SURVEY: Should terrorists be given the death penalty?

[Scott]

Many countries have abolished the death penalty.   In your opinion, would you support a specific exemption of the law to allow countries who do not have the death penalty the option of executing those convicted of acts of terrorism?

[Credo]

No problem with these people getting executed.  

[leeneeds]

Compassion they don't deserve,

but I would give them a quick death

[Orton Rd]

Pointless for Islamic terrorists as that is what they want, death in the service of Allah making them a martyr and then it's paradise for them.  Better to imprison them for the rest of their life but with no access to any religious books, no prayers and no halal meals, that would be a deterant, death is not.

[wgdanson]

21 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Pointless for Islamic terrorists as that is what they want, death in the service of Allah making them a martyr and then it's paradise for them.  Better to imprison them for the rest of their life but with no access to any religious books, no prayers and no halal meals, that would be a deterant, death is not.

Force feed them bacon butties and pork sausages !

[Bluespunk]

That didn't take long. 

[thequietman]

Yeh, the Birmingham 6. They were terrorists, weren't they? On no, wait, they weren't!

 

Nelson Mandela, he was a terrorist, wasn't he? Oh no, wait .......................

[JAG]

That didn't take long. 

I hope that they weren't posting from mobiles. Drooling on the device can cause all sorts of damage...

[Cadbury]

In this survey the word "conviction" is the qualifier. Certainly if guilt is proven beyond all doubt then the death penalty should be applied.

Unfortunately we hear so often where Thai justice does not always run like that and scapegoats can be charged and found guilty by being fitted up without sufficient and even fabricated evidence. This could be done to accommodate individuals and authorities other needs like, protection of guilty party/s, pleasing the boss, loss-of-face factor, collecting rewards, protecting egos and boosting promotion opportunities. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Cadbury

[halloween]

I didn't vote because none of the options fit my view. There are good arguments on both sides. A mandatory death penalty would make surrender meaningless, making life harder for security forces, and there is always the possibility of false convictions.

OTOH somebody captured wearing a suicide vest obviously cares little about their own life so why should I? Why should we go to the expense of jailing people whose desire is to kill us? There are already reports of terrorists who have been released and go straight back to terrorism.

 

[Scott]

Please remember, not all terrorists are Muslim.   The recent Finsbury Mosque attack is considered terrorism and the perpetrator is not a Muslim:

 

Also, please note that the poll does not say it would be mandatory, just that they would be 'eligible for the death penalty.'

[Bluespunk]

If someone is leading a movement supported by the majority of the people, but opposed by a ruling elite who allow the complete exploitation of that majority by their supporters, is that person a terrorist?

 

It's a complex and difficult issue. 

 

Armies are not considered terrorist organisations when they fight in conflicts that are believed by their nation to be justified. And quite rightly so. 

 

Trite I know, but it is true that, in some (not all) cases, one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter. 

 

I dont necessarily agree with that. Often it is very clear who or what is terrorism, but in some cases such as Nelson Mandela it is not so clear. 

 

Not that this is any comfort to the victims of violence.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bluespunk

[Lemonltr]

I think it has now got so out of hand and shows no sign of ever ending  that I believe in the death penalty for this horrendous  crime.  And (OK. I don't really mean it)   I dream of them having their penises cut off so at least they would know that the 72 virgins they think they will have would be of absolutely no use to them.

[IMA_FARANG]

I voted NO.

My reasoning was this.....if a terrorist can force a revision of the laws about the death penalty, then the terrorist is the de facto winner.

By Buddhist Dharma revenge is like  poisoned water that will spread it's poison around the world  to all that drink.

[MarcIssan]

Any method that keeps them from doing their dirty work ever again is OK with me.  If there were enough of them caught and convicted, I'd say to build a facility like Gitmo and toss them all there to rot.  Deprive them of basic 'humanity' which they do not deserve, limit mobility, and bore them to the point of suicide.  Problem solved.

[klauskunkel]

If a person commits a deliberate act that is aimed at and results in destroying the lives of innocents, and he/she does it because of political/religious ideology, or monetary gain, or self-gratification, then in my opinion that person is a terrorist. Further, the terrorist deliberately extinguished his own basic human values in favor of those abstract ones and therefore these same  human values can't apply to him/her anymore. So, shoot the creature, it's not human - it's like a virus or parasite. Don't give it funeral rite, it's not human - a landfill will do nicely.

 

To see an example where human values are celebrated as a matter of course: 

 

[bdenner]

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Pointless for Islamic terrorists as that is what they want, death in the service of Allah making them a martyr and then it's paradise for them.  Better to imprison them for the rest of their life but with no access to any religious books, no prayers and no halal meals, that would be a deterant, death is not.

Agreed, there is no point. IMHO:-

Their families (wives, children, parents etc.) and aquaintenses should be IMMEDIATELY deported back to their country of origin.

 

These pricks may not care about their own lives BUT may think twice if the consequences of their actions falls on their loved ones!

 

May not be politically correct but better their families suffer rather than the innocent.

Edited June 25, 2017 by bdenner
Clarification

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, bdenner said:

There is no point. IMHO:-

Their families (wives, children, parents etc.) and aquaintenses should be IMMEDIATELY deported back to their country of origin.

 

These pricks may not care about their own lives BUT may think twice if the consequences of their actions falls on their loved ones!

 

May not be politically correct but better their families suffer rather than the innocent

The families of terrorist scum are not guilty of the scum's actions. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bluespunk

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The families of terrorist scum are not guilty of the scums actions. 

Yes, and no. Most terrorists base their actions on beliefs and attitudes instilled in them when they were very young and genetically predisposed to believing what they are told by their elders. "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man" has been attributed to Aristotle and claimed by the Jesuits, and it is true. If a child is not is not exposed to religion (or other ideology) until they are old enough to reason, it is highly unlikely they will go on to commit terrorist acts in the name of some mythical invisible being.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yes, and no. Most terrorists base their actions on beliefs and attitudes instilled in them when they were very young and genetically predisposed to believing what they are told by their elders. "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man" has been attributed to Aristotle and claimed by the Jesuits, and it is true. If a child is not is not exposed to religion (or other ideology) until they are old enough to reason, it is highly unlikely they will go on to commit terrorist acts in the name of some mythical invisible being.

I have no sympathy for those scum who commit terrorist atrocities the name of a cause or ideology (they are not only faith based). 

 

I'm not sure I can blame their families though.

 

You can see that those who talk to the press/news media are as appalled as we are at what has been done by the terrorist scum. 

 

As I say, it's a complex issue. 

 

Edit

 

responded to wrong post. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bluespunk

[gmac]

19 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I have no sympathy for those scum who commit terrorist atrocities the name of a cause or ideology (they are not only faith based). 

 

I'm not sure I can blame their families though.

 

You can see that those who talk to the press/news media are as appalled as we are at what has been done by the terrorist scum. 

 

As I say, it's a complex issue. 

 

Edit

 

responded to wrong post. 

It's not really a case of blaming the families, more about giving the potential terrorist a disincentive to carry out his/her proposed action if his own family will suffer as a result.

Edited June 25, 2017 by gmac

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, gmac said:

It's not really a case of blaming the families, more about giving the potential terrorist a disincentive to carry out his/her proposed action if his own family will suffer as a result.

It doesn't work in the occupied territories in Israel/Palestine and I don't see how it would work here. 

 

Apart from the fact it would be wrong to punish the innocent for the crimes of terrorist scum, it would only give strength to the propaganda efforts of those scum who promote violence and terror in the name of their bigoted ideology. 

[NoshowJones]

I voted for the first one, of course they should get the death penalty, but only if they are caught in the act and there is no chance 

of an innocent person being convicted.

About choice no 3. The people who voted for this one surely must be for religious reasons, otherwise they

must be terrorists sympathisers or even terrorists themselves, am I wrong here?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I voted for the first one, of course they should get the death penalty, but only if they are caught in the act and there is no chance 

of an innocent person being convicted.

About choice no 3. The people who voted for this one surely must be for religious reasons, otherwise they

must be terrorists sympathisers or even terrorists themselves, am I wrong here?

I can only answer for myself.

 

Yes, you are wrong. 

[NoshowJones]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I can only answer for myself.

 

Yes, you are wrong. 

Yes you are right, maybe I am wrong, as one poster has already said, feed them with bacon sandwiches and pork sausages rammed down their throats.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, possum1931 said:

Yes you are right, maybe I am wrong, as one poster has already said, feed them with bacon sandwiches and pork sausages rammed down their throats.

I wouldn't do that either. 

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Force feed them bacon butties and pork sausages !

Yes that would have detered the IRA big time !

[retarius]

Terrorism is just another crime. They should be treated as criminals and have exactly the same rights. There should be no death penalty.

[Salerno]

Voted the first option as I support the death penalty under specific criteria therefore, I see no reason why a convicted "terrorist" meeting those criteria should be any different. That said, the use of the word terrorist needs to be cut back as it's now up there with the misuse/overuse as others such as the "racist" word.