RINGERIKE FENGSEL (Nettavisen): When the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik began his testimony in court on Tuesday, he started by asking for forgiveness for the murders he committed on July 22, 2011 (see the fact box below).
According to him, he sent 400 similar letters to various parliamentarians, mayors, and editorial offices.
– I want to ask for forgiveness for all the suffering I have caused. I sympathize with the suffering I have caused, actions I committed 13 years ago, he said.
Also read: Expert believes Anders Behring Breivik could be released on parole
Facts about Anders Behring Breivik and the July 22 Terror
* Anders Behring Breivik was born on February 13, 1979, in Oslo. Changed his name to Fjotolf Hansen in 2017.
* On Friday, July 22, 2011, a 950-kilogram fertilizer bomb exploded in the government quarter in central Oslo. About two hours later, the shooting massacre began on Utøya in Tyrifjorden in Buskerud.
* Eight people were killed in the bomb explosion. Around 30 were injured. The bomb caused extensive damage to several government buildings.
* 69 people were killed at the youth party AUF’s summer camp on Utøya. About 60 were injured.
* In August 2012, he was sentenced in Oslo District Court to 21 years of preventive detention with a minimum time of 10 years for mass murder, for causing a deadly bomb explosion and for terrorism.
* Since his arrest, he has served in a high-security department, first at Ila Prison in Bærum and since 2013 in Skien Prison. Last year he was transferred to Ringerike Prison.
* He filed a lawsuit against the state in 2015 for human rights violations due to the conditions of his imprisonment, but lost on all counts.
* He appealed the case in 2017 to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, but it was also dismissed there.
* Requested to be released on parole in September 2020. In January 2022, the court rejected his request.
* Anders Behring Breivik, then 32 years old, was arrested on Utøya the same evening. He has been sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention for the terrorist acts.
* In 2022, Breivik requested parole. The Telemark District Court unanimously rejected the application. He was therefore denied his request to be released after serving the minimum time of 10 years.
Claims he will donate millions to families
From the witness stand, he also claimed that as one of his life missions, he would pay ten million kroner to all families affected by the terror – if he were to be released.
It was on July 22, 2011, that Breivik killed a total of 77 people after detonating a bomb in the Government Quarter in downtown Oslo and then driving to Utøya. Eight people were killed in the bomb explosion and 69 people were killed on Utøya.
Also read: Breivik showed support for Russia and had his head shaved
MASS MURDER: 69 people were killed on Utøya on July 22, 2011. The picture shows the Civil Defense and police a day after the massacre at the AUF summer camp.
The support group for July 22 is not impressed by what the terrorist explained in the witness stand.
– He regrets nothing, he does not ask for forgiveness. When he spoke, there were long pauses, and he evaded the question of remorse. He also explained that the terrorist act was a necessity he had to commit, says board member of the Support Group July 22, Merete Stamneshagen, to Nettavisen.
– Thoughts about money are just in his head. How on earth is he going to come up with such amounts? He presents himself as a great martyr, the great leader, concludes the board member, far from convinced.
Breivik says he is being tortured in prison
Breivik is serving a preventive detention sentence of 21 years with a minimum time of ten years. Preventive detention is used against the country’s most dangerous criminals and is an indefinite prison sentence. In theory, those sentenced to preventive detention can stay in prison for life.
After the minimum time has expired, a convict can apply for parole. An expert stated to Nettavisen on Monday that she believes Breivik could be released on probation in the future.
The mass murderer continued his testimony by claiming that he is subjected to torture in prison, related to the fact that he is not allowed to serve time with other inmates. He is isolated in a large cell that spans two floors, but does not have access to the common areas that prisoners have in the prison.
– Despite the torture, where you bury me alive, I have managed to survive. This is a fate worse than death. I would rather have killed myself, he said from the witness stand, followed by a massive right-wing extremist propaganda.
Also read: The state saves millions – that’s why Anders Behring Breivik does not get his way
Before the trial started, the press was allowed to ask Breivik questions for two minutes. Nettavisen asked two questions regarding whether Breivik regrets the murders he committed in 2011, something he said he would get back to later.
However, during his testimony, he did not touch on this topic. When court judge Lena Fagervold wanted to know more about this, he did not answer the question either.
– I can only speak for myself and I will never be militant again. I believe July 22 was necessary, horrific, but necessary. This was to awaken a movement, he said from the witness stand.
Later, he explained that it was not his own belief but that he was speaking on behalf of the far-right movement.
The court rejected Breivik’s wish for release
The first time Breivik applied for parole, he was denied. He also took the case to court, and in 2022, the Telemark District Court rejected his request for release. The Agder Court of Appeal refused to consider the appeal
At that time, Breivik was serving in Skien Prison. In 2022, he was moved to Ringerike Prison in Tyristrand, Ringerike. Therefore, it is Ringerike, Asker, and Bærum District Court that is handling his case now.
There is a common perception among defense attorneys, people within forensic psychiatry, and the Correctional Services that Breivik is unlikely to ever be released from prison.
His own defense attorney, Øystein Storrvik, has repeatedly stated that they are trying to ease the restrictions he has in prison because there is a notion that he will be sitting there for life.
Time.news Interview: The Complexity of Remorse and Justice
Editor: Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re delving into a deeply controversial topic involving a figure whose actions shocked the world—Anders Behring Breivik. I’m joined by Dr. Elin Sørensen, a leading expert in criminal psychology and the legal ramifications of extremism. Dr. Sørensen, thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Sørensen: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right into the recent court testimony of Breivik. He expressed sorrow for the suffering caused by his actions on July 22, 2011, even sending out letters of apology. What do you make of this sudden claim for forgiveness?
Dr. Sørensen: It’s certainly complex. On one hand, his statements could be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate his narrative or to seek attention. His actions were far from remorseful in nature; many argue that what he calls ‘remorse’ is more about self-serving motives, especially as he claims he would donate millions to the victims’ families if released.
Editor: That’s a crucial point you just brought up. The survivors and the support group for the July 22 victims are skeptical of his claims, stating he regrets nothing. How does this impact our understanding of his psychological state?
Dr. Sørensen: Skepticism from survivors is completely valid. When someone commits such heinous acts, a genuine expression of remorse would typically include recognizing the pain caused without placing conditions on forgiveness, like financial compensation. His self-perceived martyrdom is indicative of a deeper psychological disconnect. He evades accountability, which is often a characteristic of sociopathic behavior.
Editor: He also mentioned feeling tortured in his isolation during incarceration, claiming it’s a fate worse than death. How does this isolation play into the legal framework surrounding his detainment?
Dr. Sørensen: Breivik is in preventive detention, which can be indefinite. While he claims torture, isolation is often seen as a necessary measure for dangerous individuals, especially those who have committed acts of terrorism. The challenge lies in balancing human rights with public safety. His claims of torture may be more about his discomfort with the conditions rather than actual human rights violations.
Editor: As you mentioned earlier, some experts believe he could eventually be released on parole. What factors would play into such a decision, considering the nature of his crimes?
Dr. Sørensen: Parole decisions rely heavily on assessments of risk—if he poses a danger to society or not—and his behavior in prison. However, with a criminal history marked by extreme violence, it’s difficult to see how he could be deemed rehabilitated. Public opinion, legal frameworks, and psychological evaluations will all play significant roles in any discussions about his potential release.
Editor: Given the gravity of his crimes, how important is public sentiment in the judicial process concerning individuals like Breivik?
Dr. Sørensen: Public sentiment can significantly influence judicial proceedings, especially in high-profile cases. It often pressures legal systems to err on the side of caution, particularly with individuals known for such severe acts of violence. The emotional toll on victims’ families must be acknowledged, and public outrage often prevents leniency towards perpetrators of mass violence.
Editor: Lastly, Dr. Sørensen, what do you think the future holds for the narrative surrounding Breivik? Can he ever truly be seen as rehabilitated in the eyes of society?
Dr. Sørensen: Rehabilitation is a challenging prospect for someone like Breivik, who has not shown genuine remorse or accountability for his actions. The narrative surrounding him is likely to remain controversial, with many advocating for lifelong detainment. As society grapples with these issues, the conversations around justice, forgiveness, and accountability are only just beginning.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Sørensen, for providing your valuable insights into this troubling case. It’s essential that we continue to have these discussions to understand the wider implications for society and justice.
Dr. Sørensen: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical conversation that must continue.