Breivik, of course, rejects both options and considers himself to be both sane and good.
Most normal people would like to reject the options and say he's both mad and bad. Legally though that can't happen: a mad person is not responsible for their own actions and therefore not "bad". They are to be hospitalised and cured, rather than imprisoned and punished.
This blogger, having read through Breivik's fifteen hundred page manifesto (No Mrs Breivik, he wasn't just playing computer games in his bedroom the whole time!) reckons he has a feel for what is going on in the Anders Breivik bonce.
(With the case actually on-going at the moment we should probably respect the conventions of sub judice and refrain from comment. However, since all involved parties are foreign, and in line with the entire British mass media we'll quietly ignore that issue.)
So, to start with the conclusion, what Brevik is, is "radicalised".
He is an uncommon case of self-radicalisation. No-one took him away and brain-washed him, he did it to himself, by extensive study of far-right literature over several years. He was a quiet, almost introverted person; a natural absorber of ideas. He imbibed the ideology of the far Right, the further Right than even this blog supports, and the ideas went straight to his hind-brain and lodged themselves there. His writings are shot-through with far-right rhetoric. He's a true believer.
Let's start with the concept of the "lone wolf".
The far-right, and we talking neo-nazi here, knows that the authorities have penetrated their organisations and realistically they cannot mount a significant illegal operation without it being closed down by mass arrests while still in the planning stage. So to counter this, they have developed the concept of the lone wolf. The instructions to the would-be lone wolf are: if you want to do something, just do it. Don't tell like-minded friends, don't ask permission or advice from any organisation you may be a member of, just plan it and carry it out in a team of one.
Ironically, the lone wolf feels a sense of comradeship with people he has never met, and feels himself to be acting as part of a large team, despite his activities being entirely solitary, because the far-right radiates approval at the lone wolf. The message is: you may be acting alone but in reality you are an important member of a large pack.
For this reason Breivik is being somewhat ambivalent in court about whether he is part of an organisation or not. The true answer is that, yes, he is part of a larger grouping, but he has never actually met any of the other members.
The second important issue, is identification of the enemy. Breivik attacked his own native Norwegians, not his ostensible enemies the muslims, of which plenty are at hand in east Oslo should he have wished to attack them.
The far-right does not consider the "invaders" to be the real problem at the moment. Muslims are colonising Europe, but they are not invading by force, they are simply being let in. The true enemy in far-right circles is the "enemy within" the traitors in government who are facilitating the muslim invasion through a combination of permissive immigration laws, and willful disregarding of such laws as do exist. (The current Abu Qatada nonsense is an illustration of how obstructive the powers-that-be are when it comes to deporting even one muslim. Deporting white British citizens to the USA goes through on the nod; muslims cling like limpets to the UK.)
Breivik therefore struck at what the far-right considers to be the real enemy, the governing party, not the targets one might assume a far-right person would choose to attack.
And he did not attack actual members of the government but rather at members of the youth organisation; potential or future members of the government, not current members.
This might seem illogical, but it isn't when viewed through a far-right lens. The far-right thinks on a much broader canvas than most people. They are looking ahead generations and worrying about the migrations of whole races while your typical politician only cares about next week's headlines. The key mantra of the far-right is known as the "14 words": We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children. So Anders Breivik attacked the children of the enemy, because that is where his actions would have the most effect. Had he attacked the current prime minister he might have succeeded in killing him; but attacking as he did he may have killed ten future prime ministers, all of them traitors-in-waiting.
So Breivik acted in accordance with the far-right ideology, which he believes implicitly. He was logical and reasonable, in his own mind. He even believes his actions were proportionate. His people are threatened with extinction and expunging the traitor class which is facilitating the extinction is not an excessive response to the situation.
His aim was not an immediate change in Norwegian policy, but rather to attempt to steer the entire ship of history onto a different path. It will never be possible to say how his actions have affected the course of future events, but it is likely that the consequences will be significant. People who were going to hold important government positions are now dead. The future in Norway will be much changed.
And Breivik is self-aware enough to have said that he expects to be hated in his own time; he thinks it will be a hundred years before his actions are appreciated. He is certainly right about the hated in his own time part, but there probably won't be a Norway in a hundred years' time so the second part is less certain.
To come back to the original question: mad or bad? Clearly not mad in the sense of hearing voices or hallucinating, but perhaps mad in the sense of actually having the sociopathic personality necessary to carry out the killings. A normal person might agree that theoretically it would be a good idea to kill the next generation of traitors before they had a chance to grow up and start betraying their country, but really no normal person would be able to do it.
It is said that about one in a hundred people is actually a high-functioning sociopath. They are just like everyone else except that when dirty work needs doing they can do it, while everyone else is too squeamish. Normally they never trouble the law because they don't become convinced that mass murder is necessary.
In Breivik we have a conjunction of sociopathy and radicalised extremism.
Most psychopathic killers in prison are genuinely confused as to why anyone cares about what they did. For them murder has no more emotional load than stepping on a bug. The clever psychopaths have realised that people will object if they step on bugs so they don't - even though it would be nothing to them if they did.
This is abnormal of course. Therefore by definition it is mad - the majority is always sane. However, these people do not exist by chance. The evolutionary history of the human race must have required their presence. Bluntly, the tribes which did not contain a certain percentage of psychopaths did not survive. Possibly in historical terms when two tribes go to war the tribe with the greater proportion of psychopaths destroys the other.
But these "useful" psychopaths must always be in a small minority, otherwise the tribe will destroy itself. Cooperation and care for others is the right response in 99 out of 100 situations. Psychopaths are there for the 100th situation, generally war.
Breivik is a human weapon, programmable and capable of lethal action; primed and ready to carry out mayhem in the defence of his tribe. His condition is intended by nature, but unfortunately he was a weapon without a safety catch and he went off while still in the holster.
So in a technical sense Breivik is mad because his mental condition is different from the normal. But he cannot be cured because his condition is normal for him. (He could probably be de-radicalised but that is not the same thing. That is merely stepping down the weapon from "target locked" to an idle state. A new target could quite easily be programmed in.)
However the court will probably rule bad rather than mad. No-one wants to admit, indeed they probably do not realise, that we must harbour killers in our midst in order to survive. So call him bad and don't worry about the details. Ruling "mad" admits of the possibility that he might one day be cured; which would be inconvenient. Bad is tidiest.
Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that although we have some of these human weapons, the muslims have a lot more.