Of course I think he ought to be killed. The thing is, Norway has no need to reinstate the death penalty just for him, then repeal it (like with Vidkun Quisling after the war; the Norwegian government in exile had reintroduced the death penalty in response to the occupation, then repealed it after executing him and several other collaborators).

Instead, Norway should've granted his request to be court-martialed, then the military authorities should've given him the status of an unlawful combatant and executed him for a war crime. Problem solved, and given the unusual nature of his request, it shouldn't create much of a precedent.

...

Norway might not have a death penalty, but Norwegians are probably OK with having a military, and a military's role does cover stopping violent insurgents with lethal force. What it does is defence, not judgment. Like I said, by accepting Breivik's narrative of his "insurgency", Norway can use an extraordinary circumstance to justify an extraordinary response, and then return to "normality".

You do realize you are thinking like Moldbug here right? Just saying.

(Jeez, I just realized this sounds a little like Carl Schmitt. Ah well, fascist times call for fascist measures.)

Ah you do! :)

"Accepting Breivik's narrative" sounds even less appealing. Why give him the satisfaction? Just lock him up til he dies of old age. Whether or not the Norwegian government could legally justify his execution has little bearing on whether they'd want to execute him in the first place. I think you underestimate the amount of smug self-satisfaction derived from looking down on the "barbaric" states that still have the death penalty.

Well, they did more-or-less this with Quisling.