Neither is mine, but in this circumstance I'd rather not eat the tiger and let Hitler live.
And yes, animals do kill for sport too. But a major point of my argument is that animals can't understand that what they did was wrong and why. I mean, you can train an animal to not do something (like training your dog to not piss on the carpet), but they'll never understand why they need to do that. As a human, you can understand that. Anders Brevik understood the consequences of killing all those people and he did it to get a message. He knew what he did was wrong but considered it worthwhile to spread his message. And, as it stands, it kind of worked, as he's now some sort of celebrity it seems. So, unlike any animal, a human, this human, did it all understanding the full consequences of his actions. This makes him less than an animal. And since rehabilitation isn't working and won't work in his case and we're 100% sure he did the killings... what's the point keeping him anymore?
- - - Updated - - -
There's a right of freedom too. So, why are criminals in a prison? I mean, we're violating their right to freedom, ain't I right?
See, the argument goes both ways. Criminals are special cases of society, and due to the fact that they don't care about laws/rights, they are not being treated like normal people. Even keeping them imprisoned is proof of that. So why not go further and break more of their rights for the amount of rights they broke? In the end, it's one thing to steal a bread and another to kill 77 people. Yet both actors can be in the same prison, enjoying the same facilities. Even if we ignore punishment and only consider rehabilitation, it takes more effort to bend an iron than a straw. So more extreme actions need to be taken.