moral dilemma

Post Reply New Topic

here is a dilemma...
it is to do with terrorism and extremist beliefs.

The UK government is proposing to pass a new law that classifies a neo nazi group called national action as terrorists, mainly due to the recent murder of one of the UK Parliament's MP by one of their members.

I was wondering what people's thoughts were as to what punishment people classified as terrorists should get.
When considering the agenda of the people involved, i was wondering if people thought that capital punishment should be brought back.

Now, when i talk of terrorists, i not only include this new neo-nazi group but also any other group who incites murder of any innocent parties based on bigotry such as the color of a persons skin, their sexual gender, their place of birth and their religion (discluding any banned religions that promote breaking the laws of the land).

I was wondering if the terrorists are a real threat to the innocent people and the stability of society due to their violent and slanderous acts. Then perhaps we should be consider asking for the death penalty to return.

I personally thing that prison is a waste of time and money, as terrorists do not change in prison, and if anything get worse or more criminalised. I wonder if there are any forms of rehab that work. I also wonder if rehab and prison does not work, then perhaps the solution is to treat the terrorists as they treat their victims and torture them for information and then kill them.

The christians out there may think it is wrong to kill even terrorists, however if the terrorists pose a threat to millions if not billions of human beings, then letting them off or allowing them to survive would surely not be particularly good risk management.

But like i say, this is a very sticky topic where the people whom your dealing with are extremely unusual and capable of extreme sadism, in the name of their world views, their religious views and which is often seen as biggotted in nature.

So what do you do?

Also, if the government do want to get rid of such extremely bad people but do not want to face the political repercussions of any policies that will be used against them, perhaps the government should consider doing what some of the terrorists are doing, and go under cover or start black op style operations.

Although like i say, this entire area is complex due to how many people involved
And some people will let mass murderers go free at the cost of their own sanctuary and family.
I am not sure if letting barabbas go free is really the answer...
any debate?

What I would be worried about in that case is what groups would become acceptable to "remove". There are people who call anyone who just barely step outside their world view deplorables and nazis, giving them the idea that the killing of these people is acceptable could turn ugly fast.

Also, torture is not an effective way to get real information. It's also one of the most heinous acts you can commit against a fellow human being, and would make you no better than the likes of ISIS. In their eyes, all the atrocities they commit are in the name of the greater good.

On your comment about jail, I agree that locking people up does not solve their criminal behaviour. In response to your question about other forms of rehab. which are more effective, there are ways to help perpetrators of many different crimes. If you are interested in this, look up Dr Wendell Rosevear. He is an expert in the rehabilitation of perpetrators of rape, helping them not to reoffend.

[Moved to Politics, Philosophy and Religion]

I am strongly opposed to torture and the death penalty.

I think in most cases, the death penalty for terrorists is a moot point because they kill themselves anyway. I think life imprisonment is a better punishment because it gives them time to reflect on their crime (and potentially suffer more), as well as the opportunity to reform. It also saves the state money as life imprisonment is cheaper, and there's the potential to correct miscarriages of justice.

I also don't think that our current prison system is fit for purpose and needs serious reform, but ultimately I think the correct punishment for murder or attempted murder is a decade or more locked away where you can't hurt anybody.

Terrorists certainly can reform. Maajid Nawaz is probably the leading voice against extremism in the UK, and he used to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. There are also several prominent elected politicians in this country who have associated with terrorist groups in the past.

So first you say "I think life imprisonment is a better punishment" and then you say "I think the correct punishment for murder or attempted murder is a decade or more locked away" but I think you're saying: All forms of terrorism are not equal. Am I right?

You have bombers, and such, who kill themselves, as you mention. Then there are underlings who may have very little to do with the actual killings (maybe they just hand out leaflets?). It seems underlings should have less than capital punishment. But a decade for handing out leaflets defending your religious or political beliefs???

As much as I hate it the only effective system for holding such political prisoners is a completely offensive system such as Guantanamo. This helps to keep the terrorists separate from the vulnerable population and from freely plotting while in a ordinary prison. Not very humane, but far better than wholesale slaughter of such people. Maybe the "leaflet" people might think twice before promoting their evil?

Can someone tell me: Are all religious terrorists Muslim? Or is it just some peculiarity of news reporting that makes this seem so?

No, but now and recently most of the active terrorist (but not all) claim to be Muslim. However these constitute a very small part of the world Muslim population. Unfortunately most Muslims seem disinclined to drop a dime on Muslim bad guys. Then tend to be silent or look the other way.

After 9/11 there was no million person Muslim march protesting Islamic motivated terrorist acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

For those that don't know about the attack that happened not too long ago.

Honestly I think anyone that kills anyone needs to go to a harsh psyche unit prison where they can be assessed and helped properly rather than just thrown in regular prison because currently UK prisons are a MESS. They let the prisoners get away with so much and they aren't being punished properly for having weapons/phones/etc.

I have a friend who works at Strangeways prison, she is looking for a new job because it's recently become super dangerous to work there. There's even other guards drug dealing and doing all kinds of crazy stuff.

Criminals here see prison as going on holiday, literally, they even say this plenty of times. It's a complete joke.

As for capital punishment, if you just mean killing a criminal to wipe them out of the gene pool - that doesn't really work, anyone can become a murderer if the conditions are met. Killing them because they've turned into a killing machine and there is absolutely no hope for them even in a psyche ward, then yeah it's probably best that they are put down. There's a point where you can be literally too insane to help/function when it's that bad.

What about those who kill in self defense or defense of a family member. Or those who kill in the line of legal legitimate duty such as police or soldiers?

No, but now and recently most of the active terrorist (but not all) claim to be Muslim. However these constitute a very small part of the world Muslim population. Unfortunately most Muslims seem disinclined to drop a dime on Muslim bad guys. Then tend to be silent or look the other way.

A: Maybe they're just as angry (about something...can't imagine what) as the actual perpetrators, but just aren't swayed to the same degree?

After 9/11 there was no million person Muslim march protesting Islamic motivated terrorist acts

***See "A"^^^***

Here's how you deal with terrorist groups.

When members commit acts of terror in the name of whatever group that they show allegience with, hold the group financially liable for all court, investigation, and incarceration costs for the members responsible. --Furthermore, hold the groups liable for damages to properties and persons damaged/injured during the incident.

But, but...

Take the husband and wife killers in San Bernardino. They killed themselves and were probably poor. They CLAIMED to be part of an organization but so what? I doubt ISIS would show up for their court date...or if they did they would probably be in contempt of court shortly.

Hunt down their financing and freeze/confiscate their assets. Find their financiers and freeze/confiscate their assets.

Well for some dark, secret, very politically savvy reasons (no doubt) no one in this previous administration has thought it important enough to do so (don't want to step on toes would be my guess?). Perhaps the next administration will have what it takes to tackle big oil money (my guess? ).

In my vision, a terrorist is "any person or group that uses fear and intimidation to get a point across".

Any such person or group should be punished, yes, but simply being a terrorist doesn't strip you of you human rights (not all of them, at least).
A jailable offence; yes, perhaps for life, but no torture, no death penalty. no person deserves that, and if you sentence someone to be tortured/killed, or perform said sentence, you are no better than the person you are punishing. (in my opinion)

Unfortunately, the media doesn't give us an adequate understanding of the complexity of "terrorism." First off, if a terrorist group is any group that gets its point across through violence against noncombatants, then what about governments? If Muslims seem ambivalent toward us, we might look to our own history with them to discover why. It's not just events like the CIA overthrow of the democratically-elected government is Iran, giving them instead a brutal dictator. It's not just the support of friendly dictators who suppress opposition. It's drone strikes and bombings with collateral damage, words of Holy War by our military leaders, and billions in military aid to a region in which millions lack food and housing.

Second, terrorist leaders are not the ones blowing themselves up. People like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the LTTE often agreed to support the families of poor people in exchange for them becoming suicide bombers. Their footsoldiers often come from abject poverty and have nothing to lose. There's a link between economics and violence.

Third, when a group is too small or voiceless to effect an election (assuming they even have the option of an election), violence is the most obvious means of affecting popular opinion, and in the hands of a capable leader it's very effective. The Cycle of Violence always benefits extremists (both terrorists and within the societies they target). Terrorists attack. The government can't locate the terrorist leaders, so they attack or restrict the group the terrorists claim to represent. That group, now targeted by the government turns to the terrorists for help.

So, given the above, does reactive violence offer any positive solutions at all? Does it do any good to give an abjectly poor person three hots and a cot for life, while teaching him or her that they were right about us after all?

I worked in Sri Lanka for a long time and studied that war, of which a regular component was terrorism. After 20 years of fighting, our group helped bring about the only lasting cease-fire-- by convincing the people represented by the leaders that violence was not in their best interests. The leaders were forced to make peace because of popular pressure. The cease-fire lasted six years. Then the leaders of both sides decided they could get away with returning to war. It was ugly. And that's the key: how do we change leadership as we change popular opinion? In a democracy, they may be able to be voted out (if you can find a politician who's not willing to use war to increase his or her own power). In a non-democratic structure, governmental or otherwise, there's no means to do that without violence, but violence perpetuates the problem.