NationStates Jolt Archive

Should there be capital punishment for the terrorists?

I don't see any bias in this one and was happy to submit my nation's vote.

Likewise, Sophista has cast its ballot. Our sentiments have not changed, and the government still remains vehemently opposed to any form of capital punishment.

Likewise, Sophista has cast its ballot. Our sentiments have not changed, and the government still remains vehemently opposed to any form of capital punishment.

We agree with Sophista.

The Empire of Prunesquallor has also submitted its vote of no, based on the fact that terrorism is very often a near-harmless crime (often little more than vandalism, for example when small explosive devices are thrown at government buildings), and that often plain murder is much much worse. The Empire of Prunesquallor does not agree with throwing all different offences which come under 'terrorism' into one category, then giving a uniform, and extremely severe, punishment.

It also notes that terrorism is often one of the more difficult crime to actually bring to justice those responsible, and that cases with much media exposure may result in the execution of people who aided the actual killers, if the killers are not found, in an attempt to appease the public.

Furthermore, it notes that terrorism accounts for a tiny amount of deaths compared with pretty much everything else in the vast majority of nations, and that there are more important issues to look at.

I'm throwing my weight behind Sophista.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The way I see it, most terrorism involves the deaths of CIVILIANS and that is cause for the use of capital punishment.

It depends on what the "terrorism" is. The punishment should fit the crime. If you can be put to death for commiting murder, then if a terrorists commits murder through a terrorist act they should be subject to the death penalty. Apply the same standards towards acts commited based on terrorism and acts commited not based on terrorism.

We vote no based on our opposition the the death penalty.

Here's a question, if we're talking terrorism as in truck bombs and planes flying into buildings, why can't you just prosecute the terrorist for murder? If they kidnap someone, why can't you just prosecute them for kidnapping? A lot easier than trampling on national judicial and penal systems.

The way I see it, most terrorism involves the deaths of CIVILIANS and that is cause for the use of capital punishment.
Not necessarily.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

"Punishment", so called, is often based in an infantile need to hit back those who hit first. Tagging on a pretty label like "terrorist" is convienient, as it pigeon-holes the "bad guy" convieniently enough to dehumanize the subject, but consider that these people think they're doing the right thing as well.

A freedom fighter attempts to overthrow what it sees as a malevolent influence in the world. If you happen to be on the same team as that malevolent influence, then the freedom fighter is a terrorist. Just because Group A has a set way of doing things and thinks that way is the best doesn't mean any nation should start condoning the slaying of the misguided.

Mattikistan has a very effective rehabilitation program, with only a 10% re-offending rate. Terrorists, what few we have ever had, are among the successes. You don't learn anything from death, except perhaps what's on the other side, if anything. As the honourable representative from Cthonius points out, the need to 'punish' is an outdated one. 'Re-education' should be what we strive for. Nobody has the right to decide who lives or dies, not the terrorist, not the murderer, and certainly not the government.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan