity on basis of maximizing the probability that ABB could be held incarcerated for life by getting him declared insane.
Experts are to give an unbiased impartial opinion, to the best of their knowledge, in court. A conclusion based on prompting from the prosecution would necessarily be a reason for a mistrial if the defense would so wish. For that reason prosecution and defence seek out an expert(s) that will support their own agenda.
 


Arildno, do you have a definition of "judicially insane" you can post. I get the feeling it is less stringent than the US's "legally insane".
 


zoobyshoe said:
Arildno, do you have a definition of "judicially insane" you can post. I get the feeling it is less stringent than the US's "legally insane".

I think what you are alluding to is "cognative insanity" whereby one, due to a defect, does not know the nature of the act. This is the usual defense in terms of a plea of insanity. This is what they are debating for Brevik.

Another, which I stated as a crime of passion, is used less often and not accepted in all jurisdictions. Here one loses self contol at the time of the act.
 


256bits said:
I think what you are alluding to is "cognative insanity" whereby one, due to a defect, does not know the nature of the act. This is the usual defense in terms of a plea of insanity. This is what they are debating for Brevik.

Another, which I stated as a crime of passion, is used less often and not accepted in all jurisdictions. Here one loses self contol at the time of the act.
You're right about "cognitive insanity". "Crime of passion" doesn't seem to be the legal term you want though. Here they call it "irresistible impulse":

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense

At any rate, my sense of things is that it is actually extremely difficult and rare in the US to succeed with an insanity defense. A lot of people with proven diagnoses of extreme mental illnesses are still judged to understand the concepts of right and wrong.
 


A bit OT:

zoobyshoe said:
At any rate, my sense of things is that it is actually extremely difficult and rare in the US to succeed with an insanity defense. A lot of people with proven diagnoses of extreme mental illnesses are still judged to understand the concepts of right and wrong.

Yes, and what's even more amazing is that some idiots will actually reject a successful acquittal under an insanity defence:

In State v. Connelly, 700 A.2d 694 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997) the petitioner had originally been found not guilty by reason of insanity of kidnapping and assault and was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a period of 10 years. Mr. Connelly filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus to vacate his insanity acquittal, arguing that he was not aware of his right to a trial without the use of an insanity defense. His insanity acquittal was vacated, and he was granted a new trial, at which he was found guilty of the same charges and was sentenced to 40 years of incarceration.

10 years psych review vs 40 years hard time. The fact that this imbecile took the chance alone would've qualified him to be labelled insane, IMO. :smile:
 


Curious3141 said:
The fact that this imbecile took the chance alone would've qualified him to be labelled insane, IMO. :smile:
Maybe there should be a profound stupidity defense.
 


zoobyshoe said:
Maybe there should be a profound stupidity defense.

Clearly, we can't, since that would mean over 90% of violent criminals would go scot free.
 


Curious3141 said:
Clearly, we can't, since that would mean over 90% of violent criminals would go scot free.

Nah, they wouldn't be set free. You'd have to sequester them for sure.
 

Similar threads

News Breivik denies being a paranoid schizophrenic
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Prosecutors recommends ABB to be transferred to compulsory psichiatric care
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K