SURVEY: Should terrorists be given the death penalty?

[CaptHaddock]

Are we including among "terrorists" USAF pilots of B-52 bombers in Iraq, US military personnel responsible for torturing Iraqi prisoners in contravention of the Geneva Convention, US military drone operators responsible for extensive civilian deaths, and CIA assassins among others?

 

 

[SiamBeast]

I'm hesitant between death penalty and LWOP. Death penalty offers a quick way out if someone waives their appeals, while LWOP is sure to last for decades unless the inmate commits suicide. Tough choice.

[Salerno]

There you go ... thanks for illustrating my point CaptHaddock.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Salerno

[little mary sunshine]

Yes to the question and swift execution!!

[rkidlad]

I think a better question would be, "What is a terrorist?". Seems in the West we have our own definition of the word. 

 

I think it would be far better for the so called secular countries to ensure there's no religion taught in schools. If you can't prove it, it doesn't get taught. 

[Get Real]

All for that! Just don´t shot them. It´s too easy. Beat them to death!

[Emster23]

Saudi Arabian law considers atheism is terrorism.

Punishing family, village whatever is one more reason Nazis were hated, rightfully so.

That Israel does same thing in destroying family home (and not allowing to rebuild) of Palestinians.... victim switches role and becomes persecutor.

[connda]

What is the definition of a terrorist?  Unfortunately it's been made into a trigger word whose meaning can be incredibly broad depending on the intent of the person, entities, or institutions using the word.

[Smarter Than You]

Will the introduction of the death penalty reduce the incidence of terrorism?

[StevieAus]

I recently saw a CCTV clip of the police in London who were responding to the

" terrorists" who had been stabbing people

The three officers each with an automatic weapon jumped out of the car and shot the three dead

Seemed a good way to deal with the isssue 

[Srikcir]

I too did not vote as the term "terrorism" has no exact and universally accepted meaning. It's meaning can be affected by culture, age, religion, heritage, laws (US 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 -"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"), ideology (dictatorship vs democracy), etc. While terrorism defined by death might be eligible for the death penalty, does it excuse permanent injury such as limb loss, paralysis, vegetative state, etc?

 

The death penalty itself might be serve as a "conditional" tool. The death penalty in the case of terrorism resulting in death might be deferred as an incentive to the convicted terrorist to provide information regarding collaborators, cell members and leadership. 

[chrisinth]

Yes, anyone convicted of terrorism should be eligible to receive the death penalty.
 

Yes, they should be eligible for the death penalty, but only if the terrorist act resulted in deaths.

 

No, countries should not make an exception to existing laws for the death penalty.

 

In this world that we are living in now, before any discussion on the death penalty for terrorism is even thought about, a clear definition of "Terrorism" needs to be established as far as the law is concerned. There are far too many things now being cited as acts of terrorism which are in fact criminal acts, but because they involve, no matter how loosely, connections to racism or connections to people involved with illegal organizations they inevitability come under the broad spectrum that has been established.

 

Thequietman in post ID:7 makes an extremely valid point with reference to two examples. the Birmingham 6 and Nelson Mandela. The first reference to the B6 was a case that proved these people were in fact innocent of what they were imprisoned for (even though some were connected to an illegal organization)and the second concerning Nelson Mandela is a perfect example of one man's terrorist and one man's freedom fighter...............

 

Again, on establishing boundaries, it should also be agreed on when someone's human rights are removed. For me this is quite simple; 

 

Any person who is involved in making, deploying or detonation of an explosive device for the reason of injuring or killing innocent people.

 

Anyone giving orders for the making, deployment or detonation of an explosive device for the reason of injuring or killing innocent people.

 

Any person who improvises the use of any vehicle to cause injury or death to innocent bystanders.

 

Any person who picks up a loaded weapon with the intention of wounding or killing innocent people.

 

Of course there are many, many more scenarios but the above 3 spring straight to mind. But this is only my viewpoint and aimed towards the pro-active, to remove the need for court cases for many of these animals and untie the hands of those who can do something about it under the law.

[canuckamuck]

Choice one states: Anyone convicted of terrorism should be eligible to receive the death penalty. 

That means that the penalty is on the table as an option. It does not mean it is mandatory.

Considering the scope of cruelty and cowardice we have seen, e.g., blowing up little girls, I feel the death penalty may in fact be too fair.

But some lines are better left uncrossed.

[Shiver]

If we did that, there would be no government left 

[sawadeeken]

Yes..... The Death Penalty is definitely in order............ Unless their backpack goes-off accidently before the set time.......... LOL 

[Tofer]

I don't think there is any ambiguity about what constitutes a terrorism act, and by association anyone conducting, planning or assisting in the act are deemed terrorists.

 

As has been noted, death is too good for them and serves their desire for martyrdom. Incarcerate them in a suitably inhospitable penal colony with tools to create their own shelter and seeds to grow their own food, etc. and leave them to suffer. Perhaps start them off with a pig farm! Apart from the ferry to ship them out there, no ongoing cost to the state, and if they are found to be innocent of the charges they can be released.

[khunPer]

I didn't vote, because I think it's better to give them hard time in prison, than creating martyr's. On the other hand, have such prisoners may cause liberation actions, with additional innocent deaths. A difficult questions...

[halloween]

12 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I don't think there is any ambiguity about what constitutes a terrorism act, and by association anyone conducting, planning or assisting in the act are deemed terrorists.

 

As has been noted, death is too good for them and serves their desire for martyrdom. Incarcerate them in a suitably inhospitable penal colony with tools to create their own shelter and seeds to grow their own food, etc. and leave them to suffer. Perhaps start them off with a pig farm! Apart from the ferry to ship them out there, no ongoing cost to the state, and if they are found to be innocent of the charges they can be released.

By historical precedent, they would spend their time killing each other.

[manarak]

voted yes for acts that resulted in deaths.

 

but under following preconditions:

- proof of culpability must be irrefutable

- the person was either directly involved in the deaths, has ordered the attack or had precise knowledge about it and failed to act to prevent it

[Tofer]

13 minutes ago, halloween said:

By historical precedent, they would spend their time killing each other.

I knew it was a good plan...

[observer90210]

9 hours ago, thequietman said:

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 .......................

witty!!....excellent!

[observer90210]

4 hours ago, StevieAus said:

I recently saw a CCTV clip of the police in London who were responding to the

" terrorists" who had been stabbing people

The three officers each with an automatic weapon jumped out of the car and shot the three dead

Seemed a good way to deal with the isssue 

there is a difference in legal and fully justified  use of lethal force on red handed criminals and use of the death penalty in a court of law, sir, IMHO!

 

as for the terror attacks we are used to in western nations, usually the perpetrators consider death as an entrance to paradise through martyrdom , which makes them naturally much more crazy and dangerous then your usual criminal of "common crimes"

 

[observer90210]

Those who hastly voted for death, could consider the following situation.

 

Remember the BBC journalist, booked for carrying a weapon of war in Thailand? (he had a flask vest in his luggage just to do his job safely)..

 

By Thai law, weather you approve or disapprove, a bullet proof military grade vest is considered as a weapon of war.... ..

 

Thus, under recommendations from the TV community, death penalty has been instaured for anybody convicted of terrorism, that naturally includes possession of a "weapon of war"....

So the Brit journalist has his head seperated for the rest!!!...

 

So how'dya feel now? .... still "yes" for the supreme sentence of law?

Edited June 25, 2017 by observer90210

[anon7867763]

I vote no. I wouldn´t want to put that power in the hands of the state as many states engage / promote terrorist activities themselves. Also there would be many innocent people convicted as terrorists simply for protesting against their government. I can think of one country right now.

[observer90210]

Just now, johnsnapo said:

I vote no. I wouldn´t want to put that power in the hands of the state as many states engage / promote terrorist activities themselves. Also there would be many innocent people convicted as terrorists simply for protesting against their government. I can think of one country right now.

I'm sure you meant Turkey that comes to mind?

[anon7867763]

1 minute ago, observer90210 said:

I'm sure you meant Turkey that comes to mind?

That one as well !

 

[chrisinth]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

I don't think there is any ambiguity about what constitutes a terrorism act, and by association anyone conducting, planning or assisting in the act are deemed terrorists.

 

As has been noted, death is too good for them and serves their desire for martyrdom. Incarcerate them in a suitably inhospitable penal colony with tools to create their own shelter and seeds to grow their own food, etc. and leave them to suffer. Perhaps start them off with a pig farm! Apart from the ferry to ship them out there, no ongoing cost to the state, and if they are found to be innocent of the charges they can be released.

The above is a prime example of what is classed as terrorism for a lot of people. Actually its not, that is associating a religion, or rather their beliefs, to encompass the spectrum of terrorism.

 

Not all terrorists want martyrdom. Nor would all terrorists object to working on a pig farm.

[sirineou]

I have no problem with the death penalty I have a problem with those administering it

You all complain about the corruption of our politicians  yet you want to give them the power of life and death over you.

The death penalty for terrorists sound like a good idea until you are branded a terrorist.  

One mans terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter.

Edited June 25, 2017 by sirineou

[Bigstef]

Firts i will give them 3 years of imposed labour.....Then try some brainwashing similar to clockwork orange.....Then if it's not working 

[Shroud]

How would you enforce the death penalty when the terrorist already blew himself up? 

 

Terror laws do more harm for ordinary people than terrorists in general as liberties are slowly but gently eradicated.