Friday, August 18th | 26 Av 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 18, 2012 1:17 pm

In Norway You can Murder 77 People and Still Enjoy Retirement

avatar by Shmuley Boteach

Email a copy of "In Norway You can Murder 77 People and Still Enjoy Retirement" to a friend

Portrait photograph of Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway.

When I lived in England I got used to my British friends regularly taking digs at how primitive America is compared to enlightened Europe. To be sure, most of the time the mocking denigration was done in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, and they really weren’t looking to offend me as an American. Still, the taunts were said with conviction. Today it continues, with my friends in England who hear I’m running for Congress asking me why I would want to be part of America’s fundamentalist, right-wing shift.

One of the foremost examples cited by Europeans as to America becoming a country of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals is the fact that we still have the death penalty while Europe has abolished it utterly. I’m wondering, therefore, what my European friends are currently thinking about Anders Behring Breivik who yesterday pleaded not guilty to the massacre in Norway of 77 people, most of whom were teenagers. Breivik cited “self-defense” as the reason for his rampage seeing as he was trying to stop Norway from being overrun by Muslims. He added chillingly, “I would have done it again.”

And here’s the best part. If Breivik is found to be mentally competent, which observers say is likely, the toughest sentence Norwegian law can mete out is twenty-one years, though he may still remain incarcerated if he is deemed to be a a danger to society. All told, Breivik may be walking the streets by the time he’s 55.

Counter to my European friends’ claims that the death penalty is abhorrent, I would ask them whether they felt that seeing a man who killed 77 people sipping a latte on a sidewalk café is not more so. My close friend Dennis Prager, the well-known author radio host, once said that the death penalty, where it is truly warranted, is actually the more compassionate thing to do since the idea of a mass murderer being freed from prison inflicts a sadistic cruelty on the families of the murderer’s victims who demand justice.

Related coverage

August 17, 2017 3:45 pm
0

Mr. President, It’s Time to Stand Up to Evil – An Open Letter to Donald Trump

Dear Mr. President, I do not believe you are a racist or an antisemite, but by your own doing, you have...

To be sure the Talmud famously says that any court that put more than two people in seventy years to death was considered murderous, which just demonstrates how absolutely meticulous and careful any court must be before it metes out the ultimate punishment. But surely Breivik, even according to this most compassionate of opinions, would be one of the two. If a mass murderer of approximately 70 young people merits being freed from  incarceration after just two decades then justice has no meaning and the world we live in is utterly lawless.

In the United States we rightly demanded a full judicial inquiry into the death of Travyon Martin. We were flabbergasted that a 17-year-old armed with Skittles should lie in a grave without a complete investigation. Multiply that now by 77 and imagine Breivik walking the streets in his fifties, enjoying a cool morning breeze.

Europeans can mock us all they want, but one of the distinguishing characteristics of the United States of America is its hatred of evil and its constant preparedness to fight it. Whether it’s our 28,000 troops currently protecting South Korea from the new North Korean thug Kim Jon-Un or our brave service men and women fighting the wicked Taliban, America has always fought tyranny while the rest of the world has often preferred to hide their heads in the sand.

Mass murderers in cold blood are wicked beyond comprehension and do not deserve to walk G-d’s green earth along with the righteous. After a proper inquiry and absolutely fair trial, if found guilty we must dispatch mass killers to the hell they deserve. Leaving them alive to one day walk free is deeply contemptuous of the many lives they have slaughtered and trivializes the unending grief of their surviving relatives.

Likewise, when our nation sees a tyrant and bully like Saddam Hussein who gasses children we remove him from power, just as Britain and France courageously did, along with American air power and following the lead of the brave Libyan people, to Muammar Gaddafi. Which just shows that maybe even Europe admits it has something to learn from us backward Americans.

Fighting evil is not primitive nor Neanderthalic but is rather deeply moral and demonstrates a deep commitment to the infinite value of every human life.

Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi”, is the international best-selling author of 27 books and has just published Kosher Jesus. He is currently running for Congress from New Jersey’s Ninth District. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley. His website is www.shmuleyforcongress.com.

Written in memory of Machla Dabakarov, the mother of a dear friend of Rabbi Shmuley, who passed away last year.

The Algemeiner newspaper delivers breaking news and insightful commentary from Israel, the Middle East and Jewish communities around the world | Host to an international Jewish interest blogger community covering Zionism, Israeli politics, Middle East security, terrorism, Jewish tradition, Jewish art, Jewish culture, Jewish music, Jewish activism, Jewish family and spirituality, interviews, profiles, features, video and much more. Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Amit

    I totally agree, we in Israel impose curfews and roadblocks on ordinary Palestinian civilians while Palestinian terrorists have five star accommodations in our prisons.

    As in the laws of physics, where momentum and energy are conserved, we also have a social “conservation of enforcement” law. If we decrease enforcement on the guilty we must increase enforcement on the innocent to maintain order. Liberals favor this process and so, for example while liberals promote parole for murderers and no death penalty (a decrease in enforcement on the guilty…), they also promote more stringent gun control laws (an increase of enforcement on the innocent).

    This process can also be seen in other issues, such as healthcare, education and social services and is deeply rooted in the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. While conservatives put a large emphasis on the personal responsibility of citizens, liberals place a large emphasis on the responsibility of society.

    So which is more correct? Honestly, I don’t know. I personally am a conservative in issues such as law enforcement and a liberal in education and healthcare.

    I want people to own guns if they wish, but know that misusing them may lead to the loss of one’s own life. I want child murdering terrorists to pay with their lives, while ordinary, honest, hard working Palestinian civilians can lead a normal life. In my opinion this is the just way to conduct ourselves while we negotiate a peaceful resolution to our problems.

Algemeiner.com