OSLO, Norway (AP) — On the last day of his trial, Anders Behring Breivik’s defense lawyers tried to cast the confessed mass killer as a political militant motivated by an extreme right-wing ideology rather than a delusional madman who killed 77 people for the sake of killing.
Since Breivik has admitted to the bomb-and-gun attacks on July 22, the self-styled anti- Muslim militant’s mental state has been the key focus of the 10-week trial.
In his closing arguments in Oslo district court today, defense lawyer Geir Lippestad reiterated that Breivik accepts that he set off a bomb outside a government highrise and then gunned down dozens of teenagers at a Labor Party youth camp in the way that the attacks were described in court.
“That little, safe Norway would be hit by such a terror attack is almost impossible to understand,” Lippestad said. And that helps explain why psychiatric experts reached different conclusions about Breivik’s mental state, he added.
Lippestad used his closing arguments to try to prove to the court that Breivik’s claims of being a resistance fighter in a struggle to protect Norway and Europe from being colonized by Muslims are not delusional, but part of a political view shared by other right-wing extremists.
He also refuted assertions by one team of psychiatrists that the driving force behind Breivik’s attacks was a psychotic impulse to kill, rather than a political ideology.
Prosecutors on Thursday called for an insanity ruling, saying there was enough doubt about Breivik’s mental state to preclude a prison sentence.
The five-judge panel is expected to make a ruling in July or August. If deemed mentally competent, Breivik would likely be given Norway’s maximum prison term of 21 years. A sentence can be extended beyond that if a prisoner is considered a menace to society. If declared insane, he would be committed to a mental institution for as long as he’s considered sick and dangerous to others. Prosecutors suggested Thursday that could mean he would be held for the rest of his life.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less