Defining Mental Illness

edao

Elite member
Messages
441
Reaction score
30
Points
0
Location
Britain
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b
mtDNA haplogroup
H
"Anders Behring Breivik attacked a youth camp organised by the governing Labour party on the island of Utoeya, after setting off a car bomb in the capital.


He told the court he "acknowledged" the acts committed, but said he did not accept criminal responsibility.

The prosecution earlier gave a detailed account of how each person was killed.


If the court decides he is criminally insane, he will be committed to psychiatric care; if he is judged to be mentally stable, he will be jailed.


In the latter case, he faces a sentence of 21 years, which could be extended to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.


The 33-year-old Norwegian was found insane in one examination, while a second assessment made public last week found him mentally competent" source

I find the idea of defining 'mental illness' quite interesting. Surely we require a social norm from which to measure? If this is the case then does defining mental health vary from society to society? How is a non religious individual considered in a majority faith country?

Also where do other mental variations fall, people with high IQs are different to people with low IQs the mental state and belief set is quite different - is there a universal social normal falling across these variation of mental states?:unsure:

If everyone in a group believes in magic elves and one person doesn't, in that group who is mentally ill?
 
I don't really care if he is crazy or not. There is not even a trail needed. He admitted his haynes crime, plus witnesses and evidence is in abundance.
He should be hanged by his testicles in the middle of main city square, and let the crows eat his body. And I would hope that maybe, such disgraceful death would be enough of deterrence for other wanna-be killers.

If I was a policeman arresting him, he would be already shot dead "for trying to escape". If not very right, I would at least save taxpayers millions of dollars in his prosecution and imprisonment.
Fast forward:
In prison or institute, he is going to write a book and make millions, on other psychopaths and stupid buying it. In mean time he is going to enjoy googling and blogging on free internet, plus standard social privileges and rights of prisoners.
After 20 years he will get out of prison rich, and will enjoy good 30-50 years of the rest of his life, and will be granted another chance to do mass killing of children of Norway.

PS. I'm not sure who is more mentally sick, him or our modern justice system?
 
@Lebrok

No one is questioning his guilt, not even he is denying his actions. The trials purpose is to ascertain whether he goes to jail or is put in a mental asylum.

He should be hanged by his testicles in the middle of main city square, and let the crows eat his body.

If he is mentally ill, which seems extremely likely given his behavior and motives behind the killings, do you not think being hung by the testicles a bit harsh? I appreciate he's a very dangerous person, but if his mind is damaged should he tried as any other criminal?

If your answer is yes, what's your view on pensioners with Alzheimers, should they be destroyed as well?

I think the trial is the right thing for them to do. An initial assessment of him was that he was mentally ill, that obviously didn't please someone so they did another that found him sane. The trial will give the families closure and will allow Norway to show the world how maturely they can deal with such a national tragedy.
 
If he is mentally ill, which seems extremely likely given his behavior and motives behind the killings

His motives are to a degree are justifiable, but his behavior was crazy. Huge massive immigration of the uneducated masses coming into a welfare country is economic (and maybe also cultural) suicide. Killing innocent kids who only believe what they believe due to their upbringing shouldn't be the ones to suffer for their parents' retarded mistakes.

If I were in charge, I would easily fix all the problems. Only allow immigration from secular countries or countries whose dominant religion is fairly relaxed (like Thailand's Buddhist population), force all students to "pledge allegiance" to the host country's flag (like it is done in America), deport all violent offenders, limit welfare but increase government-sponsored jobs, and last but not least: test the value system of each immigrant (if their values are waaaaay different from the host countr's norm, they should not be accepted).
 
It is all about efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, and efficiency.
 
The field of "mental health" is large and covers many different symptoms and degrees of said state.
From one side you have conditions such as sleep problems, depression, phobias, OCD and many others, working through to the deeper aspects of psychosis. This is usually defined by a person acting in a way very outside what we class as "normal" behaviour and loosing contact with reality. It is often accompanied by the belief one is being guided into certain actions by an external source, such as hearing voices.
In Anders Breiviks case I believe the first doctors thought he was psychotic but when the prison doctor examined him she disagreed with this.
I think it is safe to say Breiviks actions were not normal. No matter how you try to say "what would we think normal"..murdering other people is not normal.
To class Alzeimers and those suffering it with psychotic actions is ridiculous in the extreme.
No, believing in fairies cannot be treated as a mental health issue (unless you start laying a place at the table for them!)
As for Breivik claiming he knows what he did is one thing, however it seems clear that whilst he may be aware of his actions he seems to have no empathy to the tragedy or depth of his actions.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, for ages mental illness has usually described people who are unfit in a society, so that is why is so complicated to define the mental illness;what is sanity in the first place?

By learning about the systems and subsystems of the ECLET theory (bio-psycho-social theory established by Dr. Clare W. Graves) helps me to understand the behavior of inquisition (witch-hunt), execution of Giordano Bruno, Hitler vs Mother Theresa & Ghandi, Millosevic & Arkan, etc. I also understand the deeds of Breivik. Based on what I have been learning up till now, Breivik is not mentally ill, he is simply functioning in the system that is unfit in the Europe today, and that is the historical one that was responsible for the witch-hunt, crusades, racism, the one that claimed the earth is flat,etc.

Breiviks case can also be compared to the case of "banality of evil" described masterfully by Hannah Arendt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil
 
In my opinion, for ages mental illness has usually described people who are unfit in a society, so that is why is so complicated to define the mental illness;what is sanity in the first place?

By learning about the systems and subsystems of the ECLET theory (bio-psycho-social theory established by Dr. Clare W. Graves) helps me to understand the behavior of inquisition (witch-hunt), execution of Giordano Bruno, Hitler vs Mother Theresa & Ghandi, Millosevic & Arkan, etc. I also understand the deeds of Breivik. Based on what I have been learning up till now, Breivik is not mentally ill, he is simply functioning in the system that is unfit in the Europe today, and that is the historical one that was responsible for the witch-hunt, crusades, racism, the one that claimed the earth is flat,etc.

Breiviks case can also be compared to the case of "banality of evil" described masterfully by Hannah Arendt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

I think in many quarters Graves theory is still "debated" If we go with the thought that a human may develop a system to "cope" with changes is one thing, but the actions taken may be yet questioned.
For example we would have as you say Mother Teresa on one side, acting in a way to save life, her actions did not come about by taking life to achieve this. On the other side we have Adolf Hitler who took a great many lives in order to preserve a specific life he deemed worth saving. Straight away we must question his ideas and opinions of "worthy" or "better"
Then we would have to look at the inquisition as you mention and decide if Graves theory can apply to a "collective" at the same point of time? It is a mine field.
However I agree with you on the idea of "sanity" and how we judge it to-day. Up to the 1900s those with a stammer were often labelled non compos mentis!
 
I think in many quarters Graves theory is still "debated" If we go with the thought that a human may develop a system to "cope" with changes is one thing, but the actions taken may be yet questioned.
For example we would have as you say Mother Teresa on one side, acting in a way to save life, her actions did not come about by taking life to achieve this. On the other side we have Adolf Hitler who took a great many lives in order to preserve a specific life he deemed worth saving. Straight away we must question his ideas and opinions of "worthy" or "better"
Then we would have to look at the inquisition as you mention and decide if Graves theory can apply to a "collective" at the same point of time? It is a mine field.
However I agree with you on the idea of "sanity" and how we judge it to-day. Up to the 1900s those with a stammer were often labelled non compos mentis!

Every theory is debatable, since the human nature (brain & consciousness) is very complex. Back to the Graves theory, we must not forget that there are opened, arrested and closed systems; entering phases, peaks and exit phases. Plus there are other endless combinations of systems.

Crusaders for e.g. were very similar with nowadays Muslim jihad, they actually act/ed from the CP/dq or cp/DQ subsystems. Same goes for inquisition or Hitler.

I tend to think that Breivik was/is functioning in the arrested system, since a person in a closed system would not be able to function as he did. Breiviks system is definitely arrested DQ, but of course we need to profile him a bit longer in order to see other systems at work as well.

Please note that these are only my opinions employing what I am learning continuously for a long time now, since for me understanding the human complexity and evolution is (as the Graves book says) 'Never ending quest'.
 
Every theory is debatable, since the human nature (brain & consciousness) is very complex. Back to the Graves theory, we must not forget that there are opened, arrested and closed systems; entering phases, peaks and exit phases. Plus there are other endless combinations of systems.

Crusaders for e.g. were very similar with nowadays Muslim jihad, they actually act/ed from the CP/dq or cp/DQ subsystems. Same goes for inquisition or Hitler.

I tend to think that Breivik was/is functioning in the arrested system, since a person in a closed system would not be able to function as he did. Breiviks system is definitely arrested DQ, but of course we need to profile him a bit longer in order to see other systems at work as well.

Please note that these are only my opinions employing what I am learning continuously for a long time now, since for me understanding the human complexity and evolution is (as the Graves book says) 'Never ending quest'.


Yes FBS, I am in agreement with your coding for crusaders and inquisition, also Hitler.
 
Breivik case 'shows insanity misconceptions'

" The psychiatrist also said the Breivik case highlighted another misconception - that outrageous crimes must mean mental illness.

"For schizophrenia to explain Breivik's actions, they would have to be the result of delusions."

But he added: "The meticulous way in which he planned his attacks does not speak to the disorganisation of schizophrenia." "

article
 
What he did is unthinkable, but that, along with the fact that he does not feel any empathy, does not yet automatically mean that he is medically insane.

Medically insane people would not usually understand that they did, this is why they are called insane and this is the reason they go to mental hospital instead of a jail.

I think anyone would agree on this explanation if it were before Brevik’s case. It is just that the punishment under Norwegian standards seems too little for what Brevik did, so this is why many people want him to be declared insane.
 
Norwegian standards seems too little for what Brevik did

Post-modernism is making European punishments lesser and lesser, its ridiculous.
 
Personally whilst it is important to correctly establish state of mind, I feel much of this is "mincing" of words. In my opinion, for what it is worth, I have little doubt that Anders Breivik is mentally ill and possibly has been for some time.
 

This thread has been viewed 10552 times.

Back
Top