• 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
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.

Yes, I know that, I was responding to the claim that nobody did anything wrong and thus shouldn't be punished. They were mistaken. Thanks for digging that out though.
 
If convicted then they should be taken out back and have a bullit put in their heads right then and there.
 
If convicted then they should be taken out back and have a bullit put in their heads right then and there.

Can't believe I'm gonna even be close to agreeing with you Scorpion but I'll go for swift execution with no more than 1 year for appeals after sentencing.
 
Can't believe I'm gonna even be close to agreeing with you Scorpion but I'll go for swift execution with no more than 1 year for appeals after sentencing.

Hell no, not even one appeal found quilty take out back and shot then dump the body in the ocean so the Sharks can have something to nibble on.
 
I know some of you will definitely not like this. But i believe that there should be a sentence of a delayed death penalty so that if we have a situation where some terrorists take hostages for some concessions on some issue then when they decide to execute a hostage we kill one of the prisoners. Sorta a reversal the prisoners in a sense become our hostages.
 
I know some of you will definitely not like this. But i believe that there should be a sentence of a delayed death penalty so that if we have a situation where some terrorists take hostages for some concessions on some issue then when they decide to execute a hostage we kill one of the prisoners. Sorta a reversal the prisoners in a sense become our hostages.

Aside from anything else.....You know the terrorists would care less about that, right? Human life has no value to them....Ours or theirs.
(that's what makes these animals so dangerous & hard to fight...Just like the Kamikazes of WWII...These guys want to die!)
 
Last edited:
I know some of you will definitely not like this. But i believe that there should be a sentence of a delayed death penalty so that if we have a situation where some terrorists take hostages for some concessions on some issue then when they decide to execute a hostage we kill one of the prisoners. Sorta a reversal the prisoners in a sense become our hostages.

Oh I like this plan not only that if they decide to say cut off somehead then we get to go one step futher. Hmmm maybe I need to rethink my answer on this.
 
Oh I like this plan not only that if they decide to say cut off somehead then we get to go one step futher. Hmmm maybe I need to rethink my answer on this.

We don't want to become what we are fighting. This makes us no better than they are.

If it got to that level I want no part.
 
Can't believe I'm gonna even be close to agreeing with you Scorpion but I'll go for swift execution with no more than 1 year for appeals after sentencing.

I'm all in favor of all executions being done that way. You get convicted by a jury of your peers, you get one mandatory appeal and anything past that, you can only appeal on the basis of being factually innocent. You're innocent until proven guilty until that first conviction comes down, then as far as I'm concerned, you're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

Put an absolute 5-year cap on the execution, shorter if possible and clear those cells.
 
No, why give them what they and their supporters desire, martyrdom.
 
No, why give them what they and their supporters desire, martyrdom.
Because I like to help people get what they want? (Even though I get bad press, I'm really a nice guy > :devil: :lol:)
 
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.
I've always maintained that attempted murder should be tried and punished as though the murder had been successful.
 
In response to the OP, I do not believe they should be executed. Trying to solve the problem killing by perpetuating more killing is asinine.
 
It depends. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of using a label to justify executions, since the definition of the label can be manipulated by the government, but on the other hand, someone who is a real terrorist should be executed; I'm not sure where that leaves us...
 
In response to the OP, I do not believe they should be executed. Trying to solve the problem killing by perpetuating more killing is asinine.

Well, the problem is that we have a "terrorist" who is waging war on our country, and in war the solution to such a problem is invariably death. Sometimes killing is totally justified.
 
I've always maintained that attempted murder should be tried and punished as though the murder had been successful.

I agree with this. I don't see why their inability to actually carry out the crime should exempt them from the maximum punishment. No harm, no foul shouldn't apply to people that attempt to murder someone.
 
I don't see the difference really. Just because that terrorist was arrested before he could commit his heinous crime does not make the attempt any less terrible. (it's not like he changed his mind.....He intended to kill innocent people & was just stopped b4 he could actually do it)
I say Death in either case.

All of us, particularly me, in a fit of temper have said that we will kill some one.
Then, after a time, cool and calm minds prevail, usually.
Imagine the world's population if "Death in either case" were to prevail.
With these terrorists, we must do to them the very thing they fear, which is not necessarily death.
 
I know some of you will definitely not like this. But i believe that there should be a sentence of a delayed death penalty so that if we have a situation where some terrorists take hostages for some concessions on some issue then when they decide to execute a hostage we kill one of the prisoners. Sorta a reversal the prisoners in a sense become our hostages.

Are you suggesting that we revert to the civilization level of the terrorists ?
 
I'm against execution in general because I am against giving the government the jurisdiction to decide if a person should die or not.

Aside from that, executing terrorists would just be a sign of the political times. It still comes down to whether or not the people they murdered warrants death, and it all depends on what state they are in as to whether or not a death penalty sentence gets delivered. It's all arbitrary and inconsistent.

The only way you'd get universal execution for terrorists is in the Federal government makes binding legislation that overrides the sovereignty of the states; or, if the states, miraculously, all decide that they'll execute them. Which do you think is more likely to happen?

So I'd say no.
 
In response to the OP, I do not believe they should be executed. Trying to solve the problem killing by perpetuating more killing is asinine.

I know what you mean but you have to admit that executing a mass murderer prevents THAT murderer from ever doing it again, right? ;)
 
We are at war with this garbage. The only reason they are alive is that we wanted the information they had. Otherwise they would have been shot on sight. I do not see the need for a trial. If your humanity requires it, knock yourself out! Just make sure they receive wartime handling and wartime sentences.

Traitors can and have gotten the death sentence for the influence their leaking of classified material had. Terrorists are at least that bad.
 
I do not see the need for a trial. If your humanity requires it, knock yourself out!

You don't think we maybe should make sure the people we are executing are actually guilty first? Suppose they are innocent & we made a mistake? Kill innocent people?
 
Well, the problem is that we have a "terrorist" who is waging war on our country, and in war the solution to such a problem is invariably death. Sometimes killing is totally justified.
Again, I completely disagree. I do not think we will be changing each other's minds any time soon.
 
We are at war with this garbage. The only reason they are alive is that we wanted the information they had. Otherwise they would have been shot on sight. I do not see the need for a trial. If your humanity requires it, knock yourself out! Just make sure they receive wartime handling and wartime sentences.
What about a little bit of waterboarding before execution:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom