Introduction:
Targeted killings are killing of a suspect or member of a terrorist organization by having suspensions on them. However, the justification of targeted killing is the most vital and hard part since an individual is being killed without a proven guilt. There are numerous views on targeted killings some says it is a legitimate act to counterterrorism for pre-planned and pre-mediated terrorists acts or ‘’self-defense’’ while some other says it is more of an extra-judicial execution (Kretzmer, 2005, p. 188). For instance, if an Afghan intelligence services found out credible information of an individual out of the country planning for an attack against Afghanistan or its citizens. The Afghan intelligence services can ask that country to arrest the individual. However, there are fears that individual might not be arrested or extradited and he might plan for a new risk and attacks against Afghanistan. The question is: should the Afghan government be allowed to kill the suspect in a foreign territory without even trying to arrest? Government have the monopoly over the use of force against a citizen but it is reserved both by domestic and international human rights. Targeted killings brought tensions between addressing terrorism as a crime or as a war. In law enforcement, individuals would be punished once they guilt is proven. The individual will face trial in a court of law and will enjoy the protections. Thus, there should be ways to solve this problem or at least give it a justification on why these people are being targeted or killed. There is another question, which ways to use for solving this problem, the domestic law or the international law? To my understanding there are several reasons why the regulation of te...
... middle of paper ...
...l an innocent.
Application of Targeted killings through international law is risky and takes civilian’s lives usually. However, there are numerous advantages of it through applying domestic law. As mentioned earlier, we shall apply domestic law in targeted killings for certain reasons such as accepting the principles of legality, not undermining the legitimacy of state and its constitution, distinction between civilians and combatants. However, there were some disadvantage of it through domestic law too like corruption can corrupt this process as well as time consumable. Therefore, application of targeted killings through domestic is better than international law.
Works Cited
Kretzmer, D. (2005). Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defense. Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense : Noah Feldman.
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
Harris M. Lentz, III. Assassinations and Executions: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence. Jefferson: McFarland and Company, Inc., 1988.
Reisman, W.M. (2008). Acting before victims become victims: preventing and arresting mass murder. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 40 (1), 57-85. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.clemson.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34239668&site=ehost-live
Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (2012). Extreme Killing Understanding Serial and Mass Murder. Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.
On December 18th 2015 Netflix aired with great popularity a 10 part documentary series called “making a Murderer” The documentary, written by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demo, present the case of Steven Avery; a convicted murderer exonerated on DNA evidence after serving 18 years for the assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. The writers present the series in a way that suggest that Avery was framed by the Manitowoc Country police department. and present that the police planted evidence to frame Steven Avery because he had been exonerated from the previous crime. The ethical problem with this as is presented by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker, is that the documentary argues their case so passionately that they leave out important
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. “Capital Punishment.” Our Duty or Our Doom. 12 May 2010. 30 May 2010 .
A contentious issue in current debate is the death penalty and its application in society. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, occurs when a individual is punished by execution as a consequence of an offence they committed (Taylor, 2014). Although Australia does not practice the death penalty, many countries continue to employ it as a means of justice and uphold its value in society. The death penalty debate is a multifaceted issue, encompassing many aspects of society including ethics and morality, the judicial system, and politics and the economy. It will be argued that the death penalty is a morally dubious and obsolete practice that is no longer relevant in modern judiciary, as it breaches the inviolable human right to life. Ethics and morality are primary arguments for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, as some individuals believe that the death penalty is a immoral practice and others consider that it can be morally justified when prolific crimes are committed. Punishment is fundamental element to any legal system as a means of justice and ensuing that the offender is unable to commit additional crimes; however, in the case of the death penalty there can be dire consequences if the legal system is wrong. Politics and the economy are also greatly influenced by the death penalty as they determine if the practice is maintained. The death penalty breaches a number of human rights laws and some individuals support that it is immoral; however, others consider it to be justifiable due to the heinous actions of the offender.
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The Ethics of Capital Punishment Ethics is "the study of standards of right and wrong. " philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty and judgement. ' [1] Capital Punishment is the death penalty for a crime. The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head as in the past. people were often executed by severing their heads from their bodies.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
The Death Penalty and War.Full Text Available By: Duner, Bertil; Geurtsen, Hanna. International Journal of Human Rights, Winter2002, Vol. 6 Issue 4, p1-28, 28p
The use of torture has become a prominent matter of dispute as we enter an age of the global war on terror. The debate on whether it has become morally permissible to torture terrorists is argued by many as the legitimacy of such actions are brought into question in a world where global terror is outstanding. With the use of the ticking time bomb scenario, some make a desirable case that in special circumstances, there is a right to torture individuals implicated is acts of mass violence. Yet many would still argue that there are an array of inconsistencies hidden within the ticking bomb scenario and there are no circumstances where torture can be morally permissible, no matter what the consequences may hold.