The concept of free will is central to criminal justice; criminals are punished for the actions that they choose to make. When punished, the court establishes that criminals are fully aware of the crime that they are committing. However, as the justice system has become more knowledgeable in matters of the mind, the insanity defense has often been invoked as opposition to the notion of a criminal’s free will. The insanity defense argues that a criminal is not responsible for their actions if their actions are the result of psychiatric illness. An unusual case surrounding the topic of free will in the justice system was the case of Anders Breivik, a far-right extremist who killed 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks ("Anders Behring Breivik").
…show more content…
Breivik being acquitted on grounds of insanity would have signified that his actions were not the result of a broader political and personal ideology, but merely the product of a diseased mind. However, the case of the defense was convincing enough to prove that Breivik had complete control over his mental faculties. The court eventually found that Breivik’s crimes, while immoral and distasteful, were conceivable on the basis of his …show more content…
This outcome runs parallel to Macbeth’s control of his own mind at his decision to murder Duncan. One of the fundamental questions surrounding Breivik’s trial was the extent to which he was criminally responsible for his actions. As such, it is a contemporary example of free will and its implications within the justice system. Breivik, like Macbeth, was faced with a choice; to murder or to not murder. They both understood the grave implications of their actions, Breivik himself admitting that the attack was barbaric, stating, “History shows that you have to commit a small barbarism to prevent a bigger barbarism” (Associated Press in Oslo, "Anders Breivik: History”). His statement indicates a comprehension of the immorality of his actions, yet he chose to perform the attacks despite this understanding. As in Macbeth, Breivik reveals an ability to evaluate his choices, indicating his agency over his actions. Breivik was also aware that he would be tried and likely sentenced for his crimes, demonstrating that he made his choices with the knowledge of how they would mould his future (Aspaas and Tørrissen,
Breivik being acquitted on grounds of insanity would have signified that his actions were not the result of a broader political and personal ideology, but merely the product of a diseased mind. However, the case of the defense was convincing enough to prove that Breivik had complete control over his mental faculties. The court eventually found that Breivik’s crimes, while immoral and distasteful, were conceivable on the basis of his …show more content…
This outcome runs parallel to Macbeth’s control of his own mind at his decision to murder Duncan. One of the fundamental questions surrounding Breivik’s trial was the extent to which he was criminally responsible for his actions. As such, it is a contemporary example of free will and its implications within the justice system. Breivik, like Macbeth, was faced with a choice; to murder or to not murder. They both understood the grave implications of their actions, Breivik himself admitting that the attack was barbaric, stating, “History shows that you have to commit a small barbarism to prevent a bigger barbarism” (Associated Press in Oslo, "Anders Breivik: History”). His statement indicates a comprehension of the immorality of his actions, yet he chose to perform the attacks despite this understanding. As in Macbeth, Breivik reveals an ability to evaluate his choices, indicating his agency over his actions. Breivik was also aware that he would be tried and likely sentenced for his crimes, demonstrating that he made his choices with the knowledge of how they would mould his future (Aspaas and Tørrissen,