A failed execution
The failed execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee makes the paradox almost grotesque. Pike was convicted of a horrific murder. The victim, 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, must never be forgotten, and nothing in the criticism of the death penalty should diminish the gravity of the crime. But it is precisely when the crime is at its worst that our principles are revealed. Can a state governed by the rule of law say that killing is wrong without killing itself?
Tennessee tried to execute Pike by lethal injection. The state failed. This created the absurd situation in which one public system first tried to end her life while another public system had to try to save it. This is the moral collapse of the death penalty compressed into a few hours.
Norway voted for – the US against
But the problem is bigger than one execution and bigger than the United States. Why has humanity not long since abolished the death penalty everywhere? Norway has done so. Europe has largely done so. Yet states continue to kill people after conviction. In December 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty, with 130 votes in favour and 32 countries voting against. Norway voted in favour. The United States voted against.
That ought to spark a far bigger debate when the country that constantly speaks loudest about the free world finds itself on the opposite side from Norway on such a fundamental question.
What exactly is meant to be corrected?
But we should dare to go even further. What is the purpose of a modern penal system? Is the purpose revenge, or is it to protect society, create justice and attempt rehabilitation?
Americans themselves use the term “correctional facility”. It sounds almost humane. Correction means rectifying, improving or rehabilitating. But what exactly is meant to be corrected when a human being is sentenced to 150, 300 or 500 years in prison? No one can serve 500 years. What is to be rehabilitated when the sentence already tells the inmate that the door will never open again? And how absurd does the word “correction” become when the final correction consists of leading the inmate into an execution chamber and killing them?
We have created a language that dresses up brutality.
A society must of course be able to protect itself against dangerous people. Some people commit crimes so serious that society must be protected from them for a very long time, in some cases for the rest of their lives. But protecting society is something other than revenge. Prison must not become a modern grave where people are placed alive and forgotten.
That is why Norway too should take the debate beyond the death penalty alone. What is a humane punishment? How long should a person be punished? Should rehabilitation be real, or just a nice word the authorities use? Should even the worst criminal retain a chance to show change, while the interests of victims and the safety of society are safeguarded?
Principles must also apply to friends
Norway has a special responsibility because we actually hold a different penal ideal. The death penalty has been abolished, and Norway has worked internationally for more countries to do the same. But then it is not enough to be opposed to the death penalty in principle on paper.
Norway must dare to use its voice.
Not only when Iran executes. Not only when Saudi Arabia executes. Not only when countries we already disagree with politically violate principles we claim to defend. Norway must be able to say the same to our most important ally.
The United States must abolish the death penalty NOW!
Norway should raise this more clearly in its dialogue with Washington, support international efforts towards abolition and work through the UN for a global moratorium as a first step towards a universal ban. At the same time, Norway should challenge the whole idea of sentences of several hundred years. What kind of rehabilitation is possible when the state has already decided at sentencing that the convicted person will never get a second chance?
Principles are most valuable when they are also applied to friends.
Human rights are not geopolitics
Human rights cannot be geopolitics. They cannot apply harshly to the enemy and gently to allies. They cannot be American, Norwegian, Chinese or Iranian. Either human dignity is universal, or human rights are reduced to political slogans used when convenient.
It is time for the world to abolish the death penalty. It is also time to discuss sentences of several hundred years and prison systems that talk about “correction” when rehabilitation has in reality been made impossible.
And Norway should be among the countries saying this the loudest.
Including to the United States. Perhaps especially to the United States.
