Should terrorists get the death penalty?

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea of butchering terrorists like they're lost causes or..... the enemy. Machoness may be the way forward?

He’d came to the country in 2010 yeah, so not quite the same as a home grown terroist. But who knows if he was already radicalised when he got here, or what happened in those five years leading up to the event.

Of course you give them a trial, however, the very fact that they committed an act of terrorism pretty dictates guilt no?

^ Yes but his mind set is important to understand as well.

It's certainly not as simple as what Surtur makes out, that he did it "because of Islam".

As I said, there are several different reasons why, but at the end of the day, he murdered people. Mercilessly. If you want to question the motivation or interrogate for future plots, okay. Kill them after

I still don't get this idea of justified killing in a practical sense.

It goes along with your moral stance I suppose. I don't have a problem with people being killed for certain reasons.

Originally posted by socool8520
It goes along with your moral stance I suppose. I don't have a problem with people being killed for certain reasons.

Exactly.. Not everyone thinks all killing is wrong. Only murder. Identifying when it's murder generally comes down to intent.

Killing someone in anything short of self defence or defense of others
isn’t much better than maiming of torturing someone really. Committing murder doesn’t give someone the right over your life, least of all the government, and whether or not your OK with it doesn’t make it OK.

That, and it’s far cheaper just to lock them up. Like I said, dumb and immoral. 🙁

A distinction between lawful killing and murder is a valid point, perhaps I'm too lenient with terrorists.

This is in reference to Benni's post. It won't let me quote it for some reason.

This is assuming that we think your viewpoint is the only on or the correct one. I don't. I believe there are plenty of reasons the world would be better off without certain individuals. Whether you agree or not doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's only really cheaper because of how corrupt the prison system is imo.

It's a tricky thing. If I have reservations against a death penalty, it's because of something like the fact the state can rationalize a whistleblower as an "enemy of the state" and kill him.

But as a concept, I certainly wouldn't lose much sleep if the Petit murderers, who, raped and tied down some kids and their mom so they can burn to death didn't beat the death penalty by a hair (Because of repeal, I believe)

.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Killing someone in anything short of self defence or defense of others
isn’t much better than maiming of torturing someone really. Committing murder doesn’t give someone the right over your life, least of all the government, and whether or not your OK with it doesn’t make it OK.

You're wrong. Committing crimes that result in a legal execution most certainly does give someone and the government the right to take the life of the murdere.

I think you mean to say that you have the opinion that capital punishment should not be used, right? Because capital punishment most certainly is legal outcome which grants the state the right to execute.

Doth thou agreeth withst thy killing foreth justice?

Originally posted by socool8520
This is in reference to Benni's post. It won't let me quote it for some reason.

This is assuming that we think your viewpoint is the only on or the correct one. I don't. I believe there are plenty of reasons the world would be better off without certain individuals. Whether you agree or not doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's only really cheaper because of how corrupt the prison system is imo.

And the death penalty is more expensive for a number of reasons 1. the due process to establish is much more time consuming when a life is at stake 2. the the incarceration of death row inmates is more intensive 3. lethal injections are very expensive to aquire and administer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. Committing crimes that result in a legal execution most certainly does give someone and the government the right to take the life of the murdere.

I think you mean to say that you have the opinion that capital punishment should not be used, right? Because capital punishment most certainly is legal outcome which grants the state the right to execute.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Doth thou agreeth withst thy killing foreth justice?

No. Execute hopeless individuals who meet the following criteria:

1. Are murderers and refuse rehabilitation and refuse to integrate even in prison.
2. There is 100% evidence that the person committed the murders. Not 70%. 100%. Such as a video surveillance that shows the person pulling up with their car, showing their license plate, and you can clearly see a tattoo on their arm, and the commit the murder on video while their phone showed that they were near that area, at that time. And the blood is all over their clothes and their skin is under the nails of the victim. Basically, so much evidence that it is impossible to deny that the person committed the murder. Before people say that this is a rare case, it's not. Many murder cases have absurd amount of evidence that make it impossible to deny.

If those two conditions are met, don't waste time or resources on that person. Execute them. No appeals, either. Make it a quick execution and trial with execution occurring within one year of indictment (which is not a conviction).

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. Execute hopeless individuals who meet the following criteria:

1. Are murderers and refuse rehabilitation and refuse to integrate even in prison.
2. There is 100% evidence that the person committed the murders. Not 70%. 100%. Such as a video surveillance that shows the person pulling up with their car, showing their license plate, and you can clearly see a tattoo on their arm, and the commit the murder on video while their phone showed that they were near that area, at that time. And the blood is all over their clothes and their skin is under the nails of the victim. Basically, so much evidence that it is impossible to deny that the person committed the murder. Before people say that this is a rare case, it's not. Many murder cases have absurd amount of evidence that make it impossible to deny.

If those two conditions are met, don't waste time or resources on that person. Execute them. No appeals, either. Make it a quick execution and trial with execution occurring within one year of indictment (which is not a conviction).

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, thats why I justified my viewpoint with reasoning. Not asking you to assume anything. On the other hand, what reasons? A person can be removed from society just as effectively with a life time of incarceration. I agree on the need to remove certain persons for the public good, but fail to see how that justifies killing them.

I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation.