No one in Norway’s post-war history has committed crimes as serious as Utøya assassin Anders Breivik. Now he wants to be released soon so he is being examined by a legal psychiatrist for the first time since 2012.
With a bomb in the government district of Oslo and a crowd of young people on the island of Utøya, right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik tore a deep hole in the soul of Norway. More than 13 years later, survivors and relatives of the 77 people who died are still grappling with the outcome of the attacks, and the perpetrator sits in prison north-west of Oslo. Then, Breivik will have another check on November 19, 20 and 21 to see if he can be released early under certain conditions. What about it – and what are Breivik’s chances of actually being released?
What was Breivik convicted of?
Regarding the most serious acts of violence that Norway has suffered in its post-war history so far. On July 22, 2011, the then 32-year-old detonated a car bomb in Oslo’s government district, killing eight. He then went to the nearby island of Utøya, where he massacred participants in the annual summer camp of the youth organization of the Democratic Social Workers Party. 69 mostly younger people were killed on Utøya.
Breivik, who is now 45 years old and has officially called himself Fjotolf Hansen since 2017, has justified his actions with right-wing extremist and Islamophobic motivations. In the summer of 2012, he was sentenced to the highest sentence known to Norwegian jurisprudence at the time: 21 years in prison followed by preventive detention, which has a minimum period of ten years thereafter. According to Norwegian law, incarceration, rather than a normal prison sentence, means that his time behind bars can be repeatedly extended by five years, provided that the courts ensure that the convicted person continues to pose a significant risk .
In theory, Breivik could remain behind bars until his death. After the minimum period expired, he was also given the opportunity to apply for early release on probation – if his application is rejected, he can theoretically retry a year after this rejection.
What is being negotiated now?
At the beginning of 2022 – after that minimum period has expired – Breivik examined the court whether he could be released early. The judges at the then responsible Telemark District Court rejected this unanimously, stating that they consider Breivik still dangerous. He has committed crimes that have never been seen before in the legal history of Norway and he has the same ideological positions as in 2011, which they ruled. The court had no doubt that he is still capable of committing new serious crimes.
Now Breivik is trying again. The same question is before the judges of the district court in Ringerike, Asker and Bærum as in 2022: Is a mass murderer still a danger to society and is there a risk that he will commit serious crimes again while at large?
What are Breivik’s chances of success?
Still bad. Prosecutor Hulda Olsen Karlsdottir considers Breivik to be just as dangerous as he was before and during the terrorist attacks on July 22, 2011. The management of Ringerike prison, to which he was transferred in 2022, shares the same view. .
So everything is the same? Not necessary: For the first time since his trial in 2012, Breivik was examined by new forensic psychiatric experts who will present their more than 100-page report in court on Wednesday. Breivik’s defense attorney Øystein Storrvik expects this report to come not from internal psychiatrists and psychologists in the prison system, but from external experts.
How will Breivik present himself?
In previous court appearances, Breivik sought attention and attention. He repeatedly displayed and saluted Hitler and other right-wing extremist gestures and messages in court. At the beginning of 2024, in another case where he sued the Norwegian state for violating his human rights, he suddenly called to the witness stand. And this time? Visible remains. Storrvik’s defense attorney told the NTB news agency that he did not know or predict how Breivik would appear in court on Tuesday.
When is there a verdict?
That is not yet clear. After Breivik’s first application was released early, it took almost two weeks for the responsible court to announce its verdict.
In June 2018, Breivik failed to appeal the conditions of his detention to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Recommended citation
A right-wing extremist mass murderer wants to be released: . In: Legal Tribune Online, November 19, 2024, (available on: November 19, 2024)
Copy information about the citation proposal
What are the implications of the Breivik case for Norway’s legal system and public policy on extremism?
Time.news Interview: The Breivik Case and Norway’s Justice System
Editor (E): Welcome to Time.news. Today, we have a very pertinent topic that resonates deeply with Norway’s collective psyche—the case of Anders Behring Breivik. Joining us is Dr. Isabella Myrseth, a legal and forensic psychiatrist with extensive experience in criminal psychology and the Norwegian justice system. Thank you for being here, Dr. Myrseth.
Dr. Myrseth (M): Thank you for having me. It’s a critical issue not just for Norway, but for how society deals with extremism and violent crime.
E: Let’s dive right in. Breivik, who committed unspeakable acts of violence in 2011, is now seeking an early release for the first time since his sentencing. What psychological factors are taken into account when considering such a request?
M: The core of the evaluation hinges on whether Breivik poses a continued threat to society. Over the years, my colleagues and I have observed that the risk of re-offending in individuals like him is often linked to their belief systems and psychological state. In Breivik’s case, the fact that he maintains the same right-wing extremist ideologies is significantly concerning.
E: It’s alarming that he might still hold onto those beliefs after all this time. Given that legal and psychiatric assessments have deemed him dangerous before, what makes this current evaluation any different?
M: This evaluation is crucial because it involves a fresh perspective—new forensic psychiatry experts are reviewing him for the first time since 2012. They will assess not only his mental health but also his ideological stance, looking at signs of potential radicalization or change. However, past evaluations have shown a staunch adherence to his beliefs, and that doesn’t bode well for his chances of release.
E: Last year, the Telemark District Court unanimously ruled that he remains dangerous, and now the Ringerike court faces a similar case. What do you expect from the judicial process this time around?
M: I anticipate a careful examination of the updated psychiatric report and a thorough analysis of Breivik’s mental state. However, with the overwhelming evidence of his ideology and past behavior, the likelihood of a favorable ruling for him seems low. The courts have been clear in their stance that they consider him still capable of heinous acts.
E: You mentioned the ideological aspect. In your opinion, how does ideology play into assessments of dangerousness?
M: Ideology is a crucial factor in understanding the motivations behind violent actions. In cases of political extremism, if the underlying beliefs remain intact and unaltered, it significantly increases the risk of re-offending. In Breivik’s case, his actions were not just impulsive; they were premeditated and rooted in a specific ideology. The question then is, has he changed? The evidence suggests, up to this point, that he has not.
E: That raises an important question about rehabilitation. Is it possible for someone like Breivik to be rehabilitated, or does the nature of his crimes make that nearly impossible?
M: Rehabilitation is complicated and often context-dependent. The nature of Breivik’s crimes and his persistent radical views make traditional rehabilitation approaches challenging. Psychologists focus on cognitive restructuring—changing deep-rooted beliefs—but if an individual remains ideologically committed to violence, the chances for successful rehabilitation diminish greatly.
E: Given the emotional toll on survivors and victims’ families, how does society cope with the possibility of Breivik’s release?
M: This is a delicate issue. The trauma left by such horrific events is felt for generations. Survivors and families need reassurance that they are safe and that the legal system is protective. Transparency in the legal process and ongoing dialogue about how we manage dangerous individuals is crucial for public trust.
E: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Myrseth. It’s clear that the conversation around Breivik’s case extends far beyond his individual circumstances—it touches on broader themes of justice, ideology, and the very fabric of societal protection.
M: Absolutely. Understanding these complex dynamics is vital as we navigate the repercussions of such events and work towards a safer society.
E: We appreciate your time and expertise today. This is a topic we will continue to follow closely. Thank you for joining us.
M: Thank you for having me.