Description of the Incident
On July 22, 2011, 32 year old Anders Breivik detonated a bomb in a government building in Norway’s capital of Oslo and then drove to the island of Utoya, dressed as a police officer, and started shooting an assault rifle at the teenagers of the Labor Youth Party camp. At the end of this event, Breivik had killed 77 people and injured many more. What attracted the most attention of the news was not the event, but the trial. In the trial, the media was pouring with eye-catching headlines that described Breivik as a privileged criminal who was truly insane. The different views of the media will be discussed in more detail in the Media Reporting Section of this paper.
In Norway, their criminal justice system is focused around rehabilitation; getting the accused individual to function back in society. In Breivik’s trial, the main debate was if he was insane or not because each would have drastic consequences for Breivik and the community. If he was declared insane, as much as society saw him, then Breivik would be committed to compulsory psychiatric care, and the community would write the attack as the work as a madman. If he was declared sane, which he was, then he would serve Norway’s maximum sentence of 21 years (and longer if deemed dangerous to society), and society would be left with the question “Why?”. The different options also would have a major impact on Breivik; if he was declared insane, then he would go to a private institution (which was built just for him) and would not have as many privileges as he would in a normal prison. Psychiatrists who looked at Breivik had mixed reports; one declared him psychotic at the time of the attack, and the other said that he was not psychotic, but that he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Some sites also mention that he preempted the attack with his 1,500 page manifesto that he posted online days before the attack. In the end of the trial, Breivik was claimed sane and was sentenced to IIa Prison near Oslo, where he is currently fighting for better treatment.
Assumptions and Definitions
Breivik was born in Oslo on February 12, 1979. His parents divorced when he was only a year old. The result of the custody battle left Breivik living with his mother, although he regularly visited his father. When he was only four years old two reports were filed with concern about his mental health and that he should be removed from parental care. One report by a psychologist mentioned that his mother physically and verbally abused him. Another psychologist mentioned that the boy had a peculiar smile that was not anchored by his emotions, but by his response to his environment. By the time he reached his teen years his behavior became rebellious. He was caught by police multiple times for committing graffiti and fined for it, which resulted in lost contact with his father.
After committing the act of terrorism, Breivik confessed to the attack and reasoned he did it to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover, and the Labour Party, a democratic political party, had to “pay the price” for letting the people of Norway down. He was against immigration, and the left-wing was opening up Norway for it. When Breivik was first captured, he admitted to killing the people, saying that he was doing it for his “revolution”. The next day, Breivik’s attorney stated that he was on drugs when he committed the acts, and that he was probably mentally ill. The dispute went on with one psychologist saying he was insane, and another saying he was sane but had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In the end however, Breivik was declared sane when he committed the acts.

A big assumption was what was happening when all these events started taking place. When the bomb had gone off, people started assuming that it was a terrorist act or a suicide bomber. The police had warned citizens to stay away from the city because they were suspicious about there being multiple bombs. This is common with bombings, but not in this case. There was even a story that a gas line had exploded. The prime minister, whose building was the one targeted, went on the news and made a statement that he would fight back against who did this. Then the shooting covered the news; all that was covered though was that there was a shooting and there was the Labor Party up there. The media mentioned that the same man was seen at both locations, but did not state who that was. Then the assumption developed more into that it was a terrorist attack, stating that the Scandinavian nation has been on Al Qaeda hit list for years. The news said there was a wide range of suspects however, including Al Qaeda and radicals. The two attacks were not connected in the beginning, but there was a suspicion that they were related, and that they may still be a terrorist attack.
There was a wide range of how many victims there were throughout the coverage of the story. In the beginning, the news said that there were 93 people, then two days later the number had gone down to 76 people, and then finally 77 people. Most of the victims were from a Labor Youth Camp, which is political overall, and Breivik had made the assumption that the group represented the multicultural policies that he was against. This is why he had planned to attack this island; in addition, some of the present and former leaders of Norway have come from this camp as well.
Media Reporting
The most notable thing about the different media sites is their headlines. From the Huffington Post’s ‘Anders Breivik, Norway Massacre Killer, Demands Medal Of Honor’, to Fox News’s ‘Mass killer's Norwegian prison cell has treadmill, computer access’. The purpose of these headlines seems to be to enrage their readers; it appeals to the emotions of its audience. The headline is also produced by the person who wrote the article; and these people seem to be enraged at Breivik and wants people to agree with their opinion. There are many articles that mention how Breivik was accepted to Oslo University for a political science course and how he gets to stay in a cozy or luxurious cell. This kind of news was a shock to outsiders of Norway because the justice systems are different. For example, the United States’s justice system main focus is usually to incapacitate offenders or to give retribution. It is more of a lock of offenders, so there is no special treatment for people at the prisons. The system does not focus on rehabilitation, and because of this, those like the US are shocked to see how different Breivik is being treated.
The Norway justice system focuses more on treating their prisoners with the same humane rights as those that are not inmates. They allow for prisoners to have access to a library, gym, work, and communicate with others. In Breivik’s specific case he was not allowed to talk to other prisoners because of how dangerous he was deemed, but because of this, the prison decided Breivik would get to communicate with prison guards for an hour a day, and that he can also write as many letters as he wants to the outside world. The prison did not want to completely isolate Breivik, and because they had isolated him from the other prisoners, they gave him more room and allowed him more items. These differences in how prisoners are kept are a shock to other cultures around the world; after all, none of our prisoners get to have PlayStation 2 in their cell. There was an article from CBS that Breivik claimed that the prison terms he received were “pathetic” and wanted either the death penalty or a full acquittal; then there was the Huffington Post saying that he wanted a medal for his actions and was using the court hearings as a way to draw attention to his extremist views.
The news stories varied across the many news outlets, making the truth harder to distinguish. One example was Breivik’s reasoning for committing the act. Fox News’s article has wrote that Breivik has anti-Muslimism views and that he was a madman, while other articles made mention to him being a right-wing extremist. The Associated Press had the most clear and thorough coverage of the story. They had wrote that Breivik, in his manifesto (which they also had pieces of), made blame to multiculturalists, Marxists, and Muslims for Europe's problems and said that they were traitors to Christian Europe. Surprisingly, not many articles mentioned that he had posted the manifesto, which is a crucial factor in determining if someone is sane or not, and lead more to the conclusion that he was insane, as this went along with the trial dilemma. Having a manifesto that had a plan in details usually leads people to believe that the person was sane when they committed the act; so to see that the manifesto was not mentioned in many of the new stories is surprising.
From beginning to end, this story has changed slightly over and over. Following one outlet, CBS, because it has covered this story since its beginning in July 22, 2011 until August 7, 2015, there have been many changes. In the beginning, there was no suspect named and no reason for the attacks. The shooting had also included undetonated explosives on the island, which never was restated. Later on the same day, CBS had a segment on “Why Would Terrorists Target Norway?” and gave possible reason that it was a possible Al Qaeda attack, because of Scandinavian nation supporting the US in Afghanistan. They brought into light that three suspected operatives of Al Qaeda had been arrested the previous year and that these attacks may be similar to bombings in Stockholm just the previous year (from Al Qaeda). The news focused strongly on the fact that one of Al Qaeda’s operatives was being deported from Norway around this time; but there were also pointing out how strange it would be to only have one gunman in an attack. On July 25, three days after the events, Andres Behring Breivik admitted to killing 93 people in order to “start a revolution to uphold tradition Christian values.” He wanted to spread his radical views and wanted his trial public (which was denied). The news had access to his now taken down YouTube video, which had given images hinting at a pure white Christian land.
Theoretical Explanations
When it comes to explaining what theory best explains why Breivik committed these acts is difficult. There is no one theory that can perfectly explain why someone commits an act; however, there can be many theories that may explain part of why. Below are a few theories that may partially explain why Breivik committed the act, and then there are a few theories that seemed to have no explanatory power to this case.
Social Learning Theory:
The main point of social learning theory is that delinquency is learned either through reinforcements or observational. Breivik claims that he is a part of the Knight’s Templar in Europe. Historically, the Knight’s Templar was a Christian group formed in the 10th century. They protected pilgrims traveling through the Holy Land, but eventually they turned into a military group that waged war against Muslims during the Crusades. The Templars grew too powerful, so in the 1300s, King Philip of France and Pope Clement V declared a crackdown on the Templars, destroying the order. The organization has been popular in pop cultures, showing up in games and movies. Breivik claims that he has met with members of a new Knight’s Templar in London in 2002. Although no records of this group has been found, if this group was real, then it could’ve had an effect on Breivik’s action. This group may have been positively reinforcing Breivik’s ideas to attack against other cultural groups. Breivik also claims that one of the members was his mentor and if this is true, that that mentor could’ve been an Instigator of Aggression; a model for Breivik who may have given ideas or suggestions on how to commit the act.
Another aspect of social learning theory is that Breivik could’ve have been instructed to commit the act. Although Breivik did claim that his terror cell had been “activated”, this is most unlikely because Breivik had been planning this attack for years, he takes great satisfaction that he committed the act, and he tries to draw all the attention to himself.
Social learning theory also states observational learning as a way delinquency is learned; in Breivik’s case he copies in his manifesto part of the manifesto of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, who carried out a bombing campaign from 1978-1995. Breivik researched other people that committed acts against other races and that may be where he got the idea to do his attack.
Over all this theory may explain why he committed the act, it does not explain what made him go to such extremes, what his rationale was, or what may have prevented him from committing the crime. The next theorem explains more on what could've prevented him from committing the act and why it didn't stop him.
Moral Deprivation and Attachment Theory:
Moral Deprivation and Attachment Theory could play a big part in why Breivik committed his acts. This theory focuses on the attachments to others and the wellbeing of a person if they don’t have those relationships. There are seven assumptions of attachment, which each being important to the overall attachment:
1. Adaptive
2. Duration
3. Specificity
4. There is a hierarchy of relationships ranging from person they like most to lesser
5. Preferences towards a primary attachment evolves from support and sensitivity
6. Experiences with primary attachment can shape the thoughts or beliefs
7. Constant separation or changes in primary attachment can lead to problems later in life

With these assumptions in mind, taking a look at Breivik’s life can show some problems with his attachments. Breivik’s parents became divorced when he was a year old, with Breivik staying with his mother and occasionally visiting with his father. According to attachment theory, Breivik should have connected more to his mother because she was around more during a critical time of his life (the divorce) . She also would have been the one who provided the most support since he lived with her. However; there were reports that Breivik’s mom was physically and verbally abusing him. This negative experience with his primary attachment could’ve wrapped his perspective on how people would treat him. If the ones closest to him would hurt him, who's to say that others won’t? Breivik claims that his mother was feminist and feminized him to a certain degree. This may have developed the negative emotions toward policies and certain groups that he was not a part of and may not have agreed with. Also, according to the theory, if no bonds can be made early and stay with the individual, it makes them lack the capacity for future relationships. When Breivik reached adolescence, he started becoming rebellious and would turn to other attachments with groups. He joined part of a hip hop community in Oslo West and became a graffiti artist. According to Breivik’s mother, after Breivik was fined for graffiti at age 16, his father stopped all further communication with him, (His father claims that Breivik stopped all contact with him). Around this time, Breivik also lost his relationship with his best friend and broke away from the hip hop community. By this time, Breivik has broken his most important attachments, his parents. Number seven from the list above states that constant separation from primary attachment can lead to problems later in life. During the rest of his life, Breivik joined many organizations, from churches, shooting clubs, and different political parties. With each of these groups, Breivik participated in the beginning, but was rarely seen after some time, which one of the groups saying that they weren’t aware that he was a member. All these groups have exiled him from their organizations since the act. The main organization that Breivik because affiliated with was this group he called the Knight’s Templar. This group, although not proven to exist, is “an anti-Jihad crusader-organization that fights against Islamic suppression” according to Breivik. In general, everyone is usually drawn to people like themselves. For Breivik, this group would be similar to him because they are against other groups and multiculturalism. Breivik claims that this organization has no leader, and that he was a one-man cell out of many cells. In this organization, Breivik gained quite an attachment to this group, having his own code name, Sigurd, and highly regards them that he will not give up other members so he will not get them in trouble. This attachment may have been the result from his broken primary attachments and since he hasn’t had any solid attachments since. Why commit the act though? This theory doesn’t really explain that, but the next theory may explain why Breivik thought the act was justified.
Subculture of violence
Subculture of Violence Theory may explain why Breivik would think that his act was justified. This theory states that there is a set of norms and values within a group, and that violence is just an accepted way of life. Breivik may have already thought that violence was a way of life because of his rough upbringing with his abusive mother and delinquent behavior as an adolescent. Then with Breivik being a part of the Knight’s Templar, this may have been the group that he needed that would have agreed or shaped the norms and values he believes in. This group as Breivik describes it, also agrees that violence is what’s needed to rid Norway and other parts of the country of non-Christians. This is also similar to the old Knight’s Templar back in the 10th century.
Because this act goes against policies from Norway’s government; this may also be another reason why it could be a part of the Subculture of Violence Theory. Getting policies such as multiculturalism revoked is practically impossible and many people would not agree. So for Breivik to go against it, he may have felt that the only way to show his view was to perform this act and then exploit it all over the news. This was also meant to stir others into agreeing with Breivik’s extremist views (which is claimed that he received many letters of those who did).
Conclusion
So much news coverage, but so little information. The thin line between simple coverage and bias opinions. Researching this story, it would be wise to read multiple articles before jumping to conclusions. Breivik has recently dropped off the radar after the museum of the attack was built, but may pop up every year on the anniversary of the attack. Perhaps the news stories will change even then. In deciding which theory best explain his actions there may be more theories or even a theory that comes out later on that will explain in more depth; or it may even be multiple theories all explaining little bits. Right now there can be no clear conclusion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0418/Why-does-Norway-s-Breivik-invoke-the-Knights-Templar-video http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/anders-behring-breivik-knights-templar-2083-a-declaration-of-european-independence/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14267007 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/26/breivik-manifesto-email-uk-contacts http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/norways-terror-suspect-was-high-on-drugs/ http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/01/04/helicopter-delayed-breivik-bluffing/ http://www.dw.com/en/mass-murderer-breivik-sues-norway-over-inhumane-treatment/a-18802527 http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/bomb-strikes-norways-capital/ http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/terror-attacks-devastate-norway/ http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/why-would-terrorists-target-norway/ http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/norway-after-the-massacre/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/terror-in-norway-who-is-behind-it/