Brief Communication

• Delusions and Responsibility for Action: Insights from the Breivik Case

  • Authors: Lisa Bortolotti, Matthew R. Broome, Matteo Mameli

  • Received: 1 September 2013 / Accepted: 17 November 2013 / Published online: 19 December 2013

  • Journal: Neuroethics (2014)

Abstract

• Key Question: What factors should be considered when attributing criminal responsibility in severe crimes?

  • Focus on the Breivik case and the rationale behind attributing responsibility for his actions.

  • Challenges the idea that psychiatric symptoms or diagnoses can automatically imply criminal insanity.

  • Argues that delusional beliefs, while often a focus in determining legal responsibility, may not be necessary or sufficient for establishing criminal insanity.

Crime and Psychiatric Diagnosis

• Background of the Breivik Case:

  • In July 2011, Anders Breivik committed mass murder, killing 77 people in Norway.

  • In August 2012, sentenced to 21 years in prison.

• Initial Psychiatric Evaluation:

  • Conducted by Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, diagnosed Breivik with paranoid schizophrenia.

  • Described his beliefs as bizarre delusions, such as claiming to be the leader of a non-existent Knights Templar organization.

• Consequences of Diagnosis:

  • If psychosis was confirmed, Breivik would be deemed criminally insane and not responsible for his actions.

  • Norwegian Law states that individuals cannot be held responsible if they are psychotic at the time of the crime.

  • Psychosis includes hallucinations, delusions, and bizarre behaviors.

• Revised Psych Evaluation:

  • Conducted by Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, who rejected the schizophrenia diagnosis.

  • Diagnosed Breivik with narcissistic personality disorder with pathological lying.

  • Previous assessment's conclusion overturned based on different interpretations of Breivik's behavior.

Comparison with Other Cases

• Case of David Copeland:

  • Known for the London Nail Bombings.

  • Experts divided over whether to classify his condition as schizophrenia or personality disorder.

  • Copeland was convicted of murder despite psychiatric evaluations indicating severe schizophrenia.

• McNaughton Rules in English Law:

  • Specifies criteria for not holding individuals responsible due to mental illness.

  • Requires proof that the individual did not know the act’s nature or that it was wrong.

  • Diminished responsibility defense applies under certain conditions, involving significant impairment.

Public Perception and Legal Pressure

• Influence of Public Opinion:

  • Concerns that high-profile cases like Breivik’s can influence psychiatric evaluations and legal decisions.

  • Psychiatrists face pressures from public and media, leading to potential biases in assessments.

• Potential Mistakes and Misinterpretations:

  • First assessment criticized for lack of contextual understanding of Breivik's claims linked to right-wing ideologies.

  • Public pressure possibly swayed the trajectory of his diagnoses and the outcomes of assessments.

Delusional Beliefs and Responsibility

• Establishing Responsibility Connections:

  • Need for clarity on how psychiatric conditions impair decision-making relevant to criminal actions.

  • Neuroscience advances improve understanding of decision-making deficits but are limited in assessing past behavior.

• Evaluation of Breivik's Beliefs:

  • Assessment of Breivik’s delusions crucially impacted judgments of his responsibility.

  • His beliefs about his role in society were extreme yet shared by certain extremist groups, highlighting the importance of social context in determining delusions.

Implications on Responsibility

• Bipolar View:

  • Public sentiment often vacillates between the belief that outrageous crimes necessitate mental illness and a desire for punitive justice.

  • This duality complicates interpretations of mental illness in legal contexts.

• Broader Reflections on Responsibility:

  • Breivik's case reveals the complexities of attributing moral and legal responsibility to those with psychiatric disorders.

  • Suggests that legal frameworks need to account for the nuances of individual cases instead of relying solely on diagnoses.

Conclusions

• Need for Nuanced Evaluation:

  • Simplistic assumptions that psychiatric symptoms correlate directly with moral responsibility must be challenged.

  • Understanding the mental state of an individual requires attention to unique circumstances and behaviors, not just the diagnosis.

• Future Directions:

  • Call for developing a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between psychiatric conditions and criminal responsibility outcomes, particularly regarding delusions.

Acknowledgments

• Support from the Wellcome Trust Small Grant in Ethics & Society for the project "Moral Responsibility and Psychopathology."

• Article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License, allowing reuse with proper citation.