Is isolation too much of a punishment for a mass killer like Behring Breivik?

Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right extremist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, is suing the Norwegian state for the second time over his prison conditions. He claims that his prolonged isolation violates his human rights and causes him psychological suffering. But is isolation too much of a punishment for a mass killer, or is it a necessary and justified measure to protect society and prevent further violence?

The facts

Breivik, who has changed his name to Fjotolf Hansen, is serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended indefinitely, for his twin attacks on July 22, 2011. He detonated a car bomb near the government headquarters in Oslo, killing 8 people, and then shot dead 69 others, mostly teenagers, at a summer camp on the island of Utoya.

Since then, he has been held in isolation in various high-security prisons, where he has access to three cells, a TV, a computer, books, and games, but minimal contact with other inmates and prison staff. He is also subject to strict controls on his correspondence and visits and is not allowed to communicate with the media or the public.

Breivik argues that his isolation amounts to inhumane and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also claims that his freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the Convention, is infringed by the restrictions on his correspondence. He is seeking an end to his isolation, an easing of his communication rules, and compensation from the state.

This is not the first time that Breivik has sued the state over his prison conditions. In 2016, he won a surprise victory in a lower court, which ruled that his isolation was a breach of his human rights. However, the state appealed the decision, and the higher courts overturned the ruling, finding that his isolation was relative and justified.

The European Court of Human Rights also rejected his case in 2018, deeming it “inadmissible”.

The arguments

The state argues that Breivik’s isolation is necessary and proportionate, given the gravity and nature of his crimes, and the risk that he poses to society, other inmates, prison staff, and himself.

The state contends that Breivik has not shown any signs of remorse or rehabilitation and that he remains a dangerous and influential figure, who could inspire or incite others to commit violence.

The state also maintains that Breivik’s prison conditions are decent and humane and that he receives adequate care and attention.

Breivik’s lawyer, Oystein Storrvik, however, counters that Breivik’s isolation is excessive and harmful and that it has caused him to suffer from depression, suicidal thoughts, and cognitive impairment.

He asserts that Breivik has a right to human dignity and social interaction and that he should be treated as a normal prisoner, with access to education, work, and leisure activities. He also claims that Breivik’s correspondence is censored and blocked without valid reasons and that he should be allowed to express his views and opinions.

On the other hand, Breivik’s case raises important and complex questions about the balance between human rights and public security and the purpose and limits of punishment.

Some may also argue that Breivik deserves no sympathy or leniency and that his isolation is a fitting and effective response to his heinous acts, which have traumatized and scarred a whole nation.

In contrast, some may argue that he is still a human being and that his isolation is a cruel and counterproductive measure, which violates his dignity and may fuel his resentment and radicalization.

The case also reflects the challenges and dilemmas that Norway faces as a liberal and democratic society, which prides itself on its humane and progressive prison system, aimed at rehabilitation rather than retribution.

Norway has to reconcile its values and principles with the reality and threat of extremism and terrorism, and to find a way to deal with Breivik and his ideology, without compromising its own identity and integrity.