Targeted Killing Statman

Showing people that commit these atrocious crimes that this behavior remains intoleratable and that a punishment that fits every crime exists shows what is necessary to detour future criminals. If more criminals believe that they can be caught, tried and executed they will be less inclined to commit such heinous crimes. If we as a government do not execute murderers that in turn could have deterred other murders, then we have allowed the killings to continue and innocent victims to die. Lowe concludes, “The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their

2. In the film it was stated the “U.S. commanders argue that for now, kill/capture is a crucial part of a wider counterinsurgency campaign that is starting to roll back the Taliban.” The counterinsurgency campaign also involves U.S. troops hunting down the enemy and killing them, but just killing the right people. Where the kill/capture is not just aimed at taking out the enemies in the battlefield, but in reducing the survival of the enemy organizations as well. Due to the fact that it was stated both special operations forces and conventional troops can wage kill/capture campaigns, I believe that the Kill / Capture policy enhances the goals of the counterinsurgency program as it not only has the same goals in the end, but goes a step farther as well.

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

There are critical issues addressed in his article Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured? America is known for

On the other hand, Greenberg, Reiman, and Gray argue against deterrence and how it is not a leading factor for justifying the administration the death penalty. “Because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy - deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state - America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg 1670). Greenberg argues how due to the American system of capital punishment, deterrence is not a factor due to the “infrequent, random, and erratic executions” of this system

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

Most of his reasoning orbits around the fact that capturing a terrorist on the day of a suspected attack and torturing him until he admits to said crime, or says what the torturers want him to say will save thousands or even millions of people is absurd. There are so many factors included in pin pointing a crime on an individual, that the premise of coming to the conclusion of who is guilty in a short period of time correctly is almost inconceivable. If it is so arduous to determine if a suspect is actually guilty, then how can it be appropriate to torture those who you only assume committed, or were planning to commit mass crimes? Also, the premise that torturing an individual will actually get a truthful response out of them is senseless. If one is being tortured to admit to something, wouldn’t they just admit to it, no matter if they are actually guilty or not, to stop said torture? The whole idea of torture is very asinine. There is no way to know if the person is admitting because they are guilty, or because they want the torture to stop.

The changing face of conflict has brought about an evolution on how we conduct and even think about warfare. Gross (2010) states that assassination was once prohibited under the statutes of international law but has increasingly become common in the modern day battlefield. A dilemma is presented when we question is there any ethical basis of using assassination as a tool of modern warfare. There is increasing realization that one cannot engage in war using the conventional means. Terrorism and insurgence being the new methods employed in modern warfare mean fighting using conventional rules puts one at a major disadvantage. The killing of Osama Bin Laden according to White (2012) can be termed as an assassination; it was executed by a special

In the essay The Death Penalty: Is It Ever Justified? Written by Edward I. Koch, this exact issue is discussed. Koch believes capital punishment in the form of the death penalty

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this

Perhaps most importantly, one must consider the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We must ask ourselves, "What type of message are we as a nation sending to the rest of the world and to our own citizens when we kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people?" By executing murderers, we are merely lowering ourselves to their level in order to express our primitive desire for retribution. Our society can never be called moral or democratic if we begin sacrificing individuals, without their consent, to 'the greater good.' Since capital punishment is supposedly intended to protect and avenge innocent lives, it has failed its purpose if, as it undoubtedly has and will, it causes even a few blameless people to be killed. The

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.

There is one problem however for consequentalists as to whether war could cause more suffering that solving the problem. Utilitarian defenders then say that some of these wars increased pain and suffering. If people will go against wars then, happiness will be the ultimate result. In this theory, killing is justified if it will eventually give happiness in the end. An individual can act the way he wants but should be careful not to

Deterrence has played a sizeable role in the capital punishment argument for both sides. Author of “The Ultimate Punishment”

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of