Law & Psychiatry: Imposed Insanity Defenses and Political Crimes

Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011 led to an unusual clash of interests. With conflicting psychiatric reports regarding his sanity, prosecutors argued that Breivik should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, whereas the defense strongly maintained that he was sane and responsible for his actions. Imposing an insanity defense on an unwilling defendant pits societal interests in fair adjudications against the right of defendants to control their defense. For crimes with political motivations, an imposed insanity verdict discredits the perpetrator and may distract the public from the threats posed by extreme political views.

When Anders Breivik was tried for the murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011, prosecutors argued that he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Calling his crime a “political act,” Breivik was unwilling to accept an insanity defense. The Law & Psychiatry column uses this case as an example to describe issues involved when an insanity defense is imposed on an unwilling defendant.