Distinguishing between evil and ill

Richard Millet has solidified his self-proclaimed role as “one of the most hated French authors.”

In his new essay, “Éloge Littéraire d’Anders Breivik,” this “exceptional being” appears to sympathize with the motives of someone who is despised globally: Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.

Breivik, after an extensive trial, was recently declared sane and sentenced to at least 21 years in prison after murdering 77 people for the purposes of protest theatricality.
 
According to Millet, Breivik’s victims were “mixed-raced, globalized, uncultivated, social-democrat petit bourgeois.”

Another gem of his: “European nations are dissolving socially at the same time as they’re losing their Christian essence in favor of general relativism.”

It appears as though Millet shares Breivik’s religious intolerance and disdain for multiculturalism, although he claims not to support his murderous deeds in Norway.

According to Geir Lippestad, Breivik’s lawyer, the affirmation of the mass murderer’s sanity greatly pleased his client.

Breivik feared a different verdict would have compromised the legitimacy of his extreme protests against Muslim extremists and immigration in Norway.

Perhaps the legitimacy of Breivik’s racist agenda is not lost on people like Millet, who unfathomably are able to identify with Breivik’s appalling plight. Does that mean we can call him crazy?

However appalling Breivik’s plight is, can we call it crazy considering the verdict about his mental health? What does it mean now that Breivik, whose motives were deliberate and infused with insufferable purpose, has been declared sane?

It means there is a difference between evil and crazy. People are quick to attach the mentally ill label to people who commit heinous crimes.

James Eagan Holmes, who killed 12 and injured 58 in a movie theater shooting, is a more-recent example.

The stigmatized mentally ill community is on the receiving end of prejudice because the members are assumed to be violent and volatile.

They are unfairly grouped with people who commit acts of violence on par with Breivik’s, which were grossly on the giving end of prejudice.

Discrimination does not warrant a stay in a mental hospital. Detainment in prison is the best option for a murderer of Breivik’s nature, so I’d have to say I’m pretty pleased with his verdict, too.

Twenty-one years is the maximum sentence in the normally peaceful Norway. For as long as a convict remains a threat, however, another five years can be appended to the sentence, so Breivik could be detained for life.

I am interested to see what becomes of him in the progressive Norwegian prison system, which places a greater emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment.

What remedy do they propose for prejudice? The status of Breivik’s mental health should be revisited during his detainment.

As for Millet, I am eager to see how his role as “one of the most hated French authors” evolves.

­— ambhendr@indiana.edu