On
this date, 24 August 2012, Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced to 21 years of
preventive detention on 24 August 2012. I will post the information on his
trial from Wikipedia.
 |
|
Salute: For the second day in a row, killer Breivik
clenched his his fist in front of him as he entered the Oslo courtroom (SOURCE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130881/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norway-killer-boasts-spectacular-attack-Europe-WWII.html)
|
The
trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway
attacks, took place between 16 April and 22 June 2012 in Oslo District Court.
Breivik was sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention on 24 August 2012.
170 media organisations were accredited to cover the proceedings, involving
some 800 individual journalists.
The
main question during the trial became the extent of the defendant's criminal
responsibility for these attacks and thereby whether he would be sentenced to
imprisonment or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Two psychiatric reports
with conflicting conclusions were submitted prior to the trial, leading to
questions about the soundness and future role of forensic psychiatry in Norway.
 |
|
Oslo
Courthouse, where the trial was held
|
Background
On
25 July 2011, Breivik was charged with violating paragraph 147a of the
Norwegian criminal code, "destabilising or destroying basic functions of
society" and "creating serious fear in the population", both
acts of terrorism under Norwegian law.
Forensic
psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, who conducted the psychiatric
analysis of Breivik and released their report in December 2011, found that he
was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, supporting a would-be insanity
defence or criminal insanity ruling by the court. However, subject to massive
criticism from legal and psychiatric experts, the court decided to appoint two
new psychiatrists, Terje Tørrissen and Agnar Aspaas, who were to conduct
another analysis. Breivik was initially uncooperative with the new
psychiatrists because of the previous report having been leaked to the media,
but he later changed his mind and decided to cooperate. On 10 April 2012,
psychiatrists found that Breivik was legally sane. If that conclusion is
upheld, Breivik can be sentenced to prison or containment.
Parties
Breivik
is represented by his defence counsel Geir Lippestad, Vibeke Hein Bæra, Tord
Jordet and Odd Ivar Grøn. Lippestad and Bæra are both in their late forties,
whereas Jordet and Grøn who are both in their thirties and were in employment
at Lippestad's law firm prior to 22 July 2011 as associates. Bæra, who has ten
years of experience as public prosecutor, was hired as a partner following
Lippestad's accepting the request from Breivik to defend him. The prosecution
is represented by state prosecutors Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh.
The
presiding judge is Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen. She is joined by
judge Arne
Lyng and lay
judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Anne Wisløff and Diana Patricia Fynbo.
Wisløff came in as an alternate after Thomas Indrebø had to recuse on the
second day of the trial when it came to light that he had advocated the death
penalty on a Facebook page the day after the terror attacks.
|
|
|
Witnesses
Breivik's
list of witnesses includes far right activist Tore Tvedt, Labour Party
politician Raymond Johansen, prominent Islamists Mullah Krekar and Arfan
Bhatti, and anti-Islamist blogger Fjordman.
The
purpose of calling Mullah Krekar is to help establish for the Defence that
political and ideological extemism is not a psychiatric disorder and should not
be treated legally with insanity.
Start
of trial
Day
1 (16 April)
Breivik
placed his fist against his heart and then raised his arm in a straight armed
salute, with the fist clenched.
On
Monday 16 April 2012, when offered the opportunity to speak, Breivik said that
he did not recognize the legitimacy of the Court because it derived its
authority from parties supporting multi-culturalism. Breivik also claimed that
presiding judge, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, was a close friend of Hanne Harlem,
the sister of former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. To the question from
Arntzen whether this constituted a formal assertion of conflict of interest,
Breivik's main defence counsel Geir Lippestad, after cursorily conferring with
Breivik, replied that it was not.
The
charges were read out to Breivik by prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh including the
indictments of terrorism and premeditated murder. Descriptions were provided of
how each victim was killed.
When
asked to plead after hearing the charge-sheet, Breivik responded that he
acknowledged that he had committed the offences, but pleaded not guilty because
he was acting out of "necessity" (Norwegian: nødrett). A court
translator incorrectly rendered this as "self-defence" (Norwegian: nødverge),
but court officials corrected the error on the second day.
Prosecutor
Svein Holden then outlined Breivik's life in the preceding decade, including
lists of failed business ventures, and a year living off savings and playing
World of Warcraft, at which mention Breivik apparently broke into a broad grin.
At one point when the court was shown his 12-minute YouTube video, he started
crying.
An
unidentified woman, a German national, was apprehended by the police as she
tried to force herself into the court building, asserting herself as Breivik's
girlfriend and displaying the photo of Breivik in military gear on her cell phone.
According to the police she had a criminal record in Germany for several
instances of disturbing the peace. She had arrived in Oslo from Stuttgart on
the preceding day and rented a hotel room, expecting to stay for 14 days.
Following an expulsion decision from Oslo Police District she was escorted out
of Norway on 17 April.
 |
|
The main entrance of Oslo Courthouse
|
Defendant's
testimony
Day
2 (17 April)
The
second day was the opening day of Breivik's testimony, which was expected to
last for a week, including cross-examination.
The
court was told that a lay judge, Thomas Indrebø, had posted remarks in the
immediate aftermath of the defendant's acts on 22 July 2011, that the
perpetrator ought to be given the death penalty, and proceedings were adjourned
to consider the implications of this, which consequently led to the dismissal
of that judge.
Breivik
often spoke with the collective "we" with reference to supposed
association with others sharing his ideology. He focused on his purported fight
against "multiculturalism" and compared it with the struggle of Tibet
for "self-rule" and "cultural protection" from China. When
asked about the greatest influence on his ideology and the biggest source of
his worldview, Breivik said, "Wikipedia".
Breivik
has claimed he would repeat the attacks given the chance. He claims he acted
out of a desire to fight "communism" and to defend Norway and Europe
against Muslims and multiculturalists. He maintained that he cannot be insane
and was acting out of "goodness", and that he was part of an
organization called "Knights Templar" (KT).
Before
starting his testimony the defendant had requested that he be allowed to begin
by reading a document which he had written in the weeks leading up to the
trial. He emphasized that reading this text was essential to his defence, and
he also indicated that if this was denied him he might refuse to cooperate for
the rest of the trial. It is unusual, although not unheard of, for the reading
of a written document to be allowed during the defendant's verbal testimony. In
making the request on Breivik's behalf, his lead counsel, Geir Lippestad, said
it would take about 30 minutes to read the text. Reading it took 77 minutes,
including a number of interruptions by the court's administrator who asked if
he could try and sum up. Much of Breivik's speech could be seen as a summation
of his previous 1,500-page manifesto published online just prior to the
attacks. On several occasions during the day judges asked the defendant to keep
his statements brief, and some of the aggrieved through their counsels voiced
concerns that he may be going too far in using his defence statement as a
platform for his ideological views. Breivik claims he would have preferred to
target a group of journalists instead of the island camp, and that he had envisaged
being killed in the course of his actions.
In
his prepared speech Breivik gave a major focus to a statement by Norwegian
social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen. The quote which originates in a
January 2008 interview with Eriksen, and which was later in that year the focal
point of an article by Fjordman, is:
"Our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again."
Breivik
explained how he interpreted Eriksen's statement to mean that Eriksen, and the
rest of the multiculturalists, want to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group
so that they will never again constitute a majority. Eriksen has been called as
a witness for the defence and will appear before the court later in the trial.
When
asked by prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh why he had broken into tears the opening
day, Breivik responded that he had been weeping for Norway and his perception
of its deconstruction: "I thought, 'My country and my ethnic group are
dying.'" Breivik also claims he does acknowledge the pain he has caused to
people and families in Norway but did not apologize at that time.
Day
3 (18 April)
The
defendant greeted the court with his same fist-salute as he did the first day.
Breivik had been asked to not greet the court in such a manner, at the request
of lawyers for the victims.
Breivik
was cross-examined about the contacts that he had made in his preparation. All
he wanted at first to reveal was that he had travelled to both London and
Liberia, and also had spoken with Norwegians online. The contact in Liberia
happened to be a Serb, but he insisted on saying no more ostensibly because he
wanted no more arrests. The Norwegian police had suspected the Serb may be
Milorad Ulemek which was denied both by the Defendant and by lawyers for
Ulemek. On the 5th day of the trial the Bosnian investigative weekly newspaper Slobodna
Bosna reported that Milorad Pelemiš, a participant in the Srebrenica
massacre of 1995, was Breivik's Serb contact. This was relayed to the trial
parties and the Norwegian police by the news media. As of
27 April 2012, follow-up investigations by the media have come up
with conflicting information on this possibility.
Breivik
claimed to have been inspired by Serb nationalism, and was angered by the NATO
bombing of Serbia in 1999. He said that he had actually "founded" The
Knights Templar in London in 2002, and if the police dispute that to the
depth as described by the defendant, it was because they had not done a
sufficiently thorough job in investigating. Furthermore, he reaffirmed a lack
of desire to give any information that can contribute to further arrests.
The
defendant went on to claim that, KT as he calls it, does not exist as an
organization in its "conventional" understanding, but rather is
"leaderless" and clustered around "independent cells".
Allegedly
there had been meetings with four individual nationalists, including
"Richard", being the defendant's "mentor", and described as
a "perfect knight", in a "founding" session. The
prosecution attacked Breivik's version and allege that he is making it all up,
essentially as something of a "fantasist". By some accounts the
Defendant would get somewhat vexed at the repeated suggestion that there is no
such network, and he insisted there are in fact some 15–20 members in the
Knights Templar.
Breivik
talked about martyrdom and his actions making him a role model, and he
emphasized that this couldn't be achieved as "keyboard warriors". He
also used the term "sofa generals" when he asserted that one cannot
be afraid to die if one wants to promote martyrdom.
Breivik
himself commented on the trial this day that there ought to be one of only two
possible outcomes in the case, that of death penalty, or an acquittal. He said
of the maximum sentence of 21 years imprisonment prescribed by Norwegian law
that this is "pathetic".
Day
4 (19 April)
Conceding
to complaints from the counsels for the aggrieved, the defendant did not start
the session with a salute to the court.
Breivik
was questioned about his reasons for moving back in with his mother in 2006. He
disputed that it had been because he had been made bankrupt, he said he had
been working hard from 2002–2006 and needed a break, and that he could save
money that way whilst also preparing his manifesto. Also he revealed he kept
liquid finances in that house, as cash in a safe.
Breivik
was also questioned about his year playing World of Warcraft. He denies
this could be linked with his actions. It was for him simply a game of
"strategy" not "violence". He also testified that he played
another computer game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, for 16 months as
practice before using his actual rifle. He emphasized that he didn't really
like playing but it was necessary to gain the required practical skills.
Breivik
testified that the guns he used at Utøya were inscribed with rune names. His
rifle had the name Gungnir, which is the name of Odin's spear, which returns to
its owner upon use. His Glock pistol bore the name Mjölnir, the name of Thor
the warrior god's hammer.
In
response to questioning about his motivations, Breivik said that he had tried
more peaceful methods to convey his ideology, and had been resisted by the
press. He decided to use violent means. This would have involved targeting the
actual Labor Party's conference, or a Norwegian journalists' annual conference.
In the event he had no time, neither to detonate more bombs. It was then that
he claims to have conceded to an idea to launch the shooting spree on the
island, and due to human limitations did not manage to shoot everyone there.
The
courtroom was visibly shaken and many people, including journalists, were
weeping when Breivik told that his goal at Utøya had not been to kill 69
people, but to kill everybody. He wanted to frighten the youth there enough so
that everybody would get into the water to escape. The water would then
function as a weapon of mass destruction since, he reasoned, the people would
be unable to swim out of fear.
Detailed
planning was talked about. Breivik's original plans involved three car bombs
and shooting sprees across Oslo, and Breivik called it a "very large
operation". Breivik said he thought about placing a bomb near the Labor
Party headquarters; the Parliament of Norway Building; the Aftenposten offices;
Oslo City Hall; and the Norwegian Royal Palace, though for the latter he
claimed he would have forewarned the Royals.
The
Defendant explained how he hoped for the killings of all members of the
Norwegian government cabinet in his bombing, and how he also would have
beheaded the former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, if things
had gone to plan. He added that he envisaged handcuffing her and then beheading
her using the bayonet on his rifle, whilst recording the killing on an iPhone,
and then posting it online.
Day
5 (20 April)
In
advocating his own sanity, Breivik on this day asked the court to distinguish
"clinical insanity" from what he alleged is his own "political
extremism", and conceded that what he did caused huge suffering. Breivik
said how he potentially could comprehend the human suffering resulting from his
actions but that he deliberately blocked this from his immediate consciousness
to cope.
The
defendant went into great detail about his shooting spree on the island. The
technicalities and level of description used was difficult for the victims'
families and survivors to listen to. Breivik claimed that he had hesitated and
did not feel entirely at ease as he set out on his operation. He described how
his victims reacted and said that it sometimes came as a surprise to him,
saying that he had never seen for example on television how people in such
circumstances might become effectively immobilized. Breivik would find some of
the teenagers lying on the ground pretending to be dead and he shot them too.
Breivik said that there are gaps in his memory of some of the 90 or so minutes
he spent killing on the island. The defendant also said that he had considered
wearing a Swastika for the operation for its scaring effect but chose not to
because he did not want to appear a Nazi.
Breivik
mentioned that he was ordinarily a nice person. He said that he very nearly
backed out of doing the operation on the island, and whilst he was carrying it
out, was in a state of what he described as shock, and he was just about
functioning. He also claimed that there were a few people on the island whom he
spared because he perceived them to be very young.
Day
6 (23 April)
This
had been scheduled to be Breivik's last day of testimony, being a day longer
than originally listed, but the prosecution had applied to the court for more
time to cross-examine the defendant.
Breivik
apologized for the deaths of "innocent" passers-by in Oslo caught in
the bombings; Breivik did not apologize for deaths on the island, which he
considered political. He has commented that what he did was "a small
barbarian act to prevent a larger barbarian act".
Breivik
wanted the court to believe that he himself had lost his family, friends, and
"everything" on the day he carried out the attacks. He believed
however that whoever was on the island was a "legitimate target"
through being the "political activists" that sought the
"deconstruction of Norwegian society" using
"multiculturalism". Also he described what he did as being
"cruel but necessary". Breivik says he felt repulsion at what he was
doing but at the same time a compulsion because he feels it would avoid
something worse in future.
The
defendant alleged that he was the victim of a "racist plot" in the
prosecution's efforts to find him legally insane, and his behavior irrational.
Breivik argued that no "bearded jihadist" would have been subjected
to investigations of sanity, and as a "militant nationalist" the
prosecution were out to delegitimize his ideology.
|
|
Geir
Lippestad, Breivik's defence counsel.
|
Prosecution witnesses
Day 7 (24 April)
The
prosecution opened by calling their first witness, Tor Inge Kristoffersen, a
government security guard. This witness's job on the day of the attacks
involved security monitoring, from the basement of government headquarters. The
witness was asked to describe what he saw on the day; he had seen a car being
parked, and then someone emerge wearing what "looked like a guard's
uniform". Just as Krisoffersen was zooming in on that car's number plate,
it exploded. About half of the screens used in the monitoring went blank. The
security staff radio network also went down.
Bomb
scientist Svein Olav Christensen was then called to the stand. Christensen led
the investigation into the technical aspects of the bomb. His testimony
included photos of the reconstructed bomb exploding as well as surveillance
photos of the actual blast.
Then,
Oslo police sergeant Thor Langli took the stand. Langli testified about the
Oslo Police's actions in the immediate aftermath of the bombing. Langli
commented how at first there had been reports that there were two suspects
behind the attacks.
The
next witnesses will be forensics specialist Ragde who will testify about the
findings on the crime scene in Regjeringskvartalet, and coroners Stray-Pedersen
and Størseth, who will present the autopsy reports.
Day 8 (25 April)
Coroner's
reports on the eight bombing victims were heard by the court, and described
"immense violence" for all of them.
The
first bomb survivor to give evidence was 26 year old Eivind Dahl Thoresen.
Thoresen described how he had been talking on his mobile, when the bomb
exploded. He had been standing only metres away, and was thrown backwards by
the blast. Thoresen saw another survivor just down the road, and began to
approach him to assist, because he noticed he had horrific injuries. Thoresen
went on to say how he also was badly injured and heavily bleeding.
Vidar
Vestli also survived the blast, and his consequent condition had not allowed
him to give live evidence. His witness statement was read to the court, where
it was told how he had lost a leg in the blast, had a chest "full of
shrapnel", and poor mental health.
Another
survivor, Tone Maria With, claimed she is now too afraid to venture into
central Oslo. She recounted how amid the confusion of the bomb blast, she
realized she had a hole in her chest and thought she was going to die. She also
suffered hearing loss as a consequence.
Second testimony for the defence
Breivik
took the stand for the second time to give evidence for the defence. He
conceded that it had been hard to hear live evidence from witnesses for the
prosecution but he also said that the Labour government should apologize for
their immigration policies.
Breivik
spoke about his views on the respective psychiatric reports, the earlier
deeming him insane and the latter saying he was not insane. Breivik said that
the report concluding his insanity was made of "evil fabrications"
and insisted the ulterior motive behind such conclusions were "meant to
portray him as irrational and unintelligent".
Breivik
contested the damning psychiatric report and alleged that 80% of it was false.
Specifically his allegations were:
- The purported quoting of himself omitted pronouns e.g. "I" which according to the defendant was deliberately done to make him look "retarded";
- It claimed he had a fear of radiation, which the defendant alleged is untrue as he has no such fear;
- The report alleged that Breivik's mask which he wore during his attacks was intended as an attempted defence to bacteria, being an irrational fear of his, and Breivik claimed this was untrue as it was meant for a different purpose, namely filtering particulates;
- Breivik cites that none of his interviews featuring in the substance of the report were tape-recorded;
- He also alleged in general that the assessors started with a conclusion and worked back towards what they wanted to find.
In
questioning, Breivik challenged the prosecution's view that he could not look
after himself, and said he does cook and clean, and that he had been bearing up
in prison well.
Day 9 (26 April)
More
survivors of the Oslo bombings testified in court. Harald Føsker was one of
them. He needed surgery on his face as a consequence of being caught in the
blasts. Føsker was employed at the Ministry of Justice at the time. He
described how he was so badly injured that he did not feel the physical pain
until the next day. His teeth were knocked out. He needed surgery to
reconstruct his face, and also for his vision and hearing.
Another
victim, female, testified that she could not remember the events of the day
because she has suffered head trauma.
At
noon, 40,000 protesters met in Oslo and marched to the courthouse singing a
children's song which Breivik had testified earlier was part of the
brainwashing of Norwegian children. Similar protests were held in other cities.
Day 10 (27 April)
Tore
Raasok testified on the injuries he sustained as a result of the bombings.
Raasok worked for the Ministry of Transport in Oslo, and on 22 July 2011 when
he had been leaving the office he was caught in a blast. Shards of glass had
flown into his eyes and his legs had been crushed. Since then he has had a leg
amputated, undergone 10 surgical operations, and has lost use of one of his
arms.
Another
prosecution witness, Kristian Rasmussen, described how he had been in his
office sending an email when "everything went black" and he went into
a coma for 12 days. He sustained head injuries, bleeding on the brain, a broken
neck, and abdominal wounds.
Day 17 (11 May)
The
presentation of autopsy reports was concluded on this day.
An
incident took place when a spectator shouted "Go to hell, go to hell, you
killed my brother", then threw a shoe towards Breivik, but hit the defense
attorney Vibeke Hein Bæra. The incident initiated some spontaneous applause,
while the thrower was taken out of the courtroom and handed over to medical
personnel. The thrower was Hayder Mustafa Qasim, an Iraqi who was the brother
of Karar Mustafa Qasim, one of the victims who had been killed at Utøya. Shoe
throwing is a mark of extreme contempt in Arab culture, signifying that the
target is worth no more than the dirt that one steps in. Footage of the
incident was not permitted to be released.
Day 23 (23 May)
Survivors
of the attacks on the island continued to give testimony, including a number of
teenaged girls. 15 year-old Ylva Helene Schwenke was aged 14 when the attacks
occurred and took four bullets. She is physically scarred and showed this to
the courtroom at large. She commented on this saying her scars were "the
price for democracy" because she feels democracy has prevailed. Apparently
this commentary caused Breivik to grin.
Breivik
also smiled when he was described by another prosecution witness, an 18
year-old girl who remained anonymous, as being "an idiot".
17
year old Andrine Johansen testified as to how she believes one of her friends
took a bullet that would have killed her, and thus sacrificed his own life to
save hers. She had witnessed Breivik killing 14 people, several of whom were
her personal friends. Johansen described the defendant actually holding his gun
to a victim's head and pulling the trigger.
Johansen
told how she had already been shot in the chest, and had fallen into the lake.
Once the others had been killed, Breivik returned his attention to her,
allegedly smiling. However, a victim named Henrik Rasmussen is said to have
jumped into the line of fire, thus sacrificing his life for Johansen, whilst
"Breivik had laughed with joy as he continued with the bloodbath...[during
which narrative]...the accused shook his head at the description".
Day 24 (24 May)
More
prosecution witnesses testified. Mathias Eckhoff aged 21 had been shot in the
thighs and his scrotum. Eckhoff and others had met at the cafe/pumphouse on the
island to discuss the bombings in Oslo, and that is when Breivik arrived. When
the group encountered Breivik outside, Eckhoff says he had demanded to see
Breivik's ID as he was dressed as a police officer and was informing them the
bomber had yet been apprehended.
Breivik
is said to have opened fire, and then Eckhoff was shot, and escaped by jumping
into the water. Eckhoff said he could not use his legs which had been shot, and
only his arms.
Mohamad
Hadi Hamed also aged 21 was the second witness of the day. He had asked if
Breivik could be removed from the courtroom whilst he was testifying. He was
wheelchair-bound. He had been in the group that were opened fire upon by
Breivik at the pumphouse along with Eckhoff.
Hamed
had been shot in the abdomen, shoulder and thigh, and had an arm and a leg
amputated as a result of his injuries.
Day 25 (25 May)
When
Adrian Pracon
testified about his meeting with Breivik at Utøya, he looked steadfastly at the
defendant, even when answering questions from the prosecutor. Breivik was
visibly uncomfortable and only looked back at the witness in brief glimpses.
"Breivik made an error when he decided to spare me, seen from his
perspective. Now I really understand how fragile our society is," Pracon
testified. "I see how much it is worth and the importance of politics. I
will continue with politics, and the Labour Party remains closer to my
heart." Pracon is the only witness who has looked at the defendant in this
way. He was first shot in the shoulder, then the attacker decided not to shoot
him. Breivik has testified earlier about why he decided not to kill Pracon.
Day 36 (5 June)
Defence
lawyers for Breivik, trying to portray him as not insane, invited right-wing
extremists to testify at the trial. Among the witnesses were Tore Tvedt, founder of the group Vigrid, and Arne Tumyr of the organization Stop
Islamisation of Norway (SIAN). They argued that that there are
people who share Breivik's political views, yet are not insane. Many of the
extremists called echoed Breivik's political views; one said that "Islam
is an evil political ideology disguised as a religion." However, they
distanced themselves from Breivik's alleged violent actions.
Court-appointed
psychiatrists
Day
37–38 (14–15 June)
Court-appointed
psychiatrists Husby and Sørheim acknowledge no competence on terrorism and
explain that they have evaluated Breivik without putting him into a political
context. Without this context, the language he uses becomes incomprehensible
(neologisms), his lack of remorse towards the victims becomes lack of empathy,
his long period of isolation and preparation becomes inadequate functioning,
and his explanations of why he carried out the operation become delusions and
fantasies about violence. In this manner, his political ideology and the way he
sees himself in the context of this ideology becomes evidence of paranoid
schizophrenia.
The
defense says that they would understand the psychotic evaluation if Breivik had
been talking about invaders from Mars, but find it difficult to understand how
thoughts about a possible future Muslim invasion of Europe should be seen as a
strong indication of schizophrenia. When asked what makes Breivik different
from a "normal" terrorist, Husby and Sørheim say that they have no
knowledge of how terrorists think, and find such comparative analysis not
relevant to the mandate for their evaluation.
Day
39–40 (18–19 June)
Court-appointed
psychiatrists Aspaas and Tørrissen acknowledge the political context of
Breivik's thoughts and actions, and thus see no sign of psychosis. As they see
the defendant, he is not clinically insane but a political terrorist with a
psychological profile that makes it possible to understand how he was capable
of carrying out the terror operation.
Closing
speeches
The
central theme of the defence closing speech was that Breivik, who never denied
the facts of the case, is sane and should therefore not be committed to
psychiatric care. The prosecutor, Svein Holden, had argued that since the first
psychiatric report was written in a non-falsifiable manner, it is impossible to
disprove that Breivik is insane, and it then follows that he should be
committed to psychiatric care because there would be more harm in sentencing a
psychotic person to ordinary prison than a non-psychotic person to a
psychiatric facility.
Day
43 (22 June)
On
the last day of the trial Breivik delivered a 45-minute defence speech
summarizing the trial from his perspective. The court had decided to refuse
video or audio transmission of this speech and rejected appeals from the
Norwegian media to reverse this.
Bootleg
recording
On
26 July, it became known that a bootleg recording of this speech had been
posted on the video-sharing site YouTube. According to Agence France-Presse,
the video had been posted by a German man who stated that he had received the
video from an elected member of the Norwegian Progress Party. According to
Norwegian news media, it was a Norwegian man who originally posted the recording
on YouTube on 27 June. The man, who told media he didn't know he was breaking
the law, subsequently removed the video from his YouTube account. Coordinating
counsel for the aggrieved Mette Yvonne Larsen petitioned Oslo District Court to
have the video removed from YouTube, which according to them is not fit for
publication since it contains incitement to commit criminal acts.
Verdict
and sentencing
On
24 August 2012, beginning approximately 10AM CEST, the court formally began to
read the verdict against Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik was adjudged sane and
sentenced to containment—a special form of a prison sentence that can be
extended indefinitely—with a time frame of 21 years and a minimum
time of 10 years, the maximum penalty in Norway.
Explaining
why the court found Breivik to be sane, the court stated that "many people
share Breivik's conspiracy theory, including the Eurabia theory. The court
finds that very few people, however, share Breivik's idea that the alleged
"Islamization" should be fought with terror."
When
asked by the judge whether he accepted the verdict and sentence, Breivik
announced that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the court, and would
therefore neither accept nor appeal. His attempt at addressing other
"militant nationalists" in Norway and Europe was interrupted by the
judge. Lacking a formal acceptance of the sentence, the judge formally
interpreted this as taking a two week contemplation period, but Breivik's
attorney said there would be no appeal from the defense. At a press conference
after the verdict, the prosecuting attorneys announced that they would not
appeal either.
Commentary
on the proceedings
Some
foreign media have expressed wonder at apparent concessions being given to the
defendant. Both the fact that he is allowed five full days to give his
testimony, elaborating on his ideology, as well as court-room interactions
where both the prosecutors and counsel for the aggrieved shook the defendant's
hand at the beginning of the proceedings baffled some commentators but to
others showed that the Norwegian court system is capable of respecting all
people.
No comments:
Post a Comment