Europe’s Leniency Is Killing Its Citizens

Michael J. Hout is the Editor of Liberty Affair. He lives in Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on X: @michaeljhout

Friday’s attack on a Magdeburg Christmas market, a place meant to embody the joy and unity of the Christmas season, was a horrific reminder of the existential challenges Europe faces. Innocent people, celebrating a cherished tradition, were killed, maimed, and brutalized in a heinous act of terror. This tragedy, part of a chilling pattern of attacks over the past decade, exposes a stark reality: Europe’s current justice systems are failing to deter terrorists. Acts of barbarity like this demand a justice system that unequivocally prioritizes the safety of innocent citizens over the rights of murderers. Stricter punishments, including a return to capital punishment, are necessary if Europe is to stem the tide of terrorism and restore a sense of security to its people.

Europe’s justice systems have been paralyzed by leniency. Life sentences rarely mean life. Parole systems, overburdened legal frameworks, and an obsessive focus on rehabilitation ensure that even the most heinous perpetrators can hope for eventual freedom. The consequences are plain to see. Terrorists, regardless of their ideology, exploit these weaknesses with full knowledge that their crimes will not be met with punishments proportionate to the suffering they inflict. Beyond weak sentences, Europe’s failure to deport dangerous individuals compounds the issue, allowing known threats to remain within its borders.

Preventable Threats: Europe’s Deportation Failures

Anis Amri, the perpetrator of the 2016 Berlin Christmas market attack, is a glaring example. Amri was a failed asylum seeker with a lengthy criminal record, flagged by intelligence agencies but never apprehended in time. He remained in Germany because his home country of Tunisia reportedly could not guarantee his “humane treatment.” Instead, Amri stayed in Europe, evaded law enforcement, and went on to murder 12 people and injure dozens more. This tragedy was preventable, yet the failure to deport Amri illustrates a recurring pattern. Time and again, individuals flagged as security risks are allowed to stay in Europe, often with devastating consequences.

While Amri and others exploited Europe’s weak deportation policies, the broader issue of lenient punishment remains pervasive, regardless of the perpetrator’s background. Anders Behring Breivik, for instance, carried out one of the deadliest mass killings in modern European history, meticulously planning and executing the murders of 77 people. Breivik’s case demonstrates a different but equally disturbing failure of justice systems: he received just 21 years in prison, the maximum penalty under Norwegian law. Even with preventive detention provisions, there is a real possibility that he could one day walk free. For the families of his victims, this is an unbearable prospect, and for society, it is an appalling message that even the most heinous crimes are often not met with sufficient punishment.

Breivik and Amri committed their atrocities for very different reasons, but both highlight systemic failures in Europe’s justice systems. Whether through inadequate deportation policies or lenient sentences, dangerous individuals are allowed to exploit weaknesses with catastrophic results. Europe’s unwillingness to act decisively invites further aggression and signals that the continent is unwilling to defend its people or its values.

Historical Perspective: Why Capital Punishment Existed

Historically, societies have understood that capital punishment is often necessary to ensure justice and deter heinous crimes. Until the 20th century, capital punishment was a fairly common response to crimes like murder and treason, and at times even lesser crimes. In England, for hundreds of years, the punishment for treason was hanging, drawing, and quartering—a grisly process intended not only to execute but to serve as a powerful deterrent through public spectacle. England, however, was far from unique. In France, executions by guillotine continued into the 20th century, offering both swift punishment and a macabre warning to others. Colonial America frequently used public hangings for violent crimes, and while the “public” component may have largely disappeared in America, media spectacle often accompanies state executions.

These punishments may seem harsh by modern standards, but they reflected an essential principle: some crimes are so grave that they demand the ultimate penalty, not just for retribution but to uphold the moral and social order. They communicated to society that certain acts would not be tolerated and provided a powerful disincentive to those who might contemplate similar offenses. The abandonment of such penalties in modern Europe has coincided with an increase in crimes that shock the conscience—acts of terrorism and mass murder that strike at the very heart of society.

The argument for capital punishment is not about cruelty but justice. Brutal crimes should be met with punishments that reflect their gravity, not with cushy prison cells funded by taxpayers, including the very families whose lives have been shattered by these crimes. Providing murderers with better living conditions than many law-abiding citizens undermines justice and erodes public confidence in the system. Terrorists who slaughter indiscriminately should not be allowed to live comfortably while their victims are left to mourn indefinitely.

Cultural Confidence and the Threat Within

In The Strange Death of Europe (2017), Douglas Murray highlights how unchecked migration and a loss of cultural confidence have left the continent vulnerable to those who exploit its openness. This vulnerability extends to Europe’s justice systems, which too often prioritize the rights of perpetrators over the safety of victims. A society unwilling to punish those who seek its destruction signals weakness and emboldens aggressors. This weakness has real consequences: it invites further attacks and undermines the trust of law-abiding citizens in their institutions.

Contrast this with the approach taken by the Visegrad Four nations—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These countries, often harangued by Brussels for their strict migration policies, have largely avoided the wave of terror attacks that have plagued Western Europe. Poland and Hungary, in particular, have prioritized border security and refused to accept mandatory migrant quotas. While these policies have been derided as xenophobic by their critics, they have succeeded in protecting their citizens from large-scale atrocities. The results speak for themselves: fewer attacks, greater stability, and a populace that does not live in constant fear (myself, living in Warsaw, being among them).

Open Borders: A Policy of Risk

Western Europe, on the other hand, has embraced mass migration without sufficient safeguards. Germany’s Angela Merkel famously opened the borders in 2015, allowing over a million migrants to enter the country in a single year. France and the UK have similarly admitted large numbers of migrants, often with little-to-no vetting. These policies have not only failed to integrate newcomers but have also allowed dangerous individuals to enter and operate unchecked. The consequences are at once tragic and predictable.

While border policy is critical, it is only part of the solution. Europe must also reform its justice systems to prioritize deterrence over leniency. Reinstating capital punishment for terrorism and mass murder would be an important step in this direction. A justice system that allows terrorists to live, in conditions far more comfortable than their victims endured, cannot be taken seriously. Swift and decisive capital punishment for those who commit acts of mass murder would provide both justice for the victims and a powerful deterrent to others who might be tempted to follow in their cowardly footsteps.

Moreover, governments must address the broader failures in their security and immigration systems. Individuals flagged as security risks should be immediately deported, even if their home countries have poor human rights records. The safety of European citizens must take precedence over concerns about the treatment of deportees. If dangerous individuals cannot be safely monitored or imprisoned, they should not be allowed to remain in Europe, period. To do otherwise is to invite further tragedies like those in Berlin, Paris, and Manchester.

Will Europe Finally Wake Up?

The Magdeburg attack was a tragedy, but it could also serve as a turning point. Europe must decide whether it will continue down the path of leniency and vulnerability or take a stand to protect its people and preserve its way of life. The choice is clear. It is time to act, and it is time to punish those who seek to destroy us with the severity they deserve. Many lives depend on it. Civilization depends on it. The time for half-measures is over.

Michael J. Hout

Editor of Liberty Affair