how can killing more than 70 innocent people be considered sane?

Seeing as how we don't live in a Stieg Larsson novel, there would be nothing "easier" about having him comitted to a psychiatric hospital. He'd still have every right to appeal, periodic case reviews, and all that. In addition, the prosecution was simply covering all their bases by requesting EITHER a guilty verdict OR for him to be comitted.

In Norway, everyone is primarily concerned with things being done the right way in this case. It's not important that he's convicted, what's important is he's convicted for the right reasons and sent to the right facility. That's why there was so much fuss over the first psychiatric report.

The reason there were questions on the first review is it viewed his opinion that the west was at war with Islam as paranoid ramblings. The second report says he has narcissistic personality disorder, that he isn't mentally disabled, psychotic, and was fully aware of what he was doing. That's what's important when it comes to whether or not he can be convicted of his crimes. Sanity/insanity is a legal definition and separate from whether or not he is mentally ill. Of course he is, and nobody is disputing that.

Also, it's important to add that he hasn't been "declared" sane. It's up to the courts which report they are going to place more weight on, and again, it's a question of competence to stand trial not whether he is mentally ill. This would also be why the prosecution was wise to ask for one of two verdicts instead of just a guilty verdict.

Edit: And both psyciatric reports would agree with you. They both are very clear that he is a high risk to recommit and no matter which outcome the case has, it's extremely unlikely he'll ever be released from whereever he's sent.

And keep in mind, by arguing he's insane, you're arguing that he wasn't responsible for his own actions and therefore can't be given a guilty verdict. While that may be true, it's up to the judges to decide, I think there's quite a lot of evidence that he was very aware of his actions.

Rich most likely got a thumbs down because he's wrong about a lot of things in that post. There's no "verdict", the prosecution wasn't looking for the easy way out (and that's quite honestly very offensive to assert) since they sought both a guilty verdict and a verdict of insanity (the prosecution can request more than one verdict in Norway. And if they didn't ask for both, they'd be seriously negligent in their responsibilities). Nor is it fair to say the team who did the second review "buckled under public opinion". They simply looked at different criteria, and there's no reason for the character assassination without sufficent evidence they did wrong.

It's important to remember that Norway isn't the US and society works differently here. What's most important to nearly everyone is that this trial is handled correctly, so everything is being double checked and every procedure is being followed to the letter.

I suspect the experts buckled under for public opinion. If you had any idea how much certain Norwegian newspapers have attacked that original report of him being bonkers... the Norwegian system makes it hard to extend a sentence to life (the last time they did it was reportedly in 2002), so the prosecution wanted the easy route by locking him up in an asylum, but no... public outcry at once, fueled by certain sensationalist left-leaning newspapers. I suspect the right-leaning media will start attacking this new verdict tomorrow. I agree with you, though. I have read his manifesto, and the guy is clearly nuts, probably as a combination of a bad childhood and those steroids he have been taking since he was 14.

if he is a sociopath, it is very hard to diagnose.

As these people spend a lot of time imitating normal people, and you would need to spend a lot of time with them before you catch them slip up.

These are the same people who kill there spouses for insurance money, regular people we all think, its all a lie their whole life, and they will carry it on forever.