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,