White Supremist is Executed for race crime in Texas

Correction, every citizen is entitled to the rights of a citizen. Someone who betrays their society in such a manner has revoked that right by conducting an attack against their own nation. In fact, terrorists are unlawful combatants; they've essentially decided to go to war against their own country, and the government has every right to dispose of them. Like I said, treason can be taken on a case by case basis; terrorism, however, cannot be, since that person has willingly and knowingly committed a violent act against the state. Human rights are a different issue; nowhere does it say that justified execution is a crime against humanity.

No strawmen here, please. Nowhere in my statement did I use this argument; however, if the alternative is a risk to national security, yes. No state should gamble its own stability for the sake of one person, as national security is something that affects the whole country.

edited 21st Sep '11 9:26:17 PM by tropetown

Ace@I am with Ace on this Texas has a problem with racists and its a long ugly history but I am glad that they did not let this fool get away with this crime because I bet this fool didn't even regret doing it.

But in any case, the way he killed the guy was really brutal. :/ Also it sounds like an old hanging.

If you read what racists jackbutts did during segregation to colored folks it would be similar what this guy did to that brother.The sad part is that they got away with it because the courts of course were racists themselves and didn't care if a n#gger died or not.

edited 21st Sep '11 9:25:18 PM by joyflower

> What if they were privy to a host of sensitive information? Not all the danger they pose has to be direct; they might let something dangerous slip to someone who shouldn't know it, or they might escape. On top of that, if they were especially charismatic, they might even be able to recruit less high-security prisoners to their cause, who could then in turn convert more people.

I think Death Penalty should be limited with to Serial Killer, Spree Killer, and like this case Killing with Brutality / Torture. Executing someone for spying, treason and terrorism should only if they caused death, spying during war, assisting terrorist bomber, etc. Executing someone because future danger like to prevent information slip ort because they are charismatic seems very inhumane. it cross the boundary from "punishing" to "prevention".

Why should terrorism be treated differently from murder?

Appealing to national security is a poor justification. To execute someone for a crime they might commit in the future is to undermine the justice system, which is far more harmful to society than any sort of threat someone could plausibly pose to national security from prison.

Execution is prevention.

Appealing to national security is the best justification possible, in fact, as the security of the nation affects everyone in the nation. A leader who can't place the safety of his people first doesn't deserve to be President of a paper bag, let alone a country.

Explain how allowing dangerous terrorists to survive and convert others to their cause could possibly be worse than executing them and removing the danger they pose.

edited 21st Sep '11 9:38:17 PM by tropetown

Imprisonment is prevention, too. The difference is that it's a far greater injustice if someone later found to be innocent is put to death.

> Correction, every citizen is entitled to the rights of a citizen.

what about human rights ? children, foreigner are not citizen, even illegal immigrant get many rights. limiting rights to citizen seems 19th century

> Someone who betrays their society in such a manner has revoked that right by the action of attempting to undermine their own society. Like I said, treason can be taken on a case by case basis; terrorism, however, cannot be, since that person has willingly and knowingly committed a violent act against the state.

Just society should not abandon rights or obligation to its citizen just because it did not reciprocity. a lot of insane psychopath is far less responsible citizen than traitor. people could commit treason and terrorism because their loyalty to the state, they just want their state go to different direction. Beside a lot of people give money and assistance to terrorism without participate in violence.

> Human rights are a different issue; nowhere does it say that justified execution is a crime against humanity.

European already banned death penalty. Using Death Penalty for non-violent crime like treason and spying seems excessive.

>> Are you suggesting that someone should be put to death for the threat they might pose if merely imprisoned?

> No strawmen here, please. Nowhere in my statement did I use this argument; however, if the alternative is a risk to national security, yes. No state should gamble its own stability for the sake of one person, as national security is something that affects the whole country.

You did argue maximum security prison is not enough. Imprisoning spies and traitor for National Security seems enough.

Whoops ninja'ed again, and Enthryn seems could argue better than me.

Tropetown, i think you should explain term "terrorist, traitor and spies" more clearly. There a lot of people whose those term can be applied without necesssary for executing them. The Wobblies, weather underground, al qaeda shoeman, israeli spies, etc all don't deserve execution.

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, in the case of terrorists (those who have essentially committed an act of war against their own country), spies (those who have gained access to matters of national security, and have used their knowledge to betray their country to another), and certain traitors (those whose betrayal has had dire consequences for the continued safety of the country), the risk they pose is far too great.

Justified execution is not a violation of human rights. On top of that, they have committed an act of war against their own nation; they have revoked any and all protection that the state would be inclined to give them. They are still, however, subject to fair and humane treatment according to international law; this means that they are to be tried and judged according to the laws of the offended power. If that includes execution, it is not a violation of international law, but the natural result of such an action.

A lack of reciprocity is different from direct enmity; someone who has committed acts of terrorism has set themselves as an enemy of the state. A lone psychopath is a danger to the people around him; a terrorist, spy or traitor is a danger to the entire country.

Irrelevant. What Europe does is their affair; American courts of law are not in European jurisdiction. Treason, espionage, and terrorism are matters of national security, which, to reiterate, affect the safety of everyone in the nation.

Not if they pose enough of a danger to the country. Spies from other countries could possibly be spared execution if their deaths would cause an international incident, or if they can be used as leverage for the release of other captured spies, but other than that, executing them is justified. As for traitors, I already said that they can be taken on a case-by-case basis.

I defined the three terms in my first point. I wouldn't consider the Wobblies to fall under any of the definitions, first off. Weather Underground I'd concede could have dealt with by simple imprisonment; however, if they showed signs of becoming more dangerous, execution would be justified. Any member of Al Qaeda who knowingly and willingly plans a terrorist attack should be executed, no exceptions. I wouldn't execute Israeli spies unless they were actually spying; I'd also take a look at how their deaths would affect international relations with Israel, as well.

edited 21st Sep '11 10:13:52 PM by tropetown

I'll ask again: Why should terrorism be treated differently from murder?

You say that members of Al Qaeda who plan — just plan, not necessarily carry out — a terrorist attack should be executed. Why should the penalty for this be greater than the penalty for actually murdering someone? I fail to see why the presence of a political motive should change the severity of the crime to such a great degree.

Because terrorism poses a danger to far more people than just its direct victims. It has political consequences, and the question here becomes; would you rather allow one person to die, or fail to prevent the deaths of thousands more? Look at the case of Ibrahim Hamid, or at the cases of imprisoned Taliban members being able to direct attacks while incarcerated; had they been executed, they would not have been able to do so, obviously.

In spirit, my argument was meant for people who actually carried out these attacks. I could understand lowering the mandatory penalty for simple planning to life imprisonment, simply because the government needs to be able to escalate the punishment to impose a difference in severity. However, this, too, would be on a case-by-case basis; someone who would remain a significant threat while incarcerated should be dealt with.

edited 21st Sep '11 10:34:47 PM by tropetown

I'm in the camp that execution should only be done when you are 130% certain someone did a SERIOUSLY HEINOUS crime.

Not...Troy Davis with shoddy evidence.

That said, I feel no sense of sadness over this asshole's death.

Terrorism has political consequences, yes, but so does the death penalty. The choice we're considering is between executing or imprisoning a person convicted of planning a terrorist attack. If they are imprisoned, there is admittedly a chance — albeit a fairly small one — that they'd be able to plan a terrorist attack from jail, and that the attack wouldn't have been carried out if they had been executed.

However, if the person is executed, several other possibilities arise:

• They could have been wrongly convicted, in which case an innocent has been killed.
• Their death could encourage others to seek revenge.
• If their guilt is in doubt, then it will greatly harm the reputation of the country and the justice system, and it could be used to persuade others to carry out violent acts against the nation responsible for the execution.

With an indirect risk connected to potential terrorist acts in either case, the direct harm — potentially putting an innocent person to death — should take priority.

edited 21st Sep '11 10:40:07 PM by Enthryn

I think that with a case against a terrorist, there's a lot of political pressure to find far more accurate evidence than with your run of the mill murderer. And, in some cases, they outright admit to it because they're proud of what they did.

So yeah, they might be the same in essence, but in acting it out they're quite different.

Edit: Terrorism is treated differently because the motives, intent, and methods are very different, is what I mean. A murderer does it for things like greed, rage, or shits and giggles. Terrorists quite often are following some kind of ideal, and are more likely to be far more organized and connected to a group that possesses the same intent. I'm not saying a terrorist doesn't have a right to council to defend themselves. According to American law, all citizens do. I'm not quite sure what the law is for foreigners here, but I think we're supposed to connect them with some sort of council at some point if we want to try them. But yeah, not much sympathy from me for executing a convicted terrorist.

edited 21st Sep '11 10:45:36 PM by AceofSpades

The death penalty used against unlawful combatants is justified. Explain what political consequences these are, and why they would justify allowing terrorists to live.

As I said before, unconditional execution was meant for those who (willingly and knowingly, remember) commit a terrorist act in my original argument. Mere conspirators can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Eradicating that small chance is the work of any government; while some won't pose a threat in jail, the fact that they are part of a terrorist movement and have engaged their own country in hostilities is not one that deserves mercy. Of course, I will agree that it's possible to deal with some of them without executing them; I just believe that they should be executed, the same way that you believe they shouldn't be.

1. If they are wrongfully executed, like in every other case of wrongful execution, it will be a tragedy. However, people convicted of terrorist attacks are typically being watched by the highest levels of government, monitored, and have reasonable evidence to warrant their execution. The danger they present is also much greater than that of someone who murders on their own, or even from those who are a part of organized crime.

2. Those who would have sought revenge for his death were probably already terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. Therefore, you lose nothing in motivating them to seek revenge, though you can certainly monitor those who may pose a threat for a time following the death of the terrorist.

3. If. Terrorists will use any reason to recruit others to their cause; imprisoning him would have the same effect, if his guilt was indeed in doubt.

Oh, definitely. However, so can any action against a terrorist group.

edited 21st Sep '11 11:01:28 PM by tropetown

The designation of "unlawful combatant" is highly controversial and politicized; it's exactly the sort of charge influenced by politics that I was talking about. The status of "unlawful combatant" was used in recent years by the United States as an excuse for detention of suspected terrorists, without trial and in violation of international law.

On another note, I think there's a difference in our moral principles here. You seem to be of the opinion that terrorists deserve to die, regardless of whether it's necessary to execute them. My view is that legal punishments ought to always serve the purpose of preventing further harm, and should never be about retribution; any punishment carried out against a person is inherently a bad thing, so it's unjust unless necessary to prevent a greater harm. So, if a lesser punishment (e.g. imprisonment instead of death) will prevent the same harms, then it's better.

edited 21st Sep '11 11:19:44 PM by Enthryn

Really? I'm tempted to go dig up that "express lane" bit of Ron White's.

Enthryn, do you know how many gangs get started in prisons? How effectively a prisoner can lead from there? A terrorist could do the same thing. I'm not saying anyone deserves to die here, but killing them cuts off any and all harm they can possibly do ever. And again, once you violate someone's rights, such as their right to live, you've forfeited your own.

If they really were unlawful combatants, meaning they were non-combatant civilians found engaging in hostilities against the US, then their internment was not a violation of international law in itself. The violation would come if they did not deal with these suspected unlawful combatants according to the laws of the US, and the rights granted to people under these laws.

Yes, so do I. This isn't even a question of traditional morality; I certainly recognize and accept the moral justifications that terrorists may have; in fact, I have great respect for people who are willing to fight to serve their sense of purpose. I just don't believe that the government should do the same; its purpose is to protect itself and its citizens, and a betrayal of that purpose is unacceptable.

Again, strawman. That was not my argument; I would simply advocate a greater crackdown on enemies of the state than you would. They are, essentially, committing an act of war against the state; going by this, I don't believe that they need to be spared unless there is a military or political reason to do so.

In regular matters, I would fully agree. However, terrorism, as I have repeated multiple times, is tantamount to a declaration of war against the victim state. In matters of war, those in charge with ensuring the safety of the nation should err on the side of caution. In this case, execution would do a better job of removing the threat than imprisonment.

edited 21st Sep '11 11:49:05 PM by tropetown

I'm done posting for the night, but I just wanted to note that I'm not intentionally making any strawman arguments. If I wrongly attribute a position to you, it's because I misunderstood what you're arguing, not because of any intent to misrepresent your views.

That's fine, and I didn't think that was your intention. Unintentional strawmen are an unfortunate accident in any debate, I'm afraid; I just felt the need to point them out. Good night.

Getting back to the original topic at hand; as most of us here would agree, he got far less than he deserved. Lucky for him, I wasn't in charge of his execution...

edited 21st Sep '11 11:56:30 PM by tropetown

Meh, execution was enough. Anything else would be egregious. The point of justice is to not engage in vengeance.

True. I'm not saying they should have gone further; I'm only saying that I would have certainly been tempted to.