Turning the Witness Stand into a Speaker's Platform: Victim Participation in the Norwegian Legal System as Exemplified by the Trial Against Anders Behring Breivik

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12268
• Date: 01 June 2017

Turning the Witness Stand into a Speaker’s

Platform: Victim Participation in the Norwegian

Legal System as Exemplified by the Trial Against

Anders Behring Breivik

Solveig Laugerud A

˚se Langballe

In this article, we investigate how victims pursue legal participation when they

are confronted by legal barriers and dilemmas that arise from tensions

between legal formality and lay expectations and contributions of legal pro-

ceedings. We use the trial against Anders Behring Breivik as a case. Breivik

placed a bomb in Norway’s Government District before he shot and killed 69

people on a small island. We analyze interviews with 31 victims who testified

against Breivik in court. We argue that the circumstances of the trial against

Breivik can be characterized as “ideal” in terms of victims’ rights. The excep-

tionality of this case facilitates a focus on unquestioned obstacles to victim par-

ticipation concerning the professionalization of the legal system. We question

the presumption prevalent among some theorists that the professionalization

of the legal system excludes lay participation, by arguing that legal formality

both alienate and empower lay participation.

In recent decades, the legal status of victims has changed radi-

cally. Most of these legal changes have been a result of the efforts

of victim advocates, right-wing lobbyists and the women’s move-

ment (Gillis & Beloof 2001; Goodey 2005). The degree to which

claims for victims’ rights have been part of a retributive or restor-

ative movement depends in part upon the political context in

which they were operating (Barker 2007). These groups’ accom-

plishments range from the establishment of various victim-

support services to services and reforms in the law-enforcement

and legal systems. Legal changes include the right to be informed

of developments in a case, the right to attend legal proceedings,

the right to confer with the prosecutor, the right to sensitive

The authors would like to thank Grete Dyb at NKVTS for facilitating this study and for

making useful comments on the manuscript. A special thanks to May-Len Skilbrei at the

University of Oslo for all her critical, insightful and constructive comments on this article.

Author Contributions: Laugerud, in collaboration with Langballe, designed the study

and conducted the interviews. Laugerud analyzed the data material and drafted the manu-

script; Langballe reviewed the manuscript.

Please direct all correspondence to Solveig Laugerud, Centre for Gender Research,

University of Oslo, PB 1040, Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway; e-mail: solveig.laugerud@

stk.uio.no.

Law & Society Review, Volume 51, Number 2 (2017)

V

C2017 Law and Society Association. All rights reserved.

227

treatment during legal proceedings and the right to contribute to

the criminal justice decision-making process through a victim

impact statement (Goodey 2005; Mastrocinque 2010). The right

to provide input into the legal decision-making process has devel-

oped differently in different adversarial legal systems. Depending

on the country and legal system involved, the victim impact state-

ment can be either oral or written, and it can be delivered at var-

ious stages of the legal proceeding. Impact evidence is intended

to inform the criminal justice system of the loss, damage and suf-

fering caused by a crime. Reforms also include protective mea-

sures, such as rape-shield laws intended to restrict questions

regarding a victim’s sexual history and reputation, which have

often been used to prove consent and attack the victim’s credibili-

ty (Matoesian 1995).

In light of recent legal changes, it has been argued that victim

reforms represent important developments in the era of victims’

rights. However it has also been suggested that implementation

of victim reforms have created tensions between victims’ interests

and institutional demands, tensions regarding what is considered

victims’ subjective input on the one hand, and objective legal val-

ues on the other hand (Edwards 2002; Erez & Laster 1999; Erez

et al. 2014). Furthermore, it has been argued that we lack a theo-

retical basis for victim participation (Edwards 2001). However,

Christie (1977) and Bourdieu (1986) have theorized on how the

professionalization of the legal system excludes victim participa-

tion. In this article, we focus on the tensions created between the

characteristics of a professionalized legal system on the one hand,

and victim’s expectations and contribution on the other hand.

Moreover, we will argue, contrary to Christie and Bourdieu, that

professionalization of the legal system not only excludes, but also

includes lay participation. Although previous studies allude to

tensions created by implementation of victim reforms, there is lit-

tle emphasis on how legal formality facilitates or inhibits victims’

participation in legal proceedings. Erez and Laster (1999) have

focused on how tensions between victims’ interests and profes-

sional and institutional demands have created skepticism among

legal professionals who attempt to minimize victims’ influences in

legal proceedings, for example by transforming personal

accounts into a legal representation of victim harm. However, in

a different study, Erez et al. (2014) argue that legal professionals

also work to ease possible tensions by attempting to reconcile

conflicting interests. Englebrecht (2011) argues that disparate

views on victims’ role in legal proceedings might create conflicts

between victims and legal professionals within the system. Addi-

tionally, she argues that victims both appreciate their role in legal

proceedings and simultaneously risk having their high hopes

228 Turningthe Witness Stand into a Speaker’s Platform