Bad and dangerous, yes, but mad?

The assessment of Anders Behring Breivik as clinically sane and therefore fit to stand trial is a no-win situation for right-thinking humanity.  On the one hand, the Norwegian mass-murderer would be ruled criminally insane and committed to a mental asylum for the rest of his life, a prospect he viewed as a “a fate worse than death” because it would ‘invalidate’ his cause of white supremacism.  He is clearly deluded but people of otherwise sound mind can be.  This plays into the other hand - that he was in full control of himself when committing the atrocities and so must stand in a full trial (because, of course, he has pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge of terrorism).  The judges deciding the case cannot abrogate it straightaway to put Breivik in a padded cell.  This does allow the families of the dead and the wounded to have their day in court, to attempt to prevent their loved one(s) becoming another terrible statistic, yet it gives a platform for Breivik to spout his racist nonsense.  Despite western norms of innocent until proven guilty, there is absolutely no chance that he will be acquitted and thus he will be incarcerated for the rest of his life.  However, Breivik gets what he wants – to become an imprisoned martyr.  If he was ruled as mentally unfit to stand trial, committing him to that which he most dreads, the aggrieved families will not see him convicted of his crimes.  Neither option is especially appealing in dealing with this creature.

Maybe Breivik hopes, if sent to jail, that another inmate will murder him, elevating Breivik to the ultimate in martyrdom for those inspired by him (even if the cause is insidious).  This illustrates the problem with the death penalty – when the person wants (or is at least happy) to die, how is it a punishment?  Moreover, an execution would make Breivik’s life equivalent to the 77 people he slaughtered; you can’t take his life 77 times, only once and so, even in the moment of his death, Breivik would exert power over the friends and families left behind.  It would not be a deterrence to those determined enough to copycat his actions.  It would not be cheaper for, as the USA has experienced, it is more expensive to try and execute someone than lock them up for life, due to all the appeals and so lawyers’ fees that are paid out.  Even in vengeance (retribution would be the wrong word, for how could anything make up for the loss of a beloved), on the day of Breivik’s putative execution, his name would flash up and his fame would resume.  Were the surviving victims allowed to see Breivik pass away, he would even have a gallery to whom he could play up.  Breivik is a monster but Norwegian justice, as a reflection of its society, is not.