On Tuesday, November 19, Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian right-wing extremist responsible for the devastating twin attacks of July 22, 2011, sought parole for the second time, a move anticipated to face overwhelming rejection. The attacks, which killed 77 people, remain one of the darkest chapters in Norway’s history, and Breivik’s request has reignited debates on justice, rehabilitation, and societal safety.
Breivik, now 45, was sentenced in 2012 to 21 years in prison, Norway’s harshest sentence at the time. His term is subject to indefinite extensions as long as he is deemed a threat to society. Under Norwegian law, inmates are permitted to request conditional release annually after serving 10 years of their sentence. Breivik’s first parole application, in January 2022, was denied, with the court citing a “clear risk” of reoffending.
The memories of Breivik’s attacks continue to haunt Norway. On that fateful day in July 2011, Breivik detonated a truck bomb near government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people. Hours later, disguised as a police officer, he traveled to the island of Utøya, where he systematically gunned down 69 people, most of them teenagers attending a Labour Party youth camp. Breivik claimed his actions were motivated by a desire to combat multiculturalism and the perceived erosion of Norwegian identity.
Breivik’s latest parole hearing, held in a high-security courtroom, is scheduled to last three days. His lawyer, Øystein Storrvik, acknowledged the uphill battle, telling AFP: “He’s asking for parole, but that’s not so probable.”
Breivik’s court appearances have often been platforms for extremist rhetoric. At Tuesday’s hearing, he arrived in a black suit and tie, holding signs bearing political messages. Before proceedings began, he addressed reporters, saying, “If I am given an exit opportunity in the future, I will be a tremendous help to the Norwegian state, and that’s something I take very seriously.” However, he also added, “Alternatively, I can keep my mouth shut for the rest of my life. But that’s up to the judge.”
When asked by a reporter if he regretted his actions in 2011, Breivik deferred, stating he would address the matter during his testimony.
The hearing has drawn attention not just for its implications for Breivik but also for broader questions about the Norwegian justice system’s approach to rehabilitation and public safety. Breivik’s legal team argues that he has the right to progress and access better living conditions. “We want the court to consider his progression,” said Storrvik. “He has a right to … develop and have better living conditions so he can have some kind of future.”
External psychologists have recently evaluated Breivik for the first time in 12 years, producing a 109-page report. While the report’s conclusions have not been disclosed, Storrvik hinted that it could aid their case. Prosecutor Hulda Olsen Karlsdottir, however, was unmoved. “The new evaluation has not changed the prosecution’s view on the issue of his release,” she told NTB.
Since his arrest, Breivik has been held in isolation in a high-security facility. His living conditions, which include access to three cells—one for sleeping, one for study, and one for exercise—have been criticized as excessively harsh. Breivik’s isolation has been the subject of legal challenges, including a lawsuit against the Norwegian state. In February 2024, he lost a case alleging that his prolonged solitary confinement violated the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits “inhumane” and “degrading” treatment.
The state defended its position, arguing that Breivik’s strict confinement is necessary to mitigate the “extreme risk of totally unbridled violence” he poses. While Breivik’s team has highlighted his deteriorating mental health—pointing to his claims of depression and addiction to Prozac—these factors have not swayed the authorities’ stance.
The parole hearing has reignited emotional and political reactions across Norway. Survivors, families of victims, and the broader public have expressed outrage and concern over the possibility of Breivik’s release. Many argue that his actions, steeped in hatred and extremism, demonstrate an unrepentant danger to society.
“Breivik has shown no genuine remorse. His repeated attempts to use court appearances to propagate his views are a clear indication that he remains a threat,” said Jonas Gahr Støre, Norway’s Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, whose youth wing bore the brunt of the Utøya massacre.
For many, Breivik’s parole bid underscores the challenges of balancing Norway’s principles of rehabilitation with the moral imperative to protect society. Norway’s criminal justice system, renowned for its emphasis on reform rather than punishment, faces scrutiny as it navigates such high-profile cases.
Breivik’s sentence, while termed as 21 years, includes a clause for preventive detention. This mechanism allows for indefinite extensions if the convict is deemed a danger to the public. In practice, it means Breivik could spend the rest of his life in custody, contingent on periodic judicial reviews.
The current hearing will evaluate Breivik’s conduct during imprisonment, his potential for rehabilitation, and the psychological evaluations presented. While a ruling date has not been set, experts widely anticipate that the court will deny his request, citing unchanged risks.
For survivors and families of the victims, Breivik’s parole hearings are a painful reminder of the events of July 22, 2011. Many have voiced their frustration that the man responsible for such unimaginable loss continues to seek opportunities to reenter society.
“I lost my best friend that day,” said Anja Kristiansen, a survivor of the Utøya shooting. “The thought of him walking free is unbearable. It feels like he’s still holding us hostage.”
The Breivik case also sparks a broader reflection on extremism and the role of justice in addressing ideologically motivated violence. His actions have become a chilling reminder of the dangers posed by far-right extremism, not just in Norway but globally. His unapologetic embrace of hate has prompted renewed calls for vigilance against radicalization.
As the hearing unfolds, Norway braces itself for a judicial decision that will once again weigh the rights of the individual against the collective safety and moral fabric of the nation.
