The Death Penalty Should Be Imposed For Acts Of Terror That Cause Death
Last updated: March 2, 2017
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.
Acting as an example and ensuring Justice
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.
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.
There are more efficient policies than death penalty
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.
we are increasing the hate inside terrorist organizations and the dead person will be seen as a hero that animates their fight.
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.
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.