| Title |
Delusions and Responsibility for Action: Insights from the Breivik Case
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-013-9198-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Bortolotti, Matthew R. Broome, Matteo Mameli |
| Abstract |
What factors should be taken into account when attributing criminal responsibility to perpetrators of severe crimes? We discuss the Breivik case, and the considerations which led to holding Breivik accountable for his criminal acts. We put some pressure on the view that experiencing certain psychiatric symptoms or receiving a certain psychiatric diagnosis is sufficient to establish criminal insanity. We also argue that the presence of delusional beliefs, often regarded as a key factor in determining responsibility, is neither necessary nor sufficient for criminal insanity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 35% |
| United States | 3 | 9% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 74% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 8 | 18% |
| Psychology | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,309,524
of 25,599,531 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#32
of 440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,066
of 321,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,599,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them