Anders Behring Breivik remains in prison after parole rejected

On December 4, 2024, a Norwegian court denied Anders Behring Breivik's second request for parole, made after he had served over 13 years of his 21-year sentence for carrying out a horrific attack on July 22, 2011, which resulted in the deaths of 77 people. Breivik, who positioned himself as a right-wing extremist, had carried out his attack by detonating a truck bomb in Oslo, followed by a mass shooting at a Labour Party youth camp on Utoya Island. His actions were driven by a profound opposition to multiculturalism, which he felt threatened Norwegian society. Breivik's legal team argued that he had shown 'positive' changes during his incarceration, and that his long period of isolation could be viewed as inhumane under the European Convention on Human Rights. This claim was rebuffed by the state, which maintained that Breivik posed an extreme risk of violence. The court highlighted the serious concerns surrounding his potential release, noting a clear risk of recidivism based on his previous behavior and ideologies. The ruling came as Breivik's request to be a 'tremendous help to the Norwegian state' was also viewed skeptically. In a previous request for parole made in January 2022, Breivik's plea was similarly rejected due to concerns regarding his ideology and potential for resuming violent acts. Recently, his lawyer prepared a substantial report from psychologists evaluating Breivik for the first time in over a decade; however, this information did not sway the prosecution, who remained firm in their stance against his release. The case reflects broader societal challenges in Norway regarding the treatment of individuals convicted of terrorism and the implications of extending prison sentences based on perceived threats. Breivik has maintained a particular narrative regarding his acts of violence, suggesting a willingness to cooperate with the state if granted release. He faces a continuing legal battle in order to improve his conditions, as he continuously pushes for his rights against the backdrop of Norway's criminal justice system. His situation remains a contentious topic, raising critical questions about justice, rehabilitation, and security in the face of extreme ideologies. As the public and the courts weigh the arguments for and against his potential release, the implications of the case continue to resonate profoundly within Norwegian society and beyond.