Should convicted terrorists receive the death penalty?

The last week and a half has seen Britain come face to face with -and ultimately face down once again- the threat of terrorism. The two men who attempted to drive a burnng jeep loaded with explosive gas cylinders into Glasgow airport, prevented from carrying out an unspeakable atrocity only by their imcompetence, have since been apprehended. Once they are brought to trial -should the second suspect survive the extensive burns he suffered in the attempted attack- and are found guilty, they will most likely face the same verdict as the four 21/7 bombers who were yesterday sentenced to life imprisonment.

Of all those arrested and convicted of conspiring to carry out a terrorist attack, these two cases stand out more than most. This is because they are the only cases of the assailants actually being caught in the act. Certainly, there have been other cases of would be terrorists attempting to blow themselves up such as the case of Richard Reid, but such was the calamity of those attempts in that they failed to even partially succeed (thankfully, of course)that I feel that their inclusion would only serve to grossly understate the severity of the threat posed by the 21/7 and Glasgow bombers.

I have heard many people say what they think should be done with such men; what they think should have been done to the second Glasgow bomber as he lay burning on the ground outside the airport. There is no doubt that people see such terrorists as being far more of a threat and filled with far more malice and deserving of a far harsher punishment than a murderer who comits their atrocities with a knife or a gun. Indeed, popular opinion has consistently favoured the return of the death penalty in Britain; only Parliament has consistently opposed this with the last bid to reinstate capital punishment being defeated by a significant majority in the Commons 13 years ago. But that was before September 11th. Do we need to re-evaluate our approach now. Should we bring back the death penalty for charges faced by terrorists such as the Glasgow and 21/7?

Despite the fact that the United Kingdom is bound by the European Human Rights Act which prohibits capital punishment, the government has already been stressing for some time the possibility of suspending it or withdrawing from it in cases such as this. In this case, the issue becomes a question of will. Proponents of the re-introduction of the death penalty argue that terrorism is treason and anyone convicted of carrying out a terrorist attack should be put to death as an enemy of the state. Indeed, prior to the adoption of the European Human Rights Act in 1998, High Treason was the only remaining offence for which one could be sentenced to death. They also cite natural justice as a reason for being in favour of the policy. Through committing such atrocities and taking away the lives of so many innocent individuals, they sacrifice their right to life -especially in instances where mass murder is so deliberate with the assilants demonstrating no remorse of potential for rehabilitation. Execution also sends a sign, it is claimed, to those would be terrorists who harbour the same extremist inclinations, that anyone who tries to kill and maim the British people will face death themselves.

So is terrorism treason? On the face of it, there would appear to be little doubt. In English law, treason is defined as an attack against the Monarch or support for the Monarch's enemies. Even though attacks such as the 7th July bombings were perpetrated against civilians, technically an act of murder, their purpose was clearly to undermine the government and reverse its policies. Indeed these attacks, although carried out mostly by homegrown terrorists for their own reasons, were still conducted in complicity with foreign elements such as Al Qaeda whose raison d'etre is to oppose and destroy states such as the United Kingdom. However, for all the rhetoric floating around on the subject, our conflict with Al Qaeda and terrorism as a whole is not a war. Although the threat is not to be underestimated and our treasured way of life is at stake, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden cannot be compared to D-Day or even Iraq in terms of the military mobilisation and weaponry involved. You do not require an army to fight terrorism but a police force. Whereas in war, the contest is a clash of military might and will only be resolved when one side overpowers the other, no amount of bombs and guns can defeat terrorism as terrorists do not require barracks, fixed headquarters or armies to achieve their goals. Rather, sophisticated intelligence and sensible social policies along with multilateral diplomacy are better suited to win this battle, one of hearts and minds not planes and tanks. Furthermore, in most instances those who engage in terrorist attacks, far from conspiring to aid the conquest of their host country or reacting to some form of oppression, are social recluses who attach their own warped grievances to the actions or beliefs of any organisation they see as sharing their hatred of mainstream society. Indeed, the successor of radical cleric Omar Bakri as leader of his infamous band of followers used to be a member of the Far Right group, Combat 18. However, the conspiratorial nature, level of organisation and intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible of terrorists places their crimes on a different level from those of other murderers.

As for the deterrent argument, it seems to me, largely futile to use the threat of death to deter suicide bombers. The natural justice argument is far more compelling, certainly to the majority of British people who would welcome the re-introduction of the death penalty. It is by far the one which is hardest to argue with. Armchair speculation is easy, but at the end of the day, who wouldn't want to see the killer of their, child, parent or lover suffer the same fate in return? This is natural, but it is not justice. It is revenge and revenge runs totally against the grain of the purpose of an independent judiciary in any liberal democracy. Indeed, the only way justice can be served is to dehumanise the cases brought before them to ensure objectivity and only one thing matters: protecting those who do abide by our laws. As long as we have a functioning prison system to lock away our criminals for as long as necessary, execution is unnecessary. To give in to our human instinct to kill those who have killed would provide no extra protection to the law abiding majority whilst posing the risk of a wrongful execution of someone who was actually innocent. More significantly though, the use of the death penalty makes for a more violent society. After all, the law sets the ultimate example of acceptable behaviour in society. If the courts allows human nature to shape the rule of law and states that to take another life, even if only under certain circumstances, is just, then the value of human life will ultimately be lowered and a greater number of people will consider the killing of another as a justifiable course of action. The death penalty in America has not stopped it from having one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world.

Most importantly though, re-introducing the death penalty represents a victory for those who seek to change our way of life. It should also be noted that the underpinning principle of natural law, that the law should reflect specific moral absolutes that exist beyond the human experience of the world also forms the moral justification for Sharia law. Having seen how the latter can be so devastatingly distorted to suit the goals of dangerous extremists, is it really wise to make this particular form of jurispudence the basis of our own law.