title: Law & psychiatry: imposed insanity defenses and political crimes.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, USA. psa21@columbia.edu
authors.forename: Paul S
authors.initials: PS
authors.lastname: Appelbaum
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003416:Criminal Law; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006708:Homicide / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D008297:Male; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009664:Norway; D011057:Politics