Fact Check: Assuming he does not die in prison, Anders Behring Breivik will walk free eventually, since Norway does not have the Life in Prison sentence

The Claim: "Assuming he does not die in prison, Anders Behring Breivik will walk free eventually, since Norway does not have the Life in Prison sentence"

Introduction

The claim suggests that Anders Behring Breivik, who was convicted for the 2011 mass killings in Norway, will eventually be released from prison due to the absence of a life imprisonment sentence in Norwegian law. This assertion raises questions about the nature of sentencing in Norway, particularly regarding the maximum prison term and the conditions under which it can be extended.

What We Know

Sentencing in Norway: Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in prison, which is the maximum term for civilian crimes in Norway. This sentence can be extended indefinitely as long as he is deemed a threat to society, through a provision known as preventive detention 2 3 9.
Preventive Detention: The Norwegian legal system allows for sentences to be extended beyond the initial term if the individual is considered a danger to society. This means that while Breivik's initial sentence is 21 years, he could remain incarcerated for much longer if authorities determine he poses a continued risk 2 8.
Life Imprisonment in Norway: Life imprisonment in Norway is not typically applied to civilian cases but is reserved for military offenses under specific circumstances, such as treason during wartime 5. Thus, the assertion that Norway does not have a life imprisonment sentence is accurate, but it is essential to understand the implications of preventive detention.
Legal Challenges: Breivik has made multiple legal attempts to challenge his conditions of confinement, including a recent lawsuit regarding his prison isolation, which he claims breaches his human rights 1 4 6. However, courts have consistently upheld the legality of his confinement conditions 9.

Analysis

The claim that Breivik will eventually walk free if he does not die in prison hinges on several factors that require careful examination:

Preventive Detention Mechanism: The preventive detention law allows for the indefinite extension of sentences based on the individual's threat level. This legal framework suggests that Breivik's release is not guaranteed, as authorities can continuously assess his risk to society 2 10.
Source Reliability: The sources used to evaluate this claim include reputable news outlets such as BBC, AP News, and Al Jazeera, which are generally considered reliable for reporting on legal matters and criminal cases. However, it is crucial to note that media outlets may have varying degrees of bias, and sensationalism can sometimes color reporting on high-profile cases like Breivik's.
Potential Biases: Some sources may have an agenda, particularly those that focus on the implications of Breivik's actions on Norwegian society or the legal system. For instance, articles discussing the leniency of Norway's justice system may reflect a bias against the country's approach to criminal justice, which emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment 2 7.
Lack of Specific Details: While the claim presents a broad assertion about Breivik's potential release, it lacks specific details regarding the legal processes that would lead to such an outcome. Additional information about the frequency and outcomes of risk assessments for Breivik would be beneficial to fully understand his situation.

Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim that Anders Behring Breivik will eventually walk free is partially true, as it accurately reflects the absence of a life imprisonment sentence in Norway. However, it overlooks the critical aspect of preventive detention, which allows for the indefinite extension of his sentence if he is deemed a threat to society. This means that while there is a possibility of release, it is not guaranteed and is contingent upon ongoing assessments of his risk level.

It is important to note that the legal framework surrounding Breivik's incarceration is complex and subject to interpretation. The sources consulted provide a reliable overview, but they also highlight the limitations in understanding the nuances of Norwegian law and the potential biases in reporting on such a high-profile case.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding legal matters and to consider the broader context of criminal justice systems, particularly when discussing cases that evoke strong public sentiment.