Oslo Terror Attacks: Norwegian Terrorist Anders Behring Breivik Was Insane
December 06, 2011
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Following the recommendations of court-ordered psychiatrists, Oslo prosecutors have announced that Anders Behring Breivik was insane at the time of his attacks on July 22, 2011, in which 77 people were killed. Breivik has confessed to exploding a bomb at a government building and later, dressed as a policeman, shooting attendees at a political youth camp. If the criminal court that shall hear Breivik’s case agrees with this finding, it is doubtful that the terrorist will ever be imprisoned for the greatest mass murder in peace time Norway.
The legal systems of Continental Europe differ substantially from those of the United States, as those who have followed recent cases such as that of Amanda Knox well know. For example, the civil law system of Norway uses police, prosecutors and examining magistrates as co-investigators of criminal cases. Therefore, for a prosecutor to announce that defendant Breivik was suffering from a psychotic break at the time of his murderous rampage, rather than hearing this news from Breivik’s own attorney, is to be expected. In the U.S., this revelation more likely would surface during the opening of the trial when a criminal defendant would plea “not guilty by reason of insanity” or, in some jurisdictions, “guilty but insane.”
In any of these circumstances and no matter if here or there, if a defendant is found to have been insane at the time of the offense, different guidelines apply at trial, notably that the defendant first must admit that he or she actually committed the crime; however, at the time the defendant did not know right from wrong or in some fashion misunderstood reality. Breivik’s psychiatrists have told prosecutors that he was suffering from paranoid-schizophrenia at the time of his terrorist attacks. In fact, at the time of the murders he believed that he was the leader of an organization that didn’t exist; an anti-Islamic movement; a counter-jihad, if you will. But he led nothing, he organized nothing, no one supported him.
And so, for argument’s sake, let’s assume for a moment that Breivik was insane at the time he murdered 77 people. What will possibly happen to him? To show how the systems differ, it is possible that in the United States he could be set free. If the psychiatric evaluation shows that the defendant was suffering from a psychotic break at the time of the offense but is no longer impaired and no longer poses a danger to himself or to society, the court might simply release the defendant. In Norway things are a little more structured and a defendant found insane but guilty must serve a minimum of three years in a psychiatric institution. Thereafter, the defendant’s case will receive periodic review. And so, an insane defendant will serve somewhere between three years and life, depending on the conduct of the defendant. In the U.S., the reality is that more often than not a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity will suffer the same fate. American criminal courts frequently sentence those who have been found to be insane at the time of their respective offenses to indeterminate times of incarceration in psychiatric hospitals. One need look no further than the case of would-be presidential assassin John Hinkley for an example of one who was adjudged insane and soon may be released from confinement.
Another question that has surfaced is this: if Breivik was insane and the terrorist organization was only a figment of his imagination, were his murders actually terrorist acts? Oddly enough, the answer has some rather expansive ramifications. The families of the victims stand to receive compensation for terrorist acts; but if the acts were merely those of a madman, they might not. In this case, I believe that we should take Breivik at his word. His motives were that of a terrorist and his victim targeting was specific, not random, and intended to send a message. No matter how sane or insane Breivik was at the time of the murders, his motive was terror. There is no requirement in law that a terrorist must belong to a terrorist organization to commit a terrorist act (a nuance that al Qaeda has benefited from for years). And that should demonstrate to all that even the most pathetic among us can strike terror at will.
The preliminary date for Breivik’s trial is set for April 10, 2012.
Related Links
Crimes of the Century
Fearbook: Most Gruesome Killers
Crime Countdown: Top 10 Lists
Quizzes: Test Your Knowledge of the Notorious
















Recent Comments