Forums → WEPR → Death sentence for terrorists
| 17 | 13198 |
There is a huge debate here in Israel about a new law some right wing party is trying to pass.
The law claim that any person who was proven guilty of taking terrorist action againat civilians can be sentenced to death. They even claim that supporting a terrorist act first handly (like driving a suicide bomber to its target or building a bomb) can get you sentenced to death.
Firstly, I am nost a religious person, so the claim "You are not god and cant choose who live and who dont" dosent affect me. A country DO choose who die and who dosent if neccesery.
Secondely, this is not your normal death sentence thread. Here you dont talk about a simple murdurer with a criminal ideas, but a person who murder another person just because the murderer belive in some ideaoligy that claim that his cause make the victim a target.
I will be glad to hear your opinions.
- 17 Replies
The motivation behind a murder, be it a "simple" murderer or a terrorist, seems totally irrelevant to me; a murder was committed and must be sentenced appropriately. I am personally against death sentence; it is no different in this case.
One argument that comes to mind for this specific situation is that those who usually commit the actual assault are brain-washed zealots who have been manipulated to become suicide attackers. I am no psychologist but I would claim that there is still hope for such people. There would be much less hope, for example, for a chief that has formed their opinion themselves.
In the end this is mostly a political measure. The political right wants to make examples of the sentenced, not realising that it won't change much. I have a question though, @danielo : what is the current situation? How has Israel handled such people until now?
@hahiha up until now they were sent to a speical prison for these who were found guilty in terrorism. They had 2 visits per week and had accsess for high education as well as courses for completing high school diploma and such. Every once in a while Israel would release many of them (not the "big ones" but lesser members) in all kinds of trades or "good will".
Many joking about the "spinning door" of this prison, as many of the prisoners come and go many times, getting cought, released and then go back for violence. Some even keep commanding their units from prison, has they have accsess for phones and stuffs. They even made a radio from iron sheets and sticks. They have a library and work councils and all the syuffs you will find in a modern prison. They have rooms of 5 if i remmeber correctly.
I can see why one would want to change the system; the way you described it, it doesn't sound all too efficient. However, I don't think the logical step is to kill them. Are they supervised by psychologists and imams at all?
The motivation behind a murder, be it a "simple" murderer or a terrorist, seems totally irrelevant to me; a murder was committed and must be sentenced appropriately.
I both agree and disagree with this statement. The motivation behind a murder is the defining difference between what degree of murder it is, and thus affects what sentencing is appropriate. Even for those that don't approve of the death penalty, there's a big difference between accidentally killing someone during a heated fight (second degree murder) and planning someone's death for personal gain (first degree murder). I do agree with the sentiment that murders committed in the name of terrorism should still be punished as murders, though. In the US, people who plan or work together to commit a crime are equally guilty of all aspects of that crime even if only one of them committed the actual act. That is an idea I agree with and I'd say the same should hold true for terrorists.
One argument that comes to mind for this specific situation is that those who usually commit the actual assault are brain-washed zealots who have been manipulated to become suicide attackers. I am no psychologist but I would claim that there is still hope for such people.
Calling them brainwashed would imply that terrorists used torture to manipulate the way suicide bombers think. In reality, the people have already been zealots their whole life before joining terrorist organizations, and join either because they believe it is right to kill infidels or because they're desperate for a way to support their family. Neither motivation provides much, if any, room for rehabilitation.
I come from a more militaristic culture than most in the U.S and I would say death sentences should be "given". My kin, my brothers and I are thousands of miles from the front lines of the civil war that forced our parents to be here and we in our short lives have never seen war however we would put everything on the line to defend our ancestral land simply from the pride of our ethnic race, remember I give you one reason as to why I would give my life away. The terrorist mindset is sadly not so different from ours but you see, they do monster like things out of pride, hatred, and other reasons. Do you think a person who makes a child swallow a bomb, force them to hug a U.S soldier (or any soldier), then push the button... do you really believe they can be "saved" by human means? They are willing to die and kill for a "heaven" so who are we to keep them from it?
i am for that law. my friends were so surprised when i told them that cause im probably the most gentle person they know.
when a person attacks another person, he has weighted the pros and cons. and the risk is that if your gonna kill someone, you might be killed yourself. nobody should take that responsibility lightly.
plus in our case, we need it even more. all they have to do is kidnap one person of our side, and we release all the terorists back to get that one kidnaped person back (even if it means in the form of a corpse).
plus, maybe that would actually put some fear into people who plan on commiting crimes.
also i want to mention, is that so many of them actually end up blowing themselves up (knowingly). if they were so quick on giving up their own life, i dont see why we have to see their life as more valuable then they see their own.
Even for those that don't approve of the death penalty, there's a big difference between accidentally killing someone during a heated fight (second degree murder) [...]That isn't second degree murder. That's voluntary manslaughter.
Calling them brainwashed would imply that terrorists used torture to manipulate the way suicide bombers think.[/quoteUm...What? "Brainwashing" is indoctrination. There's no torture involved.Well, no, usually they haven't considered it at all. Blind rage and thought-avoidance don't really make for rational decision-making.[quote]when a person attacks another person, he has weighted the pros and cons. and the risk is that if your gonna kill someone, you might be killed yourself. nobody should take that responsibility lightly.
plus in our case, we need it even more. all they have to do is kidnap one person of our side, and we release all the terorists back to get that one kidnaped person back (even if it means in the form of a corpse).That isn't anything like how prisoner exchanges work.
That isn't anything like how prisoner exchanges work.
In what way? Gilad shalit was traded for 1027 convicted terrorists, many if not all murderers with "blood on their hands". Two corpses of soliders who were "kiddnaped" (they were dead when Hizbhulla took them) were trade for 205 convicted terrorists, again with blood on their hands.
This is exactly how prisoner exchange go around here. Apearently 1 Israeli solider count as 1000 palestunian terrorists in their eyes.
This is exactly how prisoner exchange go around here. Apearently 1 Israeli solider count as 1000 palestunian terrorists in their eyes.Although I admit, those are both absurdly extreme measures, trading 1027 prisoners for a still-living captive, or 205 prisoners for two corpses, is nowhere near the same as setting all terrorists free for one corpse. Perhaps I should have said that isn't how any sane form of prisoner exchange works.
The motivation behind a murder is the defining difference between what degree of murder it is, and thus affects what sentencing is appropriate. Even for those that don't approve of the death penalty, there's a big difference between accidentally killing someone during a heated fight (second degree murder) and planning someone's death for personal gain (first degree murder).
The moment I had posted I realized I hadn't considered this, admittedly.
I do agree with the sentiment that murders committed in the name of terrorism should still be punished as murders, though. In the US, people who plan or work together to commit a crime are equally guilty of all aspects of that crime even if only one of them committed the actual act. That is an idea I agree with and I'd say the same should hold true for terrorists.
This is what I meant, thank you.
Calling them brainwashed would imply that terrorists used torture to manipulate the way suicide bombers think. In reality, the people have already been zealots their whole life before joining terrorist organizations, and join either because they believe it is right to kill infidels or because they're desperate for a way to support their family. Neither motivation provides much, if any, room for rehabilitation.
Coming from Europe, I am maybe more aware of all the young people from our countries who join the IS because of their propaganda. They were often not zealots to begin with, had other kind of problems that made them easy targets for the lies spread in the internet. What tells me that many can still be 'brought back' is that some came back after fleeing; they had realized how atrocious the IS really was once they were in the middle of it.
I am aware that the situation might be a bit different for Palestinian terrorists attacking Israel, however I am still confident that many are manipulated to become suicide attackers. You don't need to be tortured to be brainwashed; stirring hatred can do the trick just as easily, and you don't need to be a zealot to be susceptible to hatred.
Alright. First to answer the original question :
Secondely, this is not your normal death sentence thread. Here you dont talk about a simple murdurer with a criminal ideas, but a person who murder another person just because the murderer belive in some ideaoligy that claim that his cause make the victim a target.
There are so many kinds of terrorism. From eco-terrorism to bioterrorism, any terrorist organization may be operating with a different goal in mind and different means to achieve this end. Anarchists, religious fanatics, enivironmental activists, political activists you name it.
Of course it is obvious that this law was "formed" due to problems with a specific kind of terrorists (religious zealots) apparently. But taking in mind the various different kinds of terrorists and how far each of them is willing to go (which in many cases is not far at all) it wouldn't make any sense to get any and all terrorist and terrorist supporters sentenced to death.Not because they are not criminals, but because the crimes they are guilty of are often far from deserving this punishment.
But anyway, this can easily spiral out of control because of the definition of the word "terrorist", so I'll just run with what is clearly mentioned in the OP. Id Est, taking only the specific kind of terrorists mentioned in mind.
What I really believe is that the death penalty will have no effect in preventing terrorism or reducing the number of terrorist strikes. The death penalty is an ineffective measure against crime for multiple reasons (many of which are not the subject of this thread). As such, it will certainly not be any useful in the fight against terrorism as well, especially considering the kind of extremist terrorists this measure was primarily "directed" to. If anything it will stir up even more aggression and hostilities.
You don't need to be tortured to be brainwashed; stirring hatred can do the trick just as easily, and you don't need to be a zealot to be susceptible to hatred.
Stirring hatred isn't brainwashing. Brainwashing is the act of forcibly making a person adopt radically different beliefs or changing their attitudes through extreme measures. The most common is "sychological-stress techniques", such as sleep deprivation and starvation, coupled with repetition of whatever it is you want them to believe. These techniques are a form of torture, they're agonizing experiences that no human should willingly subject another person too. Other brainwashing methods involve standard torture and the use of mind altering drugs. Using a person's youth, hatred, or psychological imbalances to lure them into doing something stupid is a completely different process.
Coming from Europe, I am maybe more aware of all the young people from our countries who join the IS because of their propaganda. They were often not zealots to begin with, had other kind of problems that made them easy targets for the lies spread in the internet.
In the US those individuals are commonly referred to as 'home-grown" terrorists. Most of them are criminals or teenagers that converted to Islam and then were lured into terrorist organizations through the internet. While I'm sure many of them can be shown the error of their ways, these home-grown terrorists come from a completely different environment with different reasons for joining.
Besides, unless the manipulation is extreme (see my statement about brainwashing above) it isn't sufficient reason to ignore peoples' actions. The Nuremberg trials are a perfect example of this. The Nazis threw most of Europe into a frenzy by stirring their hatred of a scapegoat, but the people who helped destroy the lives of innocent people were not given a pass just because they were manipulated. When you agree to kill someone because you've been convinced to hate them, it's still murder. More than that, it's a hate crime. By your logic, every racist that was raised in a racist household should receive leniency after killing someone because they were manipulated into hating that group.
I was not mentioning this as an argument to ignore what was done, not at all. Just as one point against this new law; don't kill them, for that reason. Punish them for their acts, then try to sever them from their radical ideologies.
The most common is "sychological-stress techniques", such as sleep deprivation and starvation, coupled with repetition of whatever it is you want them to believe. These techniques are a form of torture, they're agonizing experiences that no human should willingly subject another person too. Other brainwashing methods involve standard torture and the use of mind altering drugs.I'd like to know where you got this information, as it is clearly false. You don't gain faithful supporters by systematically torturing them. "Brainwashing" is a coercion technique that was used by the Chinese military to deceive prisoners of war. None of it involved violence, brutality, or extreme conditions.
I was not mentioning this as an argument to ignore what was done, not at all. Just as one point against this new law; don't kill them, for that reason. Punish them for their acts, then try to sever them from their radical ideologies.
this is too complicated. what is the root of evil? nature? nurture? any person can come up with any excuse to throw away responsibility in order to avoid death. in the end, you are responsible for your own actions. sure, those people might have been pure souls if they were born else where, but its irrelevant. what is relevant is the people who get hurt. those people have to be protected, not those who commit the crimes.
by your logic theres no need for prisons. lets just send everybody to some re-education facilities to give them a chance to come back. usually, its better to take the safe way and keep people safe then to try your luck in helping one person understand his ways and not harm any more people.
You must be logged in to post a reply!