The laws are enacted and formulated by the will of the people, and with their implicit consent. In this sense everyone is responsible for the actions of their government. — Hogrider

"In principle" governments rule by the consent of the people. "In principle" laws are enacted by the will of the people. In practice governments rule through a combination of consent and coercion. In practice the relationship between law making and election becomes somewhat tenuous.

"The people" are very rarely asked to consent to the rule of a government, and when it appears that the people wish to rid themselves of their ruling government (the whole apparatus, not just the party currently in the executive mansion and legislature), the government almost always steps in to prevent the will of the people from taking effect.

I'm not suggesting that the relationship between the people and the government is all tyranny all the time. It is the case that governments rule by the consent of the most powerful groups within society, or to put it more bluntly, governments are composed of the most powerful groups.

Soviet Union and Russia, People's Republic of China, United States, Sweden, France, Israel, UK, Uganda, Burma, Peru, et al are ruled by and for the most powerful groups within the country. Affairs could be arranged on a different basis, but...

Of course what you say is true. Nonetheless the people shall be called upon by outside forces to account for their action. This can express itself in terms of sanctions, terrorism, diplomacy or outright warfare.
And so despite the distance between the people and those that govern them the responsibility goes to the collective.

Nonetheless, the people shall be called upon by outside forces to account for their action. This can express itself in terms of sanctions, terrorism, diplomacy or outright warfare. — Hogrider

No, again, that's the goverment, rather than the people. None of the examples that you've provided are typically directed against the people, with the possible exception of terrorism.

Sanctions are given by a state in response to the actions of another state. Diplomacy happens between diplomats, such as state officials. Warfare typically involves state armies and/or armed rebels. None of these are necessarily representative of the people. None of these typically depend upon the people for a resolution. The people might be adversely effected, but that doesn't mean that they're the real target or the ones being held responsible.

And so despite the distance between the people and those that govern them, the responsibility goes to the collective. — Hogrider

No, not necessarily, because that assumes that the circumstances are such that the people have the power to govern themselves, which is often not the case; and often any attempt at revolution is crushed, and it can result in a devastating civil war. It's wrong to hold those who are powerless - or who have insufficient power, or who cannot revolt without a devastating struggle and severe repercussions - responsible. At the very least, you should not hold them responsible to anywhere near the same extent as those who are really holding the reins, namely the government.

No, again, that's the goverment, rather than the people. None of the examples that you've provided are typically directed against the people, with the possible exception of terrorism. — Sapientia

I'm puzzled why you want to persist in this fantasy. The truth is whether or not you like it the nation is going to be held responsible. Sticking your head in a becket and pretending its just the governments fault is not going to save you from the "terrorist" who nation has had to suffer from the interference of your government over the last 100 years.
Nor should you be surprised when the tanks from neighbouring countries start to roll in and 'liberate' your nation.
So by action or inaction, those that act in your name, make you responsible like it or not.

Example. It was only the Japanese government that bombed Pearl Harbour; consequence Horoshima, Nagasaki. It was only the madman Hitler that annexed the Sudetenland , consequence: Dresden, and partition of Germany. Ask yourself what has the US government done in the last 100 years to justify the consequence of 9/11. South Africa's apartheid, consequence; sanctions leading to majority rule.

Example. It was only the Japanese government that bombed Pearl Harbour; consequence Horoshima, Nagasaki. It was only the madman Hitler that annexed the Sudetenland , consequence: Dresden, and partition of Germany — Hogrider

Well, Japan and Germany did a good deal more than attack Pearl Harbor and annex the Sudetenland, obviously. Eventually they had much of Asia, the western Pacific, Europe, the North Atlantic, and more by the balls. They killed, and caused to be killed, an awful lot of people. Hitler's Reich planned to dominate the world for a thousand years. Had things gone somewhat differently, they might have had the chance.

That's why they were partitioned and denazified (to the extent that actually happened).

Ask yourself what has the US government done in the last 100 years to justify the consequence of 9/11 — Hogrider

The United States became the tallest hog at the trough -- that's what we did. We became the most noticeable target of people dissatisfied by the failures of their own governments and who resented all the stuff we had. We succeeded the British as the world manager (they in the role of imperial rule, us in the role of top cop and richest resident).

Then too, political lunacy played a role. Maybe we can blame Saudi Arabia's repressive conservative rule and export of a reactionary version of Islam (Wahhabi). The 9/11 attackers were pursuing reactionary goals--even if their methods were remarkably up to date. The people in the Twin Towers did not deserve to be killed. They were innocent of causing whatever grievance the attackers were pursuing.

I don't think governments actually hold "the people" of another country responsible for the extremely disapproved actions of their government. IF, after Pearl Harbor, the US government could have executed very focused but severe reprisals only on the leaders of the military and the leaders of the non-military components of government and commerce, we would have. IF after the invasion of Poland, England and France could have performed an excision of the top 1,000 Nazis, from Hitler on down, they would have.

Unfortunately, such focused attacks are never possible. It isn't that the targets can't be named; rather, it's that they can't all be put in the crosshairs of a rifle and shot at once, thus eliminating the responsible parties.

Our first attacks on Japan were against military targets. We attacked large ships, airplanes, and fortified locations. Did this involve killing people who were not directly (or even indirectly) responsible> Yes, it did. Sailors, airplane pilots, and soldiers execute policy, they don't make it. Further, they do what they are told or face severe punishment themselves. Their presence in the military is only sometimes 100% voluntary. Usually one is coaxed rather urgently, or one is coerced into the military.

Only when attacking purely military targets failed to achieve any movement toward surrender did we begin deliberately attacking civilian population (such as the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden.

Hitler's policy was not the same. When his forces attacked Poland and the Soviet Union, they went out of their way to kill civilian populations, and not just Jews. Hitler considered slavic people inferior, and intended to get rid of most of them. One thing German invading forces in Poland and in the USSR did was to immediately kill any identifiable civilian, military, or intellectual elite. (Their focus on officialdom here doesn't redeem one iota of guilt on many other counts.)

"Governments rule by the consent of the people" is REAL in the same way that "the Social Contract" is real. The people are seldom offered the opportunity to give or withhold consent to or from the government very often, and there is no written social contract. Both of these are abstractions. Consent Of The Ruled and The Social Contract are ways of describing massive aggregations of behavior. People usually pay their taxes and register for the draft when so ordered. Most people don't just kill people who accidentally step on their toes on the bus. Most people obey most traffic laws most of the time, and when they don't it is often owing to inattention. Why do we do this? Because we are taught as children to obey rules, cooperate with each other, and allow minor insults (like stepping on my sore toe) to pass without violence.

Society works through the millions of people training children to behave well in very local contexts (like, home, day care, kindergarten, primary school). Parents prefer children who behave well. It just makes life easier. Most of that behaving well carries over into adulthood. Then we call it the consent of the governed and the social contract.

You are dancing round the point.
A social contract goes both ways.

I'm puzzled why you want to persist in this fantasy. The truth is whether or not you like it the nation is going to be held responsible. Sticking your head in a becket and pretending its just the governments fault is not going to save you from the "terrorist" who nation has had to suffer from the interference of your government over the last 100 years.
Nor should you be surprised when the tanks from neighbouring countries start to roll in and 'liberate' your nation.
So by action or inaction, those that act in your name, make you responsible like it or not. — Hogrider

It's funny that you chose to focus on terrorism: the one example which has exceptions, as I indicated. Although there are also many examples in which the act of terrorism is clearly not directed at the people or nation, such as presidential assassinations (or attempted assassinations), but apparently you wish to ignore these counterexamples to your untenable claims, and ironically accuse me of wishful thinking.

It is pointless to waste time attacking what are obviously straw men, rather than my actual position. At no point did I make such ludicrous claims, or in any way suggest, that blaming the government will save me or anyone else from acts of terrorism; nor that doing so will maintain the illusion of security, such that a foreign invasion would come as a surprise.

When you cut the crap, all that is left of the above quote is merely a repetition of your bare assertions ("The truth is whether or not you like it the nation is going to be held responsible", "So by action or inaction, those that act in your name, make you responsible like it or not").

Example. It was only the Japanese government that bombed Pearl Harbour; consequence Horoshima, Nagasaki. It was only the madman Hitler that annexed the Sudetenland , consequence: Dresden, and partition of Germany. Ask yourself what has the US government done in the last 100 years to justify the consequence of 9/11. South Africa's apartheid, consequence; sanctions leading to majority rule. — Hogrider

Your error is a result of failing to distinguish between who an attack is directed at, and who is attacked. Similarly, you fail to distinguish between who sanctions are directed at, and who is negatively effected by sanctions.

Those attacks you mentioned caused civilian casualties, but they were directed at those actively supporting the war, not the people or the entire nation. There were innocent victims. Yet your position forces you to deny that there were any innocent victims, since you hold them in some way responsible. That is not only erroneous, but detestable.

The sanctions you mentioned were also not directed at the people or nation. The sanctions were directed at the state authorities who had established and enforced systematic racial segregation.

What happened to Agustino?

"They asserted also that errors ought to meet with pardon; for that a man did not err intentionally, but because he was influenced by some external circumstance; and that one ought not to hate a person who has erred, but only to teach him better."

For one, I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. Would you disagree? Would you not feel good to see such a bastard suffer? — Agustino

No, and I think something is wrong with you if you do.

I can understand the natural desire for vengeance, the repaying of insult to maintain honor, and even having no sympathy for people who are destroyed after committing a heinous act. But classical avenging results in death, not torture.

A fun jab for csalisbury here, too --- note the gender of Agustino's perfect / most heinous victim. And note your lack of surprise at noticing this.

What do you mean? I know the gender of the torture-victim in the OP is male. I know the occasion for this thread was Agustino's horror, on another thread, at the idea of unrepentant adulterous women. I know I jabbed him a bit about that. Do you mean my lack of surprise at Agustino's harboring anger for licentious women?

But classical avenging results in death, not torture.

To play devil's advocate, just for a sec, is this true?

• Prometheus
• The victims of reprisal in ancient wars (victims of Assyria, Babylon, Persia and so forth)*
• Anyone in Dante's Inferno
• The victims of so many public torture/executions in the middle ages
• Villains in revenge flicks (From "I Spit on Your Grave" to "Hard Candy")
• Reality Shows like "To Catch a Predator" etc. Public-Shame-torture.
• Brock Turner, in the eyes of so many online commentators.

I think ppl animated by vengeance are often on board with torture, which is exactly why they shouldn't have the reins. I don't think I'd try to have someone who brutalized a family member of mine tortured, bc I agree with yr Cyrenaic quote but, like, an animal part of me reallly would want that.
---
& to some extent in modern war too. But what most people accepted as just rewards for rebellion or insolence, back in the day, is unreal.

No, the person the murderer-who-deserves-torture kills is a woman. Not even a child, mind you, but a woman.

I don't think divine punishment and hell is about vengeance, it's something more disturbing than that.

I don't think I'd try to have someone who brutalized a family member of mine tortured, bc I agree with yr Cyrenaic quote but, like, an animal part of me reallly would want that. — csalisbury

But then, like the brutalizer, you're to be forgiven because it's just your animal passions :)

But like I said, I can understand the desire for vengeance and to kill the person who did it, but not torture. I think there's a sense in which people deeply feel that those who violate certain norms that they themselves expect to be held with regard to themselves, they have forfeited their right to exist, which is contingent on those very norms. And so retribution gives people an intuitive right to end that person, and even to get a righteous satisfaction out of it. But torture is just sick and purposeless.

Put another way, when someone dips beneath humanity by committing some atrocity, we feel that since they've let go of being human, they are no longer entitled to life as a human. But torture doesn't destroy their humanity -- animals hate physical torture in the same way that people do. It teaches no lesson, solve no problem, resolves no dispute, gives no closure.

No, the person the murderer who deserves torture kills is a woman. Not even a child, mind you, but a woman.

Yeah, I mean, again, this thread was occasioned by Agustino's claim, on another thread, that unrepentant adulterous women were no better than unrepentant serial killers and should be tortured. Given that background, it would have been kind of meaningless to respond to this thread by being like 'Why not a serial killer who tormented men, hmm?'

I don't think divine punishment and hell is about vengeance, it's something more disturbing than that.

Well there's some truth to that, but Dante's Inferno is heavily populated by people who wronged Dante.

But like I said, I can understand the desire for vengeance and to kill the person who did it, but not torture. I think there's a sense in which people deeply feel that those who violate certain norms that they themselves expect to be held with regard to themselves, they have forfeited their right to exist, which is contingent on those very norms. And so retribution gives people an intuitive right to end that person, and even to get a righteous satisfaction out of it. But torture is just sick and purposeless.

Put another way, when someone dips beneath humanity by committing some atrocity, we feel that since they've let go of being human, they are no longer entitled to life as a human. But torture doesn't destroy their humanity -- animals hate physical torture in the same way that people do. It teaches no lesson, solve no problem, resolves no dispute, gives no closure.

I agree that torture resolves nothing, solves nothing, gives no closure. But I feel like I 'get' the desire to torture. I sketched it above, over a few posts, early on in the thread.

It seems like what you object to most about the serial killer is (1) he doesn't feel remorse and (2) his atrocities are senseless. I think (2) is scary because it bars us from doing what we normally do in the wake of trauma - tell a story that explains what happened. Explanation yields understanding which yields the sense of control that the trauma suspended. If you understand what happened you feel more able to prevent similar traumatizing irruptions in the future.

But if an adequate explanation of an outburst is impossible, then we can at least find some solace in the source of that outburst being as horrified as we are. His or her horror would signal an impulse to stave off any repetition of what transpired. Evil wouldn't be an infinite wellspring but an abberration which recoils from itself and self-corrects.

The serial killer offers neither palliative. He's a mute black hole which is unreachable. (The scariest version of Satan I can imagine is an old man (or young child) in an enclosed chamber, totally still, eyes wide open, transmitting evil into the world, but unreachable through language, almost insentient). He's an ineradicable black hole in those meaning/explanation-generating stories which make us feel safe and in control. Torture isn't about reforming such a person. It's a last resort in a control-crisis, a way of turning that black hole into an object over which we have total power.

The response to infidelity without remorse is similar. It's a panic response to the realization that love is never guaranteed and can always withdraw, no matter how perfectly you strive to deserve it. The desire to punish is an impotent wish to scare love so it will never leave us again.

The thing is, you can torture as many serial killers and punish as many adulterers as you want. But that won't stem the problem. The world itself is a ceaseless and remorseless generator of senseless violence. Serial killers, if you like, are 'places' in which being reveals itself utterly denuded. (Tho the sacred does the same, in a different register.) — me

The goal is to cease the illegal behavior. Where threats of losing freedom do not work, I doubt threats of torture will work. If it would work, I would even recommend rewards for successful pledges to cease illegal activity. The idea that a wrongdoer should be punished instead of corrected (remember that they are called Correctional Facilities) is oldhat. It doesn't solve the problem. It only allows us to take out our frustrations on the "bad guy."

My father is a retired psychologist that worked at a psychiatric hospital studying psychopaths. Augustino does not understand what a psychopath is. The evidence is overwhelming that psychopaths are born without the ability to feel many normal human emotions and this includes empathy. You can not torture, or cause in any other way, somebody into feeling somthing that they are biologically incapable of feeling. This is why gay conversion therapy does not work.

But even if we could torture someone until they felt empathy for violently raping and killing another human, why would we? The act was already committed and the perpetrator will be locked away from other people for the rest of his life, so what is the point?

For one, I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. — Agustino

It would be a very sad day for humanity indeed if, as you say, a majority of people would feel good at seeing the suffering of another human being. It reminds one, of days in medieval times on which criminals were disemboweled before a crowd of commoners, all shrieking with delight while drinking in the ghastly spectacle.

You've failed to understand the mental state of people who end up behaving the way you describe in the OP. People of this sort are termed "psychopaths'', are born with no sense of empathy, kindness, etc. and therefore cannot help but act in these ways. Therefore, torturing them would be the equivalent of torturing a three year old kid who just ripped off the pages of your favourite book, without of course, knowing the value of the book.

A more rational reason is so that other criminals who intend to commit similar crimes see what will happen to them and repent sooner rather than later. And the final reason I have is that such a punishment ensures that justice is adequately done - which is required for people to have faith in the justice system. — Agustino

The last two reasons you cite are, in short, deterrence and increment of public faith in the justice system. To deal with the first,observe that an exactly equal amount, if not greater, amount of deterrence would be the result if the criminal was locked away for life in prison. Remember that prison is by no means a nice place, and many criminals would much rather choose a short interval of sharp torture than an eternity of long, drawn out torture and molestation by the not quite so friendly inmates of modern prisons.

As for the second reason, I don't see how people would end up having faith in a brutal criminal justice system which relishes torturing people. What,in reality, would happen is quite the opposite. The public would see this uncivil justice system itself as the enemy, and thus would no longer feel comfortable handing over their squabbles over to receive what they would,not unreasonably, see as warped judgment. Instead then, they would start "settling'' their disputes on their own, which would lead to mafias, clan wars and later, the disintegration of the entire fabric of society.

I hope this convinces you.

The last two reasons you cite are,in short,deterrence and increment of public faith in the justice system.To deal with the first,observe that an exactly equal amount,if not greater,amount of deterrence would be the result if the criminal was locked away for life in prison.Remember that prison is by no means a nice place,and many criminals would much rather choose a short interval of sharp torture than an eternity of long,drawn out torture and molestation by the not quite so friendly inmates of modern prisons.

As for the second reason,I don't see how people would end up having faith in a brutal criminal justice system which relishes torturing people.What,in reality, would happen is quite the opposite.The public would see this uncivil justice system itself as the enemy,and thus would no longer feel comfortable handing over their squabbles over to receive what they would,not unreasonably,see as warped judgment.Instead then,they would start "settling'' their disputes on their own,which would lead to mafias,clan wars and later,the disintegration of the entire fabric of society. — hunterkf5732

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat...

I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with

The problem here is that the effect you seek is demonstrably weak at best and non-existent in most cases. There is no historical evidence at all that public execution, which let's not forget was at one time an event on a par with a modern pop concert, in particular, or executions in general have any deterrent effect. In fact, the very opposite was often the case. As the saying 'might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb' attests, criminals were prone to upping the ante committing more serious crimes on the basis that they were risking everything anyway so they might as well make it worth their while.

In any case, I have never understood the logic of death as the ultimate punishment, especially in an increasingly atheistic society where there is no question of hurrying someone on to face divine judgement (always a dubious theological justification in an event). Far from facing the perpetrator with their own guilt and remorse death simply releases them from any responsibility for reparation. It is those who are left behind who are being punished in reality and on the flimsiest of excuses, guilt by association. That is not justice, at least not by any sane, rational definition.

As the saying 'might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb' attests, criminals were prone to upping the ante committing more serious crimes on the basis that they were risking everything anyway so they might as well make it worth their while. — Barry Etheridge

Public execution is reserved for the worst of crimes as I have illustrated, NOT for all criminals or small crimes, and public means it is shown to the public not that it occurs in the middle of the public square. When dictators were executed during the fall of communism, videos of their deaths were released to the public, and people celebrated the end of oppression and the fact that justice had been delivered.

In any case, I have never understood the logic of death as the ultimate punishment, especially in an increasingly atheistic society where there is no question of hurrying someone on to face divine judgement (always a dubious theological justification in an event). Far from facing the perpetrator with their own guilt and remorse death simply releases them from any responsibility for reparation. It is those who are left behind who are being punished in reality and on the flimsiest of excuses, guilt by association. That is not justice, at least not by any sane, rational definition. — Barry Etheridge

It depends on the crime. For the most serious crimes, where the doer of the crime is a clear evil - like ISIS terrorists in today's world - there is no playing around. They have to be dealt with adequately and swiftly, and their evil prevented from being spread. The rest is up to God.

It seems a tad convenient that God apparently doesn't mind in the slightest ceding the decision on what is evil (if indeed such a thing even exists) and who should live and die as a consequence to a bunch of hubristic judges and then picking up the pieces after they're done.

It seems a tad convenient that God apparently doesn't mind in the slightest ceding the decision on what is evil (if indeed such a thing even exists) and who should live and die as a consequence to a bunch of hubristic judges and then picking up the pieces after they're done. — Barry Etheridge

It's not a cessation of the decision at all. Extreme violence, barbarity, murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. are evil. And God doesn't decide what is evil whimsically. You still seem to think of God as some man in the sky ordering you around. Rather we humans get to know God as we understand better what is good and evil, and freely choose to associate with and defend that which is good. In fact knowing God and loving goodness are one and the same. What did Jesus say...
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
There is no difference between being virtuous and doing the will of God. The two are identical. And delivering justice to those who are weak, and protecting them, that is virtuous

Should unrelenting torture of the worst kind be a punishment for such a person UNTIL and IF they repent and feel sorry for what they have done? — Agustino

No.

Why or why not? — Agustino

Because I don't want anybody to have to suffer torture. Further, it would be disgusting and abhorrent to me for such a barbarity as deliberate torture to be conducted by a state of which I was a part.

I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. Would you disagree? — Agustino

I agree that that many feel like that. But I don't feel like that, and I regard it as sad, and a source of much of the misery in the world, that many people feel like that.

Would you not feel good to see such a bastard suffer? — Agustino

No, I would feel very distressed.

Thus far, it is just about feelings. Your feelings are almost diametrically opposed to mine. One cannot rationally debate feelings.

But then we see an attempt to move from an expression of feeling to a rational argument:

A more rational reason is so that other criminals who intend to commit similar crimes see what will happen to them and repent sooner rather than later. — Agustino

That might be rational if there were any empirical evidence to support it. But none has been provided. To me it sounds like wishful thinking.

such a punishment ensures that justice is adequately done - which is required for people to have faith in the justice system. — Agustino

These are two assertions - both provided without rationale or evidence. The first is just an assertion of what you feel to be just, and so lies in the undebatable realm of feelings. The second is contrary to my impression of what the available empirical evidence says. The countries that have lower rates of crime tend to be those that have less vengeful justice systems. Finland has lower crime than the US, which has lower crime than Afghanistan.

No. — andrewk

Answering a very old question to its asker, when the said asker has changed his position, is simply pointless.

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat... — Agustino

Answering a very old question to its asker, when the said asker has changed his position, is simply pointless. — Agustino

A polite way to put that would be:
'Actually I've changed my position since the OP. You probably haven't noticed because this thread is very long'
I still find your position on public execution barbaric, just not as barbaric as the former position regarding torture.

The countries that have lower rates of crime tend to be those that have less vengeful justice systems. Finland has lower crime than the US, which has lower crime than Afghanistan. — andrewk

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

I would be very surprised if milder justice systems cause lower crime rates. Likely there are some other factors that govern the rate of crime. For instance, states that are barely functioning are not in a very good position to effectively limit crime. Or, states that are engaged in civil war probably have very high rates of crime -- not necessarily as part of the civil war, but because society is in chaos. States that have extreme differences in wealth and privilege might have more crime.

Would you not be equally satisfied with the knowledge that the perpetrators of ISIS are detained in maximum security prisons with no hope of escape, since this too is a situation where the said evil is overcome and the region in question delivered from the threat of destruction?

In other words, is it really necessary to execute even terrorists, when life imprisonment would serve the same purposes that would drive you to perform the execution in the first place?

In fact, you could even say that in the case of terrorists it would specifically be ill advised to execute them since this would only entice other extremist organizations to act the same way, in order to appear as heroic martyrs before their people and whatever God they believe in.