If the maximum penalty imposed by a government for terrorism were life in prison ...

[Boojatta]

... then what would deter a potential terrorist who is 95 years old?

"You will spend the rest of your life in prison" doesn't sound as though it would have much impact.

Perhaps the answer is that people who reach the age of 95 are too mature and wise to seriously consider becoming terrorists, and that bin Laden was comparatively speaking a mere juvenile who should have been punished for 9/11 with a stint in reform school, rather than being placed among hardened criminals?

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Treason is supposed to be punishable by Death ! Scooter's doing fine

[Scuba]

2. Death penalty has never worked as a deterrent. n/t

[Boojatta]

3. Why isn't skydiving more popular?

It looks like fun, it's legal, and it's not as expensive as a lot of alternative recreational pursuits.

[Scuba]

5. What's your point? The skydiving analogy doesn't prove anything about the death penalty. n/t

[Boojatta]

6. People are afraid of death.

If there's a malfunction, then skydiving carries a rather obvious potential cost: your life.

I presume that there is at least some connection between death and the death penalty.

[TheKentuckian]

8. I believe that thinking the death penalty is a deterrent to suicide bombers is wildly optimistic.

Thinking the death penalty is any deterrent, accounting for the last few thousands of years of history seems willfully ignorant.

[Boojatta]

10. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers.

[Capitalocracy]

13. And those who are not have obviously been deterred by our killing them.

Oh wait, that's wrong, our tactics have been a massive recruitment tool for them. Oopsy.

[Bake]

4. Frankly, if you're 95, a death sentence isn't that big a deal.

If you're a terrorist, that is.

Bake

[ljm2002]

7. Do you think we are successfully deterring terrorism now?

Because I'm not seeing it. When it comes to domestic criminals, it has been shown time and again that the death penalty does not, in fact, act as a deterrent to violent crime.

In any case, we should be cautious about employing state violence. Certainly sometimes it is necessary, but it should never be a first choice.

Had George Bush followed that advice, we would not be bleeding blood and treasure into the sands of Afghanistan and Iraq right now, and arguably there would be fewer terrorists than there are now.

Also, since they are able to recruit a steady supply of young men who are willing to be blown up along with their targets, I fail to see how our threatening to kill them will have any deterrent effect, whether they are 15 or 95.

(on edit: formatting)

[white_wolf]

9. First of all, the DP is barbarism no matter who it is being used on.

As to the OPs question, the DP won't do any good with terrorists either. When you kill a religious fanatic, you merely create a martyr.

[yawnmaster]

11. considering 95 is about 25 years over the life expectency (of the world)...

there really aren't that many 95 year olds around to make much of a difference.
And many of those that are around really aren't much able to be a successful terrorist.

[madinmaryland]

12. Dude! Stop bogarting and pass that around!!