- Sara Afonso, IPS - Innovative Prison Systems: A new and humane approach to assessing vulnerability to radical or extremist viewpoints and actions in post-release settings
- Stian Lid, Oslo Metropolitan University & Tina Wilchen Christensen, Aarhus University: Risk assessments of radicalised individuals in the Nordic countries
- Rita Augestad Knudsen, Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI): Criminal responsibility in terrorism-related cases: between law, medicine, politics and security
- Kristin Bergtora Sandvik, University of Oslo: Transitional justice and terrorism: socio-legal reflections on the problem of trials, legal accountability, and shapeshifting perpetrators
Abstracts
A new and humane approach to assessing vulnerability to radical or extremist viewpoints and actions in post-release settings
Sara Afonso, IPS - Innovative Prison Systems
Prison and post-release environments pose challenging experiences, thus newly-released individuals require integrated support towards social stabilisation. However, recent events emphasised the threat of (re)adopting radical or extremist viewpoints following prison, a key setting to base interventions. But how can community professionals acknowledge this potential without furthering grievances and stigma? Following R2PRIS’ RRAP Toolset (a RAN best practice), up-to-date literature, and inputs from P/CVE and rehabilitation practitioners/experts, it clarified how the risk notion does not fully consider newly-released individuals’ potential, nor complexities of the transition period. Hence, in the R2COM ‘Radicalisation and Violent Extremism in the Community’ project, risk/protective factors were deconstructed, becoming subjective assessments to be made according to their perceived impact on the individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation and extremism. The Transitioning Vulnerabilities to Radicalisation Assessment Tool (TV-RAT) dissects the complexity of the community environment and how its interaction with the individual can explain the (re)adoption of radical viewpoints and actions, whilst promoting positive follow-up strategies. This paper explores TV-RAT’s theoretical framework and field applicability, dissecting its piloting results with practitioners and experts from Albania, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, and Sweden.
Risk assessments of radicalised individuals in the Nordic countries variations of practice and discussion of process
Stian Lid, Oslo Metropolitan University & Tina Wilchen Christensen, Aarhus University
Risk assessments of radicalised individuals has become an integral part of countering violent extremism, also in the Nordic countries. However, how to do risk assessment is highly contested.
Based on interviews with practitioners working on risk assessment of radicalized individuals across the Nordic countries we will in this presentation first illuminate the significant variations of how risk assessment of radicalised individuals is conducted across the Nordic countries.
Secondly, we discuss substantial dimensions for conducting risk assessment. Previous research on risk assessments has mainly deals with the content of risk assessment. However, our study confirms the importance of the content of the assessment, but we argue that far more attention should be paid to the entire process of conducting risk assessment. Substantial is the organization of the work, the practitioners’ exercise of discretion, as well as the national legislation of information sharing.
Criminal responsibility in terrorism-related cases: between law, medicine, politics and security
Rita Augestad Knudsen, Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI)
Ill mental health is a key category for exempting individuals from criminal responsibility in terrorism-related and other cases. For even if a defendant might have been found to have carried out the act in question, if mentally ‘ill enough’, the person could either be fully exempt from criminal responsibility and found not guilty – or be partially exempt and receive a reduced or special sentence on mental health grounds. Such outcomes might entail diversion into mental health treatment, sectioning – or release, outcomes that have proven controversial in recent terrorism-related cases. While deciding on a mental health exemption in individual cases might seem like a straightforward medical-juridical procedure of following the advice of forensic experts, this article shows how mental health exemptions to criminal responsibility involve significantly more complexity, especially in terrorism-related cases. Looking to Norway and the UK, this article highlights differences in frameworks and implementation, including on matters of burden and nature of proof, and on causality.
Transitional justice and terrorism: socio-legal reflections on the problem of trials, legal accountability, and shapeshifting perpetrators
Kristin Bergtora Sandvik, University of Oslo
Scholars have only recently begun to link transitional justice frameworks to the legal settlements after terror. In recent years, Norway has experienced a series of mass violence events. 22 July 2011, a right-wing terrorist bombed the government quarter killing eight and massacring 69 people at Utøya island. In 2019, attempting to emulate the 22 July perpetrator, a right-wing extremist attacked a mosque outside Oslo. In 2021, inhabitants of the rural town of Kongsberg were murdered in their homes. In 2022, an Islamist attack was carried out against people celebrating Oslo PRIDE week. For all perpetrators, issues about mental sanity have been central to deliberations around punishment. Understanding the legal ripple effects of terror through the lens of transitional justice, this socio-legal article interrogates the linkage between legal accountability, the format of a trial, and the political, cultural, and emotional requirements for someone to ‘hold’ criminal responsibility. The central contribution of this article is to problematize the rise of the shapeshifting perpetrator – the ability of an imaginary person or creature to change form, shape, or identity – and what this means for terrorism trials. While Christie suggested that ‘ideal victims need – and create – ideal offenders’, these examples are indicative of a trend whereby the perpetrator is shapeshifting and acts of terrorism and mass violence translate into mental healthcare and patient status rather than criminal accountability. In the context of transitional justice, this requires us to revisit assumptions on how trials can contribute to justice and public healing. The article explores trials as ‘ordinary criminal law politics’, tradeoffs around difficult trials and ‘non-trials, and considers possible pivots towards restorative justice.