When capital punishment is necessary

[argent_paladin]

In the modern world, it is hard to think of a case where the only way to defend society is to execute a convicted criminal. However, I maintain that one case is when you have a high-ranking member of an international terrorist organization. The story of Mohammed Ali Hamadi is enlightening.
Hamadi hijacked TWA flight 847 in 1985 and killed Robert Stethem, a Navy diver. He was arrested by chance two years later in Germany (at an airport, smuggling in explosives). Shortly after his arrest, two German citizens were kidnapped, and terrorists demanded his release. Germany refused to extradite him to America, even though it was an American airline and American murdered. After the refusal of extradition, the hostages were released.
He was sentenced to life in prison, but on the day of the verdict, three Germans were taken hostage.
Now, this terrorist and murderer, serving a life sentence, is free:
[quote]BERLIN - A Lebanese man serving a life sentence for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner and killing of a U.S. Navy diver has been paroled after 19 years, a law enforcement official said Tuesday. Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released from prison and has left Germany, said Doris Moeller-Scheu, spokeswoman for the Frankfurt prosecutor's office. She said she did not know his destination.
[/quote]

The German's say that the release has nothing to do with the release yesterday of a German hostage in Iraq.
[quote]A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Martin Jaeger, said there was no connection between Hamadi's release and the recent freeing of former hostage Susanne Osthoff, a German woman released over the weekend after spending more than three weeks as a captive in Iraq.[/quote]
However, the Germans have a long history of capitulating to terrorist hostage taking. The Munich Olympics terrorist acts were perhaps the most infamous in modern history. However, the Germans let the perpatrators go (the had them all in custody) because they felt that their citizens would be the target of terrorist hostage taking.

So, do you feel that it is immoral to execute someone who has terrorist friends willing to take citizens hostage until he is released? We have just seen one of the worst terrorists walk free today and there is little doubt that he will rejoin a terrorist organization. I feel that a government has a duty to execute these types of criminals to protect its citizens.
[url="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK0OUG0.html"]http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK0OUG0.html[/url]
[url="http://www.digenovatoensing.com/inthenews/Germany_Needs_Fortitude.htm"]http://www.digenovatoensing.com/inthenews/...s_Fortitude.htm[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote]So, do you feel that it is immoral to execute someone who has terrorist friends willing to take citizens hostage until he is released? We have just seen one of the worst terrorists walk free today and there is little doubt that he will rejoin a terrorist organization. I feel that a government has a duty to execute these types of criminals to protect its citizens.[/quote]

I agree with this...and it's part of why I use Osama bin Laden or Saddam as examples in when I think it should be applied.

[Matty_boy]

As a political science person, I'd argue that we do not have enough resources to put all of the dangerous prisoners in solitary confinement for life, and I think that to devote that much money to such would be imprudent. We may have the technology, but the technology does not come cheap. We have the technology to build a space shuttle, but we don't have the money to give one to each person.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 20 2005, 01:02 PM']I agree with this...and it's part of why I use Osama bin Laden or Saddam as examples in when I think it should be applied.
[right][snapback]831864[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Q,
You agree with what? That such a terrorist should be executed?

I think I agree, but wonder about his terrorist friends who will take hostages ... what will be the retaliation for his execution? Would his execution send a message that would stop the terrorists, or would it provoke more attacks? Would keeping him in prison provoke too many attempts to free him or frighten those holding him to release him? Or would keeping him in prison cause his terrorist buddies to stop their activity?

[qfnol31]

I think that keeping him in prison would cause a problem for all those trying to keep him in jail.

I do recognize that putting him to death could and might cause a lot of deaths indirectly, but I think that the risk of Heaven is what equals these two out a little more.

Also, if you continue to keep him, then you have to worry about repeated attacks. I don't think that you'll have repeated attacks if the death penalty is used...but we've not really had any good proof of that.

I also wonder about how effectively it would deter future terrorist attempts. Of course, this is really difficult to understand.

[jasJis]

People act accordingly to how they are allowed to and what works for them. In South America, it's common to kidnap wealthy people because the police are unwilling and unable to dedicate the resources to tracking down the kidnappers, so ransom is paid. Others then decide to copy the successful kidnappings.
In the US, our police are well financed and track down kidnappers and arrest them. Others see that it is very unusual for a kidnapping to be successful, so it isn't attempted often.
One reason why we don't have alot of terrorist attacks in the US, is the idea the US will track them down, and possibly attack the host Country. A very negative and forceful reaction is expected. That is why most attacks have been against US presence in other Countries.
England is an excellent example of how to deal with terrorism. England put alot of effort into finding, disrupting, and arresting the IRA. The IRA was not getting positive results, not getting prisoners released, etc. Terrorism was not working for them any more.
The only way to combat Terrorism is to cause an outcome that negatively overwelms what benefits the terrorist hoped to accomplish. The best way to support Terrorist Attacks is to let the terror get what he hoped for. Pay the ransom, release prisoners, remove troops, remove aid workers, let them take power in a country. That only teaches them that terrorism works. Very short sighted.
Reminds me of the French during WW-2. Don't cause trouble for the Germans and they'll leave them alone. As you can see, it didn't work out that way. If is not moral to be a 6' tall seventh grader and not do anything about the 5' tall bully who is picking on all the littler kids. Eventuall the bully with come after you with a group of people who are afraid of him and kick your butt.

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent paladin']So, do you feel that it is immoral to execute someone who has terrorist friends willing to take citizens hostage until he is released? We have just seen one of the worst terrorists walk free today and there is little doubt that he will rejoin a terrorist organization. I feel that a government has a duty to execute these types of criminals to protect its citizens.[/quote]

Actually, I do. I think that as a Catholic, I have a duty to follow the Catechetical teaching which is a sure norm for the faithful. It states that if non-lethal means are sufficient to protect society from the aggressor, then those means should be applied.

Since this topic continually is brought to the forefront I think that the Catechetical position should be restated.

[quote name='CCC #2267']Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/quote]

Considering that the state can effectively silence these people without killing them, by placing them in some form of confinement which would effectively eliminate them as a threat to society.

If however, the argument is going to be made that the person is a threat because others act in his name, then one would have to justify the person being responsible for the personal sins of another.

I think that Theograd brings up a great issue.....will the execution actually help the greater good of society? What would the ramifications be. I don't like the language that Zach is using, because he is using the attainment of heaven as a negative. Attainment of heaven is not ever a negative, but always a positive.

[quote name='qfnol31']I do recognize that putting him to death could and might cause a lot of deaths indirectly, but I think that the risk of Heaven is what equals these two out a little more.[/quote]

Perhaps it is bad use of language, but since this is the mode by which we communicate here, it is an incorrect notion.

Again, from a Catholic point of view, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the conditions have been met in CCC #2267 and that it is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY of protecting society and that it is the only recourse left to the state.

Incarcerate him for all of his life. Lock him up, throw away the key. This is more in keeping with human dignity than killing him.

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 21 2005, 05:31 AM']Reminds me of the French during WW-2.  Don't cause trouble for the Germans and they'll leave them alone. 
[right][snapback]832573[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It was called the Vichy regime.

[argent_paladin]

[quote]Considering that the state can effectively silence these people without killing them, by placing them in some form of confinement which would effectively eliminate them as a threat to society.[/quote]
I disagree. Mob bosses, terrorists, etc can influence people and events outside of prison, even in the US. There is also the definite possibility of escape. Do you think that a group that is audacious and ingenious enough to simultaneously hijack four planes and slam them into buildings would not be able to effect a prison break?
And of course the article shows the always present possibility that through corruption or through misguided intentions, dangerous threats to society can be allowed to walk free. Perhaps it takes a decade or two, but all it takes is one well-placed connection to pardon, offer clemency, amnesty, look the other way, etc. The death penalty is permanent, which definitively defends society from any further threat. Incarceration is not permanent. There are pluses and minuses about this, and it is irresponsible to only hilight the minuses (executing the wrong person, etc).
I think Saddam should be executed. As Hitler should have, had he lived. They are too dangerous to even give them the chance to escape (one need only look at the example of Napoleon, who lead an army that once again threatened Europe after his initial defeat and exile).

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:10 PM']I disagree. Mob bosses, terrorists, etc can influence people and events outside of prison, even in the US. There is also the definite possibility of escape. Do you think that a group that is audacious and ingenious enough to simultaneously hijack four planes and slam them into buildings would not be able to effect a prison break?
And of course the article shows the always present possibility that through corruption or through misguided intentions, dangerous threats to society can be allowed to walk free. Perhaps it takes a decade or two, but all it takes is one well-placed connection to pardon, offer clemency, amnesty, look the other way, etc. The death penalty is permanent, which definitively defends society from any further threat. Incarceration is not permanent. There are pluses and minuses about this, and it is irresponsible to only hilight the minuses (executing the wrong person, etc).
I think Saddam should be executed. As Hitler should have, had he lived. They are too dangerous to even give them the chance to escape (one need only look at the example of Napoleon, who lead an army that once again threatened Europe after his initial defeat and exile).
[right][snapback]832990[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Would the be able to affect a prison break? Have they done so thus far? How many prison breaks have there been at "Gitmo?"

Incarceration can be permanent. If no parole is offered, then it is pretty permanent. And if you think that I only highlight the minuses, then your side only highlights the pluses. So, on that you may be correct. However, I do believe that I have supported the use of capital punishment, IF it is the only possible means.....but that continually gets overlooked.....

If you think that Saddam should be executed, where does it stop? Should Mrs. Anthrax be executed? Should the rest of his cabinet be executed? Should the rest of his supporters be executed? Who's to say that someone won't "pick up his banner?"

If it is the only possible means, I agree, execute. However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, then don't. I think that non-lethal means are sufficient, and I have shown as much. The proof needs to be shown that it is not.