Crimes that are Heinous Enough: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Considered

Amid revolutions, war, and riots in the Middle East, the West faced terrorism in Norway.  It consisted of two attacks.  The first was of a car bombing of government buildings in Oslo that killed eight, while the second consisted of a    If Jared Loughner was a left-wing, radical socialist, Anders Behring Brevik was the opposite.  The liberal media has covered its share of the attacks, due to Anders' affiliation and defection of the English Defense League, and produced its inflammatory remarks towards anti-Islam groups such as the English Defense League (EDL), Norwegian Defense League (NDL) and Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE).  The EDL, the NDL, or SIOE all replied that there were no affiliations with a militant extremist, as all three of these groups emphasize human rights over cultural supremacy.  

The question now remains.  What should the Norwegian government do about Anders Behring Brevik?  The maximum time for imprisonment is twenty-one years, possibly thirty if newer legislation allows for it.  Legal efforts are to determine whether he is declared sane in order to stand trial.  However, it is rather straightforward that the insanity defense will fail, as it has for most nations' legal systems.  The preparation, transportation, and execution of these acts are too complicated for a clinically insane individual, with Brevik even confessing that he did, for years, prepare for the attacks.  His ability to discriminate right and wrong is also apparent, because he refused to execute an 11-year-old boy who stood up and said he was two young to die and a 22-year-old who begged for his life.

What do I, the author, have to say about this?  All I do have to say is that there are crimes so heinous and indifferent towards human life to warrant an execution, and incarceration is insufficient for the crime committed.  Although Norway signed on to protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which banned capital punishment during peacetime, it should include an exception cause that excludes Brevik from such a legal loophole that allows such an egregious minimization of his punishment.  Allowing Brevik to face a comparable slap on the wrist for a tragedy and its undue ripple effect.  Such extremes are the reason why some nations, including the United States, refuse to collectively eliminate the death penalty.  Although nations without the death penalty have lower murder rates, such causative arguments by capital punishment dissenters fail to take into account other variables in murder rates.  What nations need to comprehend is that the death penalty is a method of punishment and a legal bargaining tool, as is incarceration and parole.  It better serves justice towards the victims than the accused, and prevents parole of criminals and another chance of committing further crimes.  The only reason it is considered a financial burden to taxpayers is because of the accommodations governments provide to the condemned, such as lethal injection and incarceration prior to execution.  Firing squads and hangings are cheaper, and the pain produced provides even more due justice.  Allowance of multiple life sentences is unnecessary and ridiculous.  If we are to progress as a society, we need to utilize any means necessary for law and order.