To be called sane might be regarded as a salutary point. To be regarded as insane is, however, another matter — a point that is hotly debated in legal circles.

Insanity confers a tag of exceptionalism on the human subject — the killer undertook his task without awareness of what he was doing. Insanity presumes not merely that your views hailed from Martian premises — it also assumes that, for the rest of your natural life, a diet of drugs, needles and surveillance is appropriate. The rational crime is, it would seem, the best outcome for a criminal, though that poses its own set of challenges.

The case of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Oslo and the island of Utøya in July 2011 as a bloody political statement against Islam and multiculturalism, has demonstrated this point with severe starkness. The prosecutors have been seeking, unsuccessfully, a verdict of insanity.

Sanity assumes purpose and responsibility — the guilty mind or mens rea; insanity assumes its absence, that you have been dislodged from the world of meaning and symbols.

This is hardly applicable if one consults Breivik's testimony. His critique of Islam, his vengeful attack on the processes of 'cultural Marxism' as he terms it, suggest a radical and violent conservative response. Conservative, Christian radicalism, that is not anti-Semitic, is on the rise in Europe, and Breivik is its foremost proponent. Read more

Sources

• Binoy Kampmark in Eureka Street
• Image: Insane Crew