SURVEY: Should terrorists be given the death penalty?

[Shiver]

15 hours ago, Tofer said:

I think you'll find that the vast majority of current terrorism acts are carried out by Muslim extremists. I am however willing to stand corrected if you care to highlight any major exceptions. 

 

It clearly is the extremist / terrorists view that these despicable acts are carried out in the name of Islam albeit, I appreciate, not the view of the general Muslim population. I believe the list of countries on Trumps proposed travel ban are all  Islamic countries.

 

The IRA and the ETA are now defunct, and off the top of my head I cannot think of any other major contributor to the current terrorist situation. 

 

So Governments of certain countries don't make it on the list?

[Tofer]

6 hours ago, Shiver said:

 

So Governments of certain countries don't make it on the list?

Such as where?

[LuckyNo4]

define terrorism

[chrisinth]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of current terrorism acts are carried out by Muslim extremists. I am however willing to stand corrected if you care to highlight any major exceptions. 

 

It clearly is the extremist / terrorists view that these despicable acts are carried out in the name of Islam albeit, I appreciate, not the view of the general Muslim population. I believe the list of countries on Trumps proposed travel ban are all  Islamic countries.

 

The IRA and the ETA are now defunct, and off the top of my head I cannot think of any other major contributor to the current terrorist situation. 

Sure, currently the majority of terrorist organization are Islamic. There are still functioning groups, FARC as one example. IMO, to say that groups like ETA and IRA are defunct is a mistake; they may have publically decommissioned their weapons but the organization is still there.

 

But more to the point, if the death penalty is passed, what will we class the organizations that will develop in the Western world to counter the Islamic threat? Terrorists or freedom fighters?

 

This will happen, history shows us that........

 

[ddavidovsky]

Terminate with extreme prejudice when caught in the act, but that won't do anything to prevent jihadist terrorism. They've already martyred themselves.

 

Attempt should also be made to understand why they are committing terrorism. They have a grievance. Accepting and understanding that is the first step to addressing the problem. There's no other logic in the elimination of terrorism. Simply screaming 'terrorist!' does no good at all.

Edited July 2, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[MarcIssan]

For those who do not believe  in the death penalty, I disagree with you.  I think there are certain miscreants not fit to live within society and aside from keeping them in prison where the government/taxpayers pick up the tab, and where society runs the risk of these things getting out so they can wreck their kind of havoc on society again, I think they should be eliminated.

 

The problem is society needs a 100% risk free system from mistakes where innocents cannot be executed.  We are not there yet in all cases.  But where the offender is caught without any doubt as the culprit and for certain offences, they should be done away with.  Why spend any more time or money on them?

[anon4546543]

8 hours ago, MarcIssan said:

For those who do not believe  in the death penalty, I disagree with you.  I think there are certain miscreants not fit to live within society and aside from keeping them in prison where the government/taxpayers pick up the tab, and where society runs the risk of these things getting out so they can wreck their kind of havoc on society again, I think they should be eliminated.

 

The problem is society needs a 100% risk free system from mistakes where innocents cannot be executed.  We are not there yet in all cases.  But where the offender is caught without any doubt as the culprit and for certain offences, they should be done away with.  Why spend any more time or money on them?

Murder is murder whether state sanctioned or criminal caused.

There are some miscreants and deranged persons but all evidence

suggests that murdering your citizens does not cause a fall in crime

or murder by these "citizens".

Instead, some become martyrs, some are falsely accused, some are dissidents.

Some are the result of state and federal corruption.

Some are from police thuggery.

Either way murder is murder.

You demean democracy when the state becomes a murderer.

[Tofer]

48 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Murder is murder whether state sanctioned or criminal caused.

There are some miscreants and deranged persons but all evidence

suggests that murdering your citizens does not cause a fall in crime

or murder by these "citizens".

Instead, some become martyrs, some are falsely accused, some are dissidents.

Some are the result of state and federal corruption.

Some are from police thuggery.

Either way murder is murder.

You demean democracy when the state becomes a murderer.

Rubbish! Murder is a premeditated criminal act. The death sentence is a legally sanctioned punishment. You reap what you sow!

[anon4546543]

11 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Rubbish! Murder is a premeditated criminal act. The death sentence is a legally sanctioned punishment. You reap what you sow!

And murder of criminals is not a premeditated act?

 

When you lower your moral standards, you lower your respect for human life.

You then become the same as those who do not respect human life.

 

As for "sowing what you reap"

This is a quote from JC. but it was meant in personal terms, not a vindictive statement.

 

 Indeed should you claim to be a "Christian",  you will find that "turning the other cheek",

"bless them that curse you" and so on is more in line with true Christianity rather than

with the prior Jewish beliefs. (an eye for an eye).  Murder whether state sanctioned or not is criminal.

 

In many civilised countries, murder by the state is not legally sanctioned.

I quote again.

Cowboys and samurai - sense their faults and their virtues and you have practically

and comparatively psychoanalysed two nations.

Walt Sheldon, Enjoy Japan. (Tokyo, Tuttle, 1968)  

 

 

 

 

 

[Shiver]

On 6/30/2017 at 6:01 PM, Tofer said:

Such as where?

USA is the major one, along with all their lap dog countries (unfortunately including the one I come from).

 

I shouldn't say USA as that is the people, the constitution and all the stuff to aspire to.  I should say US the corporation, or D.C that are snakes in the grass..

[Shiver]

On 6/30/2017 at 6:20 PM, LuckyNo4 said:

define terrorism

It's war on an abstract noun, creating the 'enemy' alluded to, to fight it (except not really) but that's their pitch.  Throw in a few people of colour/religion/ethnicity for seasoning that are easy to point out and... you got you a pitch fork army of supporters.

[hawker9000]

12 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Murder is murder whether state sanctioned or criminal caused.

There are some miscreants and deranged persons but all evidence

suggests that murdering your citizens does not cause a fall in crime

or murder by these "citizens".

Instead, some become martyrs, some are falsely accused, some are dissidents.

Some are the result of state and federal corruption.

Some are from police thuggery.

Either way murder is murder.

You demean democracy when the state becomes a murderer.

"Murder is murder whether state sanctioned or criminal caused."

 

This gets repeated a lot by the ignorant and hyperbolic opponents of the death penalty.  By definition, murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of human being.  Look it up.  Execution imposed as the result of due process IS lawful, whether you happen to approve or not, and therefore not murder.  Neither is the taking of another life in self-defense.   It's just something you don't personally approve of.   Big deal.

[PeCeDe]

Anyone that's attended a law school, knows the "whether to execute," for or against, upside down and backwards, and there's never a clear winner. But, many of these people have committed such grave crimes against humanity that it's my belief not even God would turn a forgiving eye. Having come of age in the 60's, I never thought I would see the day I would support execution, but these people have lowered themselves to the very depths of human shame. Let it be on my conscience. 

[tubby johnson]

Use their savage corpses as pig food.

[anon4546543]

16 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"Murder is murder whether state sanctioned or criminal caused."

 

This gets repeated a lot by the ignorant and hyperbolic opponents of the death penalty.  By definition, murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of human being.  Look it up.  Execution imposed as the result of due process IS lawful, whether you happen to approve or not, and therefore not murder.  Neither is the taking of another life in self-defense.   It's just something you don't personally approve of.   Big deal.

If it is no big deal, don't bother responding to my posts.

Murder is unlawful and how many innocent citizens were murdered by the state is beyond dispute.

 As is the murder of mentally disturbed citizens that the state chose not to treat prior to the incidents that lead

to murder by the insane and and then to the state to murder them.

Murdering your citizens does not lead to a fall in crime, it may make "you" personally to feel better, but it is just a symptom to a failing of the state.

So call me ignorant. That probably makes you feel a lot better too. 

[jaywalker]

On 6/24/2017 at 10:23 PM, wgdanson said:

Force feed them bacon butties and pork sausages !

Next wrap them in a wet, fresh, bloody pigskin prior to shooting them & bury them in it.

[steven100]

1 hour ago, jaywalker said:

Next wrap them in a wet, fresh, bloody pigskin prior to shooting them & bury them in it.

before that put them underneath a grated floor pig pen for a couple of days ....

[anon4546543]

1 hour ago, jaywalker said:

Next wrap them in a wet, fresh, bloody pigskin prior to shooting them & bury them in it.

Charming. This is your solution. Better spray some more red paint on your neck.

[jaywalker]

3 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Charming. This is your solution. Better spray some more red paint on your neck.

I'll pick up some pink & yellow paint for you while I'm at it.

[hawker9000]

6 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

If it is no big deal, don't bother responding to my posts.

Murder is unlawful and how many innocent citizens were murdered by the state is beyond dispute.

 As is the murder of mentally disturbed citizens that the state chose not to treat prior to the incidents that lead

to murder by the insane and and then to the state to murder them.

Murdering your citizens does not lead to a fall in crime, it may make "you" personally to feel better, but it is just a symptom to a failing of the state.

So call me ignorant. That probably makes you feel a lot better too. 

No, you misunderstood.  What's "no big deal" is your personal opinion on the matter.  And it's no bother refuting factually incorrect garbage about what "murder is".  That you stubbornly persist in parroting the misinformation is a reflection on you, not anyone else.   Whatever it might not be in your self-important universe notwithstanding, execution pursuant to due process most definitely IS lawful and therefore NOT murder.  You're just being petulant:   "is so, is so, is SOoooooo".   LOL     'Funny in a pathetic kind of way, but in the world of comedy I guess quite du jour..

 

Executing ACTUAL murderers obviously DOES prevent them from committing any further murders.  To most third graders and up, this is fairly obvious.  Once the death penalty is applied uniformly, predictably, and in a reasonably timely manner (NONE of which has even been remotely true for more than half a century now), we can discuss whether it deters crime or not.  Until then,  it's just pointy-headed, out-of-touch, academics getting stipends & subsidies to conduct "studies" and write "scholarly articles" for whoever's paying for them and a naïve and extremely gullible crowd who only hear what they want to hear.

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

4 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

No, you misunderstood.  What's "no big deal" is your personal opinion on the matter.  And it's no bother refuting factually incorrect garbage about what "murder is".  That you stubbornly persist in parroting the misinformation is a reflection on you, not anyone else.   Whatever it might not be in your self-important universe notwithstanding, execution pursuant to due process most definitely IS lawful and therefore NOT murder.  You're just being petulant:   "is so, is so, is SOoooooo".   LOL     'Funny in a pathetic kind of way, but in the world of comedy I guess quite du jour..

 

Executing ACTUAL murderers obviously DOES prevent them from committing any further murders.  To most third graders and up, this is fairly obvious.  Once the death penalty is applied uniformly, predictably, and in a reasonably timely manner (NONE of which has even been remotely true for more than half a century now), we can discuss whether it deters crime or not.  Until then,  it's just pointy-headed, out-of-touch, academics getting stipends & subsidies to conduct "studies" and write "scholarly articles" for whoever's paying for them and a naïve and extremely gullible crowd who only hear what they want to hear.

 

 

There's plenty of countries with the death penalty we can draw on for information ... the US for example.

What's the murder rate like in the US compared to similar countries that don't have the death penalty?

 

 

How about executing innocent people?

How many murders does that OBVIOUSLY prevent?

 

 

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, Smarter Than You said:

There's plenty of countries with the death penalty we can draw on for information ... the US for example.

What's the murder rate like in the US compared to similar countries that don't have the death penalty?

 

 

How about executing innocent people?

How many murders does that OBVIOUSLY prevent?

 

 

 

 

I suspect the murder rate would be a higher without the death penalty as, in theory, it should deter at least some those murders which are done with full presence of mind (but as those are probably a minority, the effect is probably slight).

 

By the way (off topic), that chart indicates the failure of multicultural nations socially, albeit that they are more successful economically. Interesting paradox.

 

For terrorists, capital punishment is not about prevention (they've already martyred themselves), it's about retribution.

 

[Smarter Than You]

11 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I suspect the murder rate would be a higher without the death penalty as, in theory, it should deter at least some those murders which are done with full presence of mind (but as those are probably a minority, the effect is probably slight).

 

By the way (off topic), that chart indicates the failure of multicultural nations socially, albeit that they are more successful economically. Interesting paradox.

 

For terrorists, capital punishment is not about prevention (they've already martyred themselves), it's about retribution.

 

Well, I suspect the murder rate would be exactly as it is because the death penalty simply doesn't work as a deterrent.

What are you thinking, someone contemplating murder will rationally decide to proceed if the punishment is a "mere" life imprisonment but opt out if there's a death penalty?

How silly.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, Smarter Than You said:

Well, I suspect the murder rate would be exactly as it is because the death penalty simply doesn't work as a deterrent.

What are you thinking, someone contemplating murder will rationally decide to proceed if the punishment is a "mere" life imprisonment but opt out if there's a death penalty?

How silly.

 

 

I did say 'in theory'. Still, I don't think you can't assume that all murder is totally irrational. There will be borderline cases in which the murderer is going through an internal debate with themselves.

 

In any case, deterrence is not the main argument, which is revenge. The argument against capital punishment seems to me mainly sentimental. But if someone's sister was brutally murdered, and they didn't want the murderer executed on 'humane' grounds, I would have to question their sanity.  I'm not sure what possible advantage that kind of sensitivity can be to mankind. I mainly take an evolutionary perspective, and evolution is not so thin-skinned.

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

I did say 'in theory'. Still, I don't think you can't assume that all murder is totally irrational. There will be borderline cases in which the murderer is going through an internal debate with themselves.

 

In any case, deterrence is not the main argument, which is revenge. The argument against capital punishment seems to me mainly sentimental. But if someone's sister was brutally murdered, and they didn't want the murderer executed on 'humane' grounds, I would have to question their sanity.  I'm not sure what possible advantage that kind of sensitivity can be to mankind. I mainly take an evolutionary perspective, and evolution is not so thin-skinned.

 

 

There's actually people that would prefer death to life in jail.

Life in jail, without the possibility of parole, is a very, very harsh sentence.

If a life sentence doesn't deter a potential murderer, it is quite a stretch to say the death penalty will.

 

There are only two arguments for the death penalty - vengeance and cost savings (although, in the west, putting someone to death is a very expensive process mostly negating this argument)

Weighing vengeance against the risk of executing innocents and the discriminatory application of capital punishment - the answer is easy.

In the modern world, capital punishment is unnecessary.

 

(Have you seen the series Making a Murderer, if so what punishment do you think Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey should have received?)

 

There are many evolutionary benefits to altruism.

(The altruism in this case would be victims giving up their "right" to vengeance for the benefit of society having a legal system that doesn't mistakenly execute innocent people or over target particular races or groups such as the poor).

[ddavidovsky]

45 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

There's actually people that would prefer death to life in jail.

Life in jail, without the possibility of parole, is a very, very harsh sentence.

If a life sentence doesn't deter a potential murderer, it is quite a stretch to say the death penalty will.

 

There are only two arguments for the death penalty - vengeance and cost savings (although, in the west, putting someone to death is a very expensive process mostly negating this argument)

Weighing vengeance against the risk of executing innocents and the discriminatory application of capital punishment - the answer is easy.

In the modern world, capital punishment is unnecessary.

 

(Have you seen the series Making a Murderer, if so what punishment do you think Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey should have received?)

 

There are many evolutionary benefits to altruism.

(The altruism in this case would be victims giving up their "right" to vengeance for the benefit of society having a legal system that doesn't mistakenly execute innocent people or over target particular races or groups such as the poor).

Points noted. Obviously the risk of executing innocents has to be ruled out. It should only for people caught in the act, or for whom the evidence is absolutely conclusive. The law has screwed up on that in the past.

Take away the possibility of mistakes (that's your only objection) and you will logically have to change your position on this entirely.

Morally, I think you are making the same mistake that even people like Richard Dawkins makes: you are assuming that the whole world is as intellectual, sensitive and sophisticated as you. Fact is, the masses aren't.

 

However, having said all that, I can think of another argument against capital punishment which is that it sends to the criminal the message: "society doesn't hold life inviolable, so why should you?"

Well, it's that versus the satisfaction of vengeance plus the arguable deterrent value. I'm in favour of it, assuming the conviction is clear.

[Smarter Than You]

32 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Points noted. Obviously the risk of executing innocents has to be ruled out. It should only for people caught in the act, or for whom the evidence is absolutely conclusive. The law has screwed up on that in the past.

Take away the possibility of mistakes (that's your only objection) and you will logically have to change your position on this entirely.

Morally, I think you are making the same mistake that even people like Richard Dawkins makes: you are assuming that the whole world is as intellectual, sensitive and sophisticated as you. Fact is, the masses aren't.

 

However, having said all that, I can think of another argument against capital punishment which is that it sends to the criminal the message: "society doesn't hold life inviolable, so why should you?"

Well, it's that versus the satisfaction of vengeance plus the arguable deterrent value. I'm in favour of it, assuming the conviction is clear.

"Capital punishment is not the answer. There are many reasons why, but one is paramount. It has nothing to do with respect for the murderer, or his rights, or the supposed sanctity of his dangerous life. Rather, it has everything to do with respect for ourselves, and the kind of society we should strive to have. The point is simple: we should refuse to lower ourselves to a level anywhere near the murderer's own."

 

The Last Word on Capital Punishment - AC Grayling

Edited July 5, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[MarcIssan]

I see this as 'cause and effect' and the first one to start the process is the perpetrator.  Had there been no crime there would be no punishment.  So if someone kills a citizen in anger or jealousy, or road rage, or in the conduct of a crime, the perp brought on the punishment that has long been established and voted in as right and just for the crime committed.

 

I also find it hard to extend sympathy to this perp (the example I have in mind is a repeat offender and one whose history in jail after jail shows them to show little interest in conforming to society).

 

Admittedly there are an abundance of circumstances that make one crime different from another but I dare say that a first offender likely will have other chances given before ending up on death row.

 

A death row inmate  who decries hanging as cruel and unusual punishment might want to look at the crime or list of crimes that brought this individual to that end and were not some or all of those crimes cruel and unusual to the victim?