Nobody thinks the terrorist will be released – Speech

For three full days, the gymnasium in Skien prison will be converted into a courtroom for Telemark District Court. The court will process the request for release from Anders Behring Breivik, and it has been decided in advance that the court hearing must be held inside the prison to ensure security.

The same thing happened when Breivik sued the state for the conditions of imprisonment, in 2016 and 2017. A lawsuit he famously lost.

This time can Breivik with the law in hand demand release. After the minimum period of 10 years’ detention has been served, he has the right to have the matter assessed by a court.

That way, it’s actually a pretty ordinary case the court is going to hear this week. The courts regularly deal with such cases.

Sometimes the court comes to that the convicted person has shown such great improvement that he or she can be released on probation. Other times, the result is that the risk is still too great, and that the convicted person must still be imprisoned.

In this case, there is really only one main question the judges must answer: Is Breivik still so dangerous that it is necessary to keep him imprisoned so that society can be protected from him?

Anything other than a yes from the court will be a big surprise.

The prosecution have, of course, good arguments. The prosecutor will probably start by reading out parts of the verdict from the terrorist attacks on July 22. Here, both judges and listeners will be reminded which ones shocking actions the terrorist is behind. And what ideology he justified it all with.

The verdict states that “the defendant expressed in court that he will continue his political struggle behind the walls. After serving his sentence, the accused will in all probability still have the will and ability to commit many and very brutal murders. “

Then the question is how Breivik appears today. There, psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist becomes a key witness. She has assessed the convicted terrorist a number of times, and will give the court a detailed explanation of the risk of releasing him. There is reason to believe that Rosenqvist’s testimony will be emphasized to a far greater extent than the terrorist’s own explanation.

The court has set aside three hours to hear what he himself has to say, how that time should be used is an open question.

Neither does Breivik’s defender have some faith in release now. Lawyer Øystein Storrvik has previously stated that it is completely unrealistic, and that it would only be foolish of him to create any unrest around it. He is, of course, absolutely right. But the lawyer is largely bound by the client’s desire, and must therefore argue for release as best he can.

For lawyer Storrvik, however, this case is probably more about obtaining arguments for a new lawsuit against the state, in the hope of achieving certain reliefs in the conditions of imprisonment. Such a lawsuit will probably come after the issue of release has finally been clarified.

And that’s a crossword puzzle that the terrorist with the law in hand can continue to bring his case to court, perhaps as often as once a year. A parole may be retried only one year after the previous application was finally rejected. Private lawsuits can also appear on a regular basis.

It goes without saying that the burden on those affected will be great if all this entails extensive media coverage.

We in the media too has a responsibility to dimension the coverage. Now is the first time he can try the question of release. This in itself indicates that we are following the case closely this time. The case sheds light on how society and the rule of law relate to the terrorist.

The legal process can also provide insight into how detainees are treated in this country, and which regime they serve under.

Nevertheless, NRK’s ​​editors are clear that our coverage should not be marked by being a lectern for Anders Behring Breivik. Therefore, we will not send or stream the case in its entirety this time. It has also been decided that NRK, as a general rule, shall not show special greetings from the convicted terrorist.

We will also be careful in the coverage, and both photos and video clips from the case will be carefully assessed before use.

Some will probably think that three days is a long time to deal with a question that to most people seems quite clear. But the use of time is a result of this case being dealt with in the usual way, with introductory lectures, testimonies and procedures. This time too, it is important that the terrorist is treated in the same way as everyone else in the judicial system.

By all accounts, that treatment will still end up with him being imprisoned for many years to come.

–