1
A Comprehensive Analysis of Terrorism: The Case of Anders Breivik
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date
2
A Comprehensive Analysis of Terrorism: The Case of Anders Breivik
Introduction to Terrorism
Terrorism can be defined as the deliberate and systematic use of violence and force,
especially against non-combatants, for the purpose of achieving political objectives. Its main
objective is to impose terror, destabilize communities, and effect political or philosophical
transformations. As with other typical offenders, they are mostly one or several persons with
extreme political, religious or social views due to conflicts. These actors tend to be
radicalized and display high levels of commitment to the objectives of the terrorist act. There
are several theories in criminology that can aid in understanding terrorism.
According to the social learning theory, the behavioural patterns of extremism are
learned through interaction with other like-minded groups. According to the Strain theory, the
reason why people engage in terrorism is because they perceive there is socio-economic
injustice and channel their anger through violent acts (Syse, 2014). Routine activity theory
also emphasizes the aspect of availability of opportunity as well as the lack of capable
guardians in the execution of terrorist incidents. These theories are important in gaining an
insight into the aims and strategies of terrorism.
Case Study: Anders Breivik
Anders Behring Breivik was born on February 13, 1979, in Oslo, the capital of
Norway. Born into a middle-class family, Breivik had a rather chaotic childhood. He was
young when his parents divorced and never had a good relationship with his father. Breivik’s
childhood and adolescence indicated that he was socially deprived and his education was
interrupted. Gradually, he shifted to radical right-wing extremism, encouraged by online
platforms and literature. Such experiences contributed to the development of radical views
and the offender’s further criminal activity (Syse, 2014).
Detailed Description of the Crime
3
It should be noted that one of the bloodiest terrorist acts in the history of Norway was
committed by Breivik on July 22, 2011. He first set off a car bomb in the capital city of Oslo,
killing eight individuals and causing significant damage to government offices (Syse, 2014).
The explosion was meant to paralyse the functioning of the Norwegian government and
generate confusion. After the bombing, Breivik went to the island of Utøya to shoot the camp
participants of the Workers’ Youth League (AUF), of which 69 died, mostly youths. These
well-coordinated attacks focused on the Norwegian government and the AUF youth camp, to
express opposition to the country’s multicultural policies and trigger a civil war.
Breivik prepared for the attacks for a number of years prior to the event. He purchased
explosives and equipment, went through target practice, and wrote a document called “2083:
A European Declaration of Independence” which claimed that Europe was at war for its
culture (Syse, 2014). Breivik saw himself a knight in modern Europe fighting evil that is
represented by Islamic culture and multiculturalism.
Factors Influencing Criminal behaviour
Several aspects were involved in Breivik’s actions and reactions making this case a
blend of psychological, social, and ideological issues. Another factor was the existence of
several psychological disorders (Syse, 2014). Although Breivik was first diagnosed to have
paranoid schizophrenia, subsequent assessments determined that he had narcissistic
personality disorder and traits of an anti-social personality. One of the main sources of
inspiration was his far-right views (Burazer, 2020). As a man who considered himself a
warrior against multiculturalism and Islam, Breivik’s manifest outlined his motives and
political beliefs that portrayed him as a fighter for Europeans against the foes. His
socioeconomic status, dysfunctional family background, and contacts with the radical
organizations played a role in his transformation and subsequent violent behaviours.
Execution of the Crime
4
Breivik managed to implement the meticulously planned attacks that saw 77 people
lose their lives and many others get injured (Beatrice De Graaf et al., 2013). The fact that he
was capable of conducting such a huge operation emphasizes the gravity and premeditation
of what he did. With more information and time put into acquiring components for his bomb,
the time invested in planning the shooting on Utøya, it can be deduced that his dedication to
ideologies as well as his dedication to action lies firmly in place.
Legal and Corrective Actions
After the attacks, Breivik was arrested on the same day. His trial was the centre of
attention not only for Norwegians but also for the global audience. Breivik was given 21
years imprisonment and another extension as long as he is considered dangerous by the
Norwegian law . The Norwegian penal system prioritizes rehabilitation, providing inmates
with psychological counselling and de-radicalization programs (Beatrice De Graaf et al.,
2013). Nonetheless, Breivik has not demonstrated any remorse or desire to change his mind-
set raising questions as to the usefulness of such measures in his regard. However, the case of
Norway also shows that even under the rehabilitative approach it is difficult to deal with the
radicalized persons when they have the distinct ideology and do not express any remorse.
Impact and Outcomes
The attacks provided a shock to the Norwegian society in terms of social awakening
about the far-right extremism and changes in security policy. The case led to extensive debate
regarding the relationship between security and privacy rights and changes in Norway’s
emergency management practices. Moreover, the matter concerned the interpretation of-
terrorism and the necessity of implementing universal tactics that may prevent extremism and
its roots. It also led to increased vigilance on militant organizations and persons and stricter
measures on the war against terrorism. Such changes were assumed to prevent repetition of
the tragedy and to offer a higher level of protection against other dangers more effectively.
5
Also, the attack helped increase the social awareness of the main factors leading to terrorism,
such as exclusion, unemployment, and indoctrination via the World Wide Web.
Conclusion
Thus, analysing the case of Anders Breivik, one can describe all the key aspects of
terrorism and understand the nature of this phenomenon, and the factors that may cause a
person to become a terrorist. Breivik’s crime was a result of personal failures and radical
ideologies and, on top, psychological disorders that make the justice system’s task complex.
There is one particularly acute problem—the question of how effective legal and
rehabilitative measures are in this sphere and to what extent ex-convicts are ready to mend
their ways. It is essential to understand why such criminal actions occur in an effort to
establish the right ways to prevent and address them. Thus, it can be concluded that more
investigations and actions in the sphere of policy-making are needed to protect societies from
such acts of terrorism and to avoid similar tragedies in the future. The actions of Breivik have
broader social implications and, therefore, should never be ignored, and radicalization-
prevention activities should be performed continuously.
Therefore, addressing terrorism is hinged on prevention approaches implemented by
the police, social work, as well as stakeholders. It is only when society gathers information
about people like Breivik and their motives and backgrounds, that it becomes easier to
rationalize the ways through which terrorism can be combated in the future and the world can
become a safer and more tolerant planet.
6
References
Beatrice De Graaf, L., Van Der Heide, S., Wanmaker, D., & Weggemans. (2013). The Anders
Behring Breivik Trial: Performing Justice, Defending Democracy.
https://www.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/ICCT-De-Graaf-et-al-The-Anders-
Behring-Breivik-Trial-August-2013.pdf
Burazer, M. (2020). The Breivik case and the comparative issues of criminal (in)sanity. ST-
OPEN, 1(-), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.48188/so.1.5
Syse, A. (2014). Breivik - The Norwegian Terrorist Case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
32(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2121
