How to prevent the James Bond effect and force suicide bombers to have some skin in the game

James Bond-like many other fictional heroes?such as Sherlock Holmes was impervious to pressure points related to loved ones because he didn’t have any. Men who have families and loved ones can be pressured by the threat of harm or other consequences to their loved ones. Suicide bombers are intending to die so are not afraid of being shot and killed. They, therefore, have no skin in the game and are impervious to pressure. In the BBC adaptation of Sherlock Holmes Sherlock faked his own death in order to protect Watson. He had become vulnerable because of the relationship he had formed with Watson.
How do we put skin in the game for suicide bombers?

Can someone punish the family for crimes of an individual?… Deuteronomy makes a separation: ?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.?11 Even today the question isn?t fully settled, nor is the answer clear-cut. You are not responsible for the debt of your parents, but German taxpayers are still responsible for war reparations for crimes committed by their grandparents and great-grandparents…

…Sometimes the answer is clear, as in the case of terrorism. You kill my family and think that you have impunity; I will make yours pay some price for it. Indirect responsibility isn?t part of the standard crime and punishment methodology of a civilized society, but confronting terrorists (who threaten innocents) isn?t standard either. For we have rarely in history confronted a situation in which the perpetrator of a crime has a completely asymmetric payoff, an upside from death while committing it.
We are totally defenseless in front of a deluded person willing to kill scores of innocents without any true downside, that is, skin in the game: he believes that both successes and failures are upsides.
…Explicit communal punishment can be used where other methods of justice have failed, provided it is done as an explicit method of justice and well-defined prior to the event so it becomes a deterrent and not an emotional reaction. One who is sacrificing himself for a perceived upside for a given collective needs a deterrent, so it is a form of injection of skin in the game in the system where all other methods are lacking. And the skin is visible: that very collective.
The only way we have left to control suicide-terrorists would be precisely to convince them that blowing themselves up is not the worse-case scenario for them, nor the end-scenario at all. Making their families and loved ones bear a financial burden ?just as Germans as still paying for war crimes ?would immediately add consequences to their actions, inject that element of skin in the game that is needed. This requires some care in preventing their families from feeling martyrdom ?the penalty needs to be properly calibrated to be a nuisance without imparting any form of heroism to the person.

(AFP Photo/Menahem Kahana) / AFP


Israel will demolish a house belonging to a convicted terrorist, renewing a controversial policy for the first time since 2005. The owner, Ziad Awad, has been indicted for killing a Jewish policeman earlier this year.

?I gave the directive to destroy the home of the terrorist, a Hamas man, as part of the general effort to combat Hamas,?said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who noted that the decision would have to be approved by the Supreme Court.

According to human rights group B?Tselem, some 666 houses of Palestinian activists convicted for carrying out attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers were demolished as punishment between 2001 and 2005, during the Second Intifada. An Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) committee eventually concluded that the policy was counter-productive, and incited retribution.

The Israeli government has experimented with punishment as a deterrent and their experience illustrates the difficulty of getting it completely right. It needs to be deterrent enough to make a terrorist think twice but it also must be not so severe that it is likely to lead to retribution or makes martyrs of people. I think a financial punishment is the best option for Britain as many terrorist families will not own their own homes and will instead be in council flats living off the tax payer.

The government do not need to deport these families they just need to reduce or remove totally their government handouts. Let their Islamic communities practice Islamic charity and feed, house and clothe them. If the families are employed then they should pay a terrorist tax. If they bring a jihadist into our society then they need to pay reparations for the harm they caused. Their reparations?payments can go towards the families whose family members were killed.

Give the tax a politically correct name like the victim support levy and all of a sudden they are doing their bit to assist the British families that their child harmed. If it is promoted as a good thing to show that Muslims do not support terror you can take away their martyr status at the same time as providing a deterrent to future jihadists and their families. It could even be structured so that Local Mosques must pay a levy to the victim support fund of $XX for every member of their congregation that is involved in terrorism. Again this can be promoted as Muslims showing that they do not support the actions of the terrorists and that they are supporting the victims family with a charitable contribution ( even if it is compulsory.)