• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Convicted Terrorists Be Executed?

Should Convicted Terrorists Be Executed?


  • Total voters
    40
They would not be taking hostages in the first place......At least not with the incentive of getting their imprisoned buddies out......Their buddies would all be in the cometary (costing us nothing) after conviction & execution.
Could terrorists take hostages for other reasons?...Of course.
(but one major incentive for hostage taking would have been eliminated)

I've never heard of terrorists taking hostages & demanding their dead buddies bodies be dug up from a cemetery & returned to them. Have you?:lol:

So they'll just be acting out of straight up revenge without concern for taking hostages. Nice.
 
So they'll just be acting out of straight up revenge without concern for taking hostages. Nice.

They'll do that in any case. They don't need reasons to kill....They like it!
 
I didn't vote yes for either option. I think there are already sufficient laws/penalties on the books to handle terrorism. There is no need to create separate, additional charges.
 
They'll do that in any case. They don't need reasons to kill....They like it!

So you're really not doing anything by executing these people. You're not saving hostages or making the world safer. All your doing is satiating your own need for revenge and blood lust.
 
So you're really not doing anything by executing these people. You're not saving hostages or making the world safer. All your doing is satiating your own need for revenge and blood lust.
A lot of people tend to get confused between the terms revenge and justice.
 
So you're really not doing anything by executing these people. You're not saving hostages or making the world safer. All your doing is satiating your own need for revenge and blood lust.

I have no problem "satiating my own need for revenge and blood lust" &, at the same time removing one major incentive for future crimes. (& I am making the world safer by removing a major future incentive for taking hostages)
 
Last edited:
If I try to kill someone and someone else stops me, I can't be charged with murder. I can be charged with attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder, but not murder itself as I had not actually murdered anyone.

That may be, however you're only getting off because you weren't competent enough to actually go through with it. We're now rewarding stupidity and incompetence? I think conceiving, planning and attempting a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. Perhaps not as serious a crime as succeeding but not something we just shrug our shoulders and let them walk away from either.
 
I have no problem "satiating my own need for revenge and blood lust" &, at the same time removing one major incentive for future crimes. (& I am making the world safer by removing a major future incentive for taking hostages)

But by your own admission you are removing nothing. Instead of trying to take hostages, they will simply go for the biggest bang they can get.
 
But by your own admission you are removing nothing. Instead of trying to take hostages, they will simply go for the biggest bang they can get.

They do that anyway. Why did they attack us on 911? (& I am removing something important.....the incentive to take more hostages)
 
Last edited:
That may be, however you're only getting off because you weren't competent enough to actually go through with it. We're now rewarding stupidity and incompetence? I think conceiving, planning and attempting a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. Perhaps not as serious a crime as succeeding but not something we just shrug our shoulders and let them walk away from either.

Yay, thought crimes!

The justice system is set on the rights and liberties of the individual, with all burden of proof falling upon the government. If I make credible threats/plans I can be charged with conspiracy to commit, as I have said. But since I had not committed any crime, I cannot be charged with the crime itself.
 
They do that anyway. Why did they attack us on 911?

Exactly. You're trying to say that by executing these people you are removing a possible action. But you've done nothing. Instead of taking those people hostages, they'll simply kill them. Execution deters nothing in the face of terrorism. In fact, it can only bolster it.
 
Yay, thought crimes!

The justice system is set on the rights and liberties of the individual, with all burden of proof falling upon the government. If I make credible threats/plans I can be charged with conspiracy to commit, as I have said. But since I had not committed any crime, I cannot be charged with the crime itself.

I didn't say thought crimes, I specified planning and attempting. There's a big difference between thinking about killing someone and figuring out exactly how to do it, stockpiling the supplies necessary and setting out to do it, even if you don't carry it out in the end.
 
I didn't say thought crimes, I specified planning and attempting. There's a big difference between thinking about killing someone and figuring out exactly how to do it, stockpiling the supplies necessary and setting out to do it, even if you don't carry it out in the end.

And that is conspiracy to commit. I can't rightfully be charged with crimes I did not commit.
 
I didn't say thought crimes, I specified planning and attempting. There's a big difference between thinking about killing someone and figuring out exactly how to do it, stockpiling the supplies necessary and setting out to do it, even if you don't carry it out in the end.

Thinking about a crime is not a crime. An 'Overt Act" is required before a crime has been committed. Thinking is not enough
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Overt+act+...plained&u=http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.


This relates to Conspiracy but is applicable.
 
Last edited:
And that is conspiracy to commit. I can't rightfully be charged with crimes I did not commit.

You can be charged with Conspiracy/Attempt...which is a separate crime, requiring no completion.
(attempted murder, conspiracy to bomb, etc)
The actual act does not have to be compltetd for a crime to have occurred.

I'd have to check what charges were filed by the FBI against the bomb makers. They didn't complete their act but were trying to.....which is a crime.
(as I understand it, all the chemicals they bought were legal to purchase. It was their intent to use them for bomb making that is the crime)


The FBI & DEA have "Precursor" programs where chemicals, commonly used for making/cutting illegal drugs, making bombs, etc.... are watched & reported by chemical companies routinely to the government. That is evidently what happened here in that chemicals like muriatic acid were bought as one ingredient to make bombs & the sale was evidently reported to the FBI. (This Precursor program is not a classified program, btw)
 
Last edited:
What really needs to happen to them, is Magneto's prison, with a webcam.

Plexiglass box, no privacy, the world can view them round the clock in their cage, pickin their noses or pinchin a loaf.

You want to destroy the enemy's heroes and cost the enemy morale, put them in a 24/7 INTERNET zoo.

Interesting approach, maybe a good answer.
We must do to the convicted, and in many cases, even the suspected terrorist, the very last thing they want done to themselves.
Its so easy to be hateful and vengeful with these terrorists..
I'm thinking life in a prison cell, no contact, no visitors, no audio, no video, no visual, nothing .
 
with out a dout
 
That may be, however you're only getting off because you weren't competent enough to actually go through with it. We're now rewarding stupidity and incompetence? I think conceiving, planning and attempting a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. Perhaps not as serious a crime as succeeding but not something we just shrug our shoulders and let them walk away from either.
Its not a case of competency at all. Thanks goodness most of us have a conscience which will generally deter any murder attempt.
The terrorist has no conscience and should suffer accordingly.
 
Yay, thought crimes!

If I make credible threats/plans I can be charged with conspiracy to commit, as I have said. But since I had not committed any crime, I cannot be charged with the crime itself.

The Conspiracy itself is a separate crime.

"Conspiracy" Defined & Explained

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.


I love the conspiracy laws!!
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with Devil505 on something. Heaven forbid!

Yes they should be as long as they receive a fair trial be it military tribunal or civilian.
 
I actually agree with Devil505 on something. Heaven forbid!

Yes they should be as long as they receive a fair trial be it military tribunal or civilian.

Alright....I change my mind then......LWOP!!:lol:
 
I think conceiving, planning and attempting a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself.

Last post on this point as I'm :beatdeadhorse.....but what you describe is already a crime as linked to above. The crime of Conspiracy.

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
 
Last edited:
With the rash of recent FBI arrests of individuals charged with trying to make bombs & intending to blow up buildings, if convected, what is a proper punishment for these crimes.
I favor the death penalty, if convicted.

Thoughts?

Seeing i oppose the death penalty and the use of it the simple answer would be No. I do not think they should be executed.

And call me touchy but i do not want someone put to death for something they haven't even done yet
 
I don't support the death penalty. Especially in cases where the suspect hasn't killed anyone to begin with.. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom