The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death

Team Colombia firstly said the criminal in question should be given psychological treatment while he is kept imprisoned. What they fail the understand is that psychological treatment is only given to somebody who is clinically proven to be a lunatic. However, there is no guarantee that all terrorists can be successfully proven to be lunatics. If they are lunatics, then they are not liable to general laws and will dealt with just like any lunatic is dealt with. However, we again repeat that not all terrorists are lunatics. If we take a close look at the infrastructure and systems that most terrorists organizations have set-up, we can easily see that something so intricate and well organized can’t possibly have been set-up by lunatics. While this does not mean that none of the terrorists are lunatics, it also means that most terrorists are not lunatics and are rather people with perfectly fine and in cases, better than average intelligence levels. Therefore, as the standard convention stands in the current status quo, we can’t say that it will be right to apply psychological treatment on these people as many of them are perfectly sane and it is not a question as to whether or not they need this treatmeant. Moreover, as lunatics , people who are to receive psychological treatment are prone to do things because of anatomical or hormonal problems. But, most terrorists are not the case. They are people with perfectly fine bodies and hormones but just that they have misunderstood somethings or have distorted views on certain issues. Something that does not separate them from the average murderer. Henceforth, as we are putting normal murderers to death it is a perfectly natural decision that we put the terrorist who has committed murder, to death.
Again, they speak of mistakes that may or not may not arise in the the judge’s decision making. This is a very argument because if we are to consider the possibility of a judge making a blunder and stopping court sentences because of that consideration, then we would have to stop all sentences as a whole. Infact, that would mean the end of the judiciary system as a whole. Since according to them, judges are humans who can make mistakes. Of course, this is not possible as the judiciary must go one and decisions and sentences must be given. Therefore, thjs argument from Team Columbia does not fall. Any teacher can make a mistake while correcting exam papers but this does not mean that you will stop exams as a whole.


All the No points:

The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
(57%) (43%)


The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
Yes because...

Acting as an example and ensuring Justice

Death penalites are the highest that you can give to any person for any crime. Naturally, that is what is given to murderers and therefore we see no reason for this not be given to terrorists. If we let them off with something less serious, we are showing that we are not going to be hard line when dealing with these people. If a death sentence is effectively given to people who do cause death, we are effectively setting an example for anyone who would want to commit such a crime in the future. In fact, if they are merely imprisoned and given mental treatment, as Team Columbia suggest, we are leaving a scope open for terrorists to openly commit these crimes. Because terrorists are people who are hell bent on fulfilling their agendas and when they see that despite killing, they are being let off rather easily, they will be encouraged to keep the trend alive. Whereas, through a death sentence, you are proving that the state will be harsh when dealing with these people. As such, you are setting a strong example to terrorists that shows what will be the consequences of their actions.

Furthermore, justice becomes a key issue here. Let us talk of the families of the 9/11 victims. When they hear that the people responsible for the deaths of their family members have been caught, they will naturally demand justice. And it is one of the prime duties of the state to ensure that justice, honourable speaker.

If Team Columbia cite humanitarian reasons for offering mental treatment and just imprisonment to the terrorists who cause death, i will ask them to show where humanity was during the 9/11 attacks, where humanity was during the Spanish SubWay bombings, where humanity was when the Taj Hotel in India was exploding with flames. You can't expect these terrorists to go to prison, get treatment then come out and live happy as if nothing ever happened.

Finally, if that is the state they want, then that is a sad excuse of a state. These people deserve death penalties.

No because...

Firstly we want to be clear about the psychological therapy. As both teams accepted terrorist committed a mistake, something that’s wrong for the society. The psychological therapy is not restricted to lunatic people, in other spaces helps people to have conscience about their mistakes, correct and overcome them. This philosophy can be applied to terrorist and it will help to achieve social rehabilitation.

About the argument presented we must said that we will not have justice, we will have revenge and hate. We think that terrorist acts must be punished and it’s important to get justice. But the justice is based in the respect of the rights of the criminal. If we only want to calm our “desire of blood” we are sending a bad message to our society and to the terrorist organizations. Our society will have a message of not respect of human life, rights and the possibility of rehabilitation. We are assuming the same ways of fight, and cultivating the hate in our society. The terrorist organization will increase his hate and the person death will be viewed as a hero:

On the other hand, the opposite house is justifying death penalty of terrorist with death penalty of regular murderers, a theme that is not in the layout of this debate. Even if it was, this house, for the same reasons we already exposed, don’t support that kind of penalty. In that kind of reasoning, the other house is trying to trivialize the subject, comparing a decision of a teacher with the judge decision. If we can have a more efficient solution that removes this problem, the point of the opposite house becomes unnecessary.

The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
No because...

There are more efficient policies than death penalty

The opposition house believes that death penalty is an inefficient measure to avoid the effects of terrorist acts that cause death. Instead of, this house proposes other kind of measures as imprisonment with psychological treatment. This will ensure the social rehabilitation of the charged of terrorist acts and the possibility that has every human being, to defend him and be able to recognize his mistakes. In that case, the person will be able to attempt in front of the judicial authorities his freedom, and return to the society.
This is also adequate because judicial authorities can be wrong at the moment they condemn the person who is charged to commit terrorist acts. Anyway, even the judge is human, and he can be wrong at the moment he appreciates the facts that are not favorable to the suspect. His lawyer, maybe, is not enough prepared to make the defense (fact than can be checked in almost all the undeveloped countries) and this can lead to an adverse decision.
If the suspect is condemned and the death penalty is executed, there won’t be any possible remedy to this flaw, and that means that an irreversible measure should always be a completely correct decision. A human decision, like the judge’s, that ever can be reviewed, will never be completely sure. On the other hand, imprisonment will always be a reversible measure and, as this house already stated, it can be effective to penalize a person who actually committed terrorist acts that cause death. This is wider fair, because we literally don’t sacrifice any innocent people’s right.
Finally, this house strongly believes that imprisonment in opposition of the death penalty is efficient to accomplish not only the punishment but also the social rehabilitation. In that order, we erase the fault and not the person.

Yes because...

Team Columbia firstly said the criminal in question should be given psychological treatment while he is kept imprisoned. What they fail the understand is that psychological treatment is only given to somebody who is clinically proven to be a lunatic. However, there is no guarantee that all terrorists can be successfully proven to be lunatics. If they are lunatics, then they are not liable to general laws and will dealt with just like any lunatic is dealt with. However, we again repeat that not all terrorists are lunatics. If we take a close look at the infrastructure and systems that most terrorists organizations have set-up, we can easily see that something so intricate and well organized can’t possibly have been set-up by lunatics. While this does not mean that none of the terrorists are lunatics, it also means that most terrorists are not lunatics and are rather people with perfectly fine and in cases, better than average intelligence levels. Therefore, as the standard convention stands in the current status quo, we can’t say that it will be right to apply psychological treatment on these people as many of them are perfectly sane and it is not a question as to whether or not they need this treatmeant. Moreover, as lunatics , people who are to receive psychological treatment are prone to do things because of anatomical or hormonal problems. But, most terrorists are not the case. They are people with perfectly fine bodies and hormones but just that they have misunderstood somethings or have distorted views on certain issues. Something that does not separate them from the average murderer. Henceforth, as we are putting normal murderers to death it is a perfectly natural decision that we put the terrorist who has committed murder, to death. Again, they speak of mistakes that may or not may not arise in the the judge’s decision making. This is a very argument because if we are to consider the possibility of a judge making a blunder and stopping court sentences b

The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
No because...

we are increasing the hate inside terrorist organizations and the dead person will be seen as a hero that animates their fight.

Our argument is based in the mind of a terrorist: He doesn’t matter to give their life for the idea that they are defending. An example is Al qaeda in the 9-11 attacks. First the terrorist kidnapped the airplanes and then they obligated pilots to crash the planes to the towers: Their life was less important than his mission. After these events the terrorist was called heroes and his action make proud and animate the members of the organization to continue with their actions.

When we finish with the terrorist’s life he will be seen like a hero inside this group. And his death will animate the desire of revenge and fight of their members. So we are not preventing these people to commit terrorist acts: We are promoting them.

Furthermore, we are not removing something important the terrorist. It is more convenient to explore other ways of punishment. For example, a long jail period or the imprisonment. They will be more inflictive to the person and we will have justice and not collateral effects.

Additionally, we will be respecting the rights of criminals and we will have more possibilities of social rehabilitation instead of killing them, based on the application of the measure that the proposition defends.

Yes because...
The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
No because...

Summary

The arguments that we support are the effectiveness of the measure of the life imprisonment, a judicial review of the decision and the respect of the human rights, presented and defended in this debate as we summarize below:

When this house tried to make a debate based on the normal and average meaning of the words of the motion, the opposite house inserted a concept absent in the layout of this debate. Actually we mentioned opportunely that regular murderer is not a subject debated and the fact that is sometimes penalized with death penalty can’t be a reason to justify death penalty herself. Death penalty is not justified for the terrorist acts, but even if it was accurate to present the regular murder point as an argument, the same reasons we have to reject the death penalty lead us to reject this penalty too.

The first clash point was the death penalty as perfect way of justice and to demonstrate the people and the other terrorists that the State applies hardly and strictly the Law. Nevertheless, our house strongly believes that this effect is not reached in the reality, because the death itself is not a fear for most of people who commit terrorists acts that cause death (9/11 or Madrid’s Subway). In most of cases, the terrorist will die and become a hero this way. Long imprisonment and psychological treatment still a more efficient and better option.

The second clash point is the psychological treatment. The proposition house differs in this argument, but as the opposition house recognize terrorists acts as a mistake, a fact that makes possible social rehabilitation. Nevertheless, they focus the refutation on the false supposition that a psychological treatment I s reserved for lunatics, and the terrorists aren’t so. As we already said, lunatic people may be treated, but that’s not a reason to exclude those kinds of treatments for people who are not qualified as lunatic.

Our last argument to present in this summary was slightly refuted in this debate: the point about the judicial fault is tried to be trivialized comparing it with a professor’s decision. This house made an effort to be enough clear and short when we said that those are two kinds of decisions very different an incomparable due to the difference between the effects each one produces.

For these reasons, the death penalty should not be imposed for terrorist acts that cause death.

Yes because...


The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death

What do you think?
(57%) (43%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment on "The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death"

Dave

We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!

wpDiscuz