Death penalty for terrorists?

[RainbowUnicorn]

Punishment centuries ago was pretty barbaric.  For instance Hang, Drawn and Quartered (wikipedia.org).  The problem with such barbarism is while it might indeed reduce some peoples need to copycat an offence due to the equally atrocious punishment it however would likely steer society to be sociopathic/psychopathic as the punishment becomes a spectacle.

That's one of the main reasons why some countries are against a death penalty (usually).

Due process becomes just pan handling to the rich elitist liberal facists whom wish to stay above the law by bribery.

thus once the death penalty is defined, there is no logical reason to the common person why money should be spent on trials etc etc...


the general public begin to murder people as a form of punishment as the state ideologically sanctions it is a morally acceptable value of life.

---

What are your feelings about the death penalty for terrorists?

Especially in light of the most recent NYC truck attacker apparently quite satisfied with what he's accomplished.

"He asked authorities whether he could display an ISIS flag in his room — saying he “felt good” about what he had done..." - https://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/ny...1.14709434

is trump proposing the death penalty for espionage ? RE his campaign managers etc ?


why not ?

[Syne]

is trump proposing the death penalty for espionage ? RE his campaign managers etc ?


why not ?

Once again, you're completely ignorant of facts. No one has been charged with "espionage". Conspiracy is a charge that can apply to any crime where more than one person participates...in this case it's mostly fraud.

Is conspiracy to fraud equivalent to terrorist mass murder?! O_o

[RainbowUnicorn]

is trump proposing the death penalty for espionage ? RE his campaign managers etc ?


why not ?

Once again, you're completely ignorant of facts. No one has been charged with "espionage". Conspiracy is a charge that can apply to any crime where more than one person participates...in this case it's mostly fraud.

Is conspiracy to fraud equivalent to terrorist mass murder?! O_o

i am opposed to the death penalty.
my point is comparative terms where popular opinion is manipulated to give morally inequitable basics for law & order.


i think that maneuvering ideologies to facilitate emotional responses to specific events detract from a collective base of law & order.

thus a serious question for you.
What end result do you hope to achieve by asserting the concept of penalty for a specific inccident in contrast to existing laws ?
keeping in mind the idea of attempting to make new laws to criminalise past events in the political landscape Re private email servers & the Fevor that was generated seeks to normalise as a principal aspect to law & order ... ?

[Syne]

Once again, you're completely ignorant of facts. No one has been charged with "espionage". Conspiracy is a charge that can apply to any crime where more than one person participates...in this case it's mostly fraud.

Is conspiracy to fraud equivalent to terrorist mass murder?! O_o

i am opposed to the death penalty.
my point is comparative terms where popular opinion is manipulated to give morally inequitable basics for law & order.


i think that maneuvering ideologies to facilitate emotional responses to specific events detract from a collective base of law & order.

thus a serious question for you.
What end result do you hope to achieve by asserting the concept of penalty for a specific inccident in contrast to existing laws ?
keeping in mind the idea of attempting to make new laws to criminalise past events in the political landscape Re private email servers & the Fevor that was generated seeks to normalise as a principal aspect to law & order ... ?

Where do you think anyone is "maneuvering ideologies" or "popular opinion is manipulated"? This is existing federal law:

"In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that expanded the federal death penalty to sixty crimes, three of which do not involve murder. The exceptions are espionage, treason, and drug trafficking in large amounts.

Two years later, in response to the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Act, which affects both state and federal prisoners, restricts review in federal courts by establishing stricter filing deadlines, limiting the opportunity for evidentiary hearings, and ordinarily allowing only a single habeas corpus filing in federal court.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that this streamlining will speed up the death penalty process and significantly reduce its cost. Others fear that quicker, more limited federal review may increase the risk of executing innocent defendants.

When he was executed on June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh became the first federal prisoner executed in 38 years. McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, for the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing."
- http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...level.html


So once again, you only show your ignorance.
There's nothing retroactive about the death penalty for terrorism.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Once again, you're completely ignorant of facts. No one has been charged with "espionage". Conspiracy is a charge that can apply to any crime where more than one person participates...in this case it's mostly fraud.

Is conspiracy to fraud equivalent to terrorist mass murder?! O_o

i am opposed to the death penalty.
my point is comparative terms where popular opinion is manipulated to give morally inequitable basics for law & order.


i think that maneuvering ideologies to facilitate emotional responses to specific events detract from a collective base of law & order.

thus a serious question for you.
What end result do you hope to achieve by asserting the concept of penalty for a specific inccident in contrast to existing laws ?
keeping in mind the idea of attempting to make new laws to criminalise past events in the political landscape Re private email servers & the Fevor that was generated seeks to normalise as a principal aspect to law & order ... ?

Where do you think anyone is "maneuvering ideologies" or "popular opinion is manipulated"? This is existing federal law:

"In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that expanded the federal death penalty to sixty crimes, three of which do not involve murder. The exceptions are espionage, treason, and drug trafficking in large amounts.

Two years later, in response to the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Act, which affects both state and federal prisoners, restricts review in federal courts by establishing stricter filing deadlines, limiting the opportunity for evidentiary hearings, and ordinarily allowing only a single habeas corpus filing in federal court.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that this streamlining will speed up the death penalty process and significantly reduce its cost. Others fear that quicker, more limited federal review may increase the risk of executing innocent defendants.

When he was executed on June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh became the first federal prisoner executed in 38 years. McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, for the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing."
- http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...level.html


So once again, you only show your ignorance.  
There's nothing retroactive about the death penalty for terrorism.

your copy n paste skills are well used.
notice you did not answer my question.

i gues that says it all.
here is the question again

thus a serious question for you.
What end result do you hope to achieve by asserting the concept of penalty for a specific inccident in contrast to existing laws ?

[Syne]

Where do you think anyone is "maneuvering ideologies" or "popular opinion is manipulated"? This is existing federal law:

"In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that expanded the federal death penalty to sixty crimes, three of which do not involve murder. The exceptions are espionage, treason, and drug trafficking in large amounts.

Two years later, in response to the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Act, which affects both state and federal prisoners, restricts review in federal courts by establishing stricter filing deadlines, limiting the opportunity for evidentiary hearings, and ordinarily allowing only a single habeas corpus filing in federal court.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that this streamlining will speed up the death penalty process and significantly reduce its cost. Others fear that quicker, more limited federal review may increase the risk of executing innocent defendants.

When he was executed on June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh became the first federal prisoner executed in 38 years. McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, for the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing."
- http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...level.html


So once again, you only show your ignorance.  
There's nothing retroactive about the death penalty for terrorism.

your copy n paste skills are well used.
notice you did not answer my question.

i gues that says it all.
here is the question again

thus a serious question for you.
What end result do you hope to achieve by asserting the concept of penalty for a specific inccident in contrast to existing laws ?

You're the only one who's trying to contrast a "specific incident" to existing law. Since I just showed you that existing law is not at odds (does not contrast) with the death penalty in this case, I already answered your question. Is your distaste for the death penalty so severe that you're willing to defend a terrorist? O_o

I asked, "What are your feelings about the death penalty for terrorists?" This solely pertains to existing federal law.
The recent incident is only a current example that has the added benefit of being unclouded by attacker remorse or extenuating circumstances.

[Syne]

I guess RU is too busy arguing this topic in non-related threads to bother here.

[Leigha]

I don't believe in the DP for any reason, really. Then we become no better than them...right? After all, every murderer has his/her reasons for why he/she takes the life/lives of others. To ''legally'' murder someone else, whether you talk yourself into believing it's for the better of society, or lessens the burden upon tax payers, or that person ''deserves it'' ...it's probably not much different than when a terrorist convinces him/herself that killing others for their religion is necessary. I don't wish to be like them.

[Syne]

I don't believe in the DP for any reason, really. Then we become no better than them...right? After all, every murderer has his/her reasons for why he/she takes the life/lives of others. To ''legally'' murder someone else, whether you talk yourself into believing it's for the better of society, or lessens the burden upon tax payers, or that person ''deserves it'' ...it's probably not much different than when a terrorist convinces him/herself that killing others for their religion is necessary. I don't wish to be like them.

How can you morally equate, for instance, two men...who invade a home, beat the father almost to death with a bat, rape the mother, sexually assault the eleven year old daughter, tie the mother and two daughters to their beds alive, and set the house on fire, with only the father surviving... with killing these two pieces of shit? Did they really have "reasons" even remotely comparable to those of the executing state?

Also, what is the value of human life? Since a life sentence is the only alternative to the death penalty, what other offenses get the life sentence?
Sex abuse, extortion/racketeering, firearms, and drug trafficking.^ Is a human life only worth as much as drug trafficking or racketeering?

I believe everyone has the right to defend their own life. You might be forced to kill a home invader to save your family. Even if your life was not in danger, I assume you would act on their behalf. At least I hope you don't have to "talk yourself into believing it's for the better." Since we task our government to protect us, we empower it to act on our behalf. And just as we would kill to protect others, so is the government justified in doing so as well. In the above example, I'm sure the father would have killed the two home invaders if he could. So why is it wrong for the state to do what the father should have been able to do? So it's just happenstance that since the men didn't face death at the father's hand they need no longer fear that consequence?

Do you even believe in self-defense? If so, how is your reason any better than those of an attacker...seeing as it would make you "no better than them"?

[Leigha]

You equate the death penalty with self defense? Then where do you draw that line? There are a TON of murderers in prison, do you just kill them all, because they took a life or several lives? Where do you draw the line as to who ''deserves'' the death penalty and who doesn't? Do we get to play 'god' and decide who deserves to live and who doesn't?

I believe in self defense, but I don't equate the death penalty with self defense. Not when we have prisons that can safely remove violent offenders/murderers off the streets forever, out of the general public's way.

I could have sworn that you mentioned in another thread that you're pro-life...does that only mean you're pro ''innocent'' life? If the person has done bad things, then off with their head! lol Of course I'm being facetious, but you can see how the whole pro-life argument loses credibility, when basically people cherry pick who they feel deserve their 'pro-life' stance.