Slashdot Mirror
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Gets Death Penalty In Boston Marathon Bombing
mpicpp writes with a link to the New York Times's version of story that a Boston jury earlier today returned a verdict of death in the Boston Marathon bombing. From that report: A federal jury on Friday condemned Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a failed college student, to death for setting off bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured hundreds more in the worst terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001. The jury of seven women and five men, which last month convicted Mr. Tsarnaev, 21, of all 30 charges against him, 17 of which carry the death penalty, took more than 14 hours to reach its decision. It was the first time a federal jury had sentenced a terrorist to death in the post-Sept. 11 era, according to Kevin McNally, director of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, which coordinates the defense in capital punishment cases.
because it is not very nice when people come into your home and kill people at random is it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
We should let him choose a punishment based on the cruelty of his actions. Easy death or death by pressure cooker bomb.
it was the right decision. now lets hope he is at least 1/2 way decent and doesnt spend the next 20 years wasting tax payer money on appeal after appeal
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I generally oppose the death penalty for two reasons:
1) I've come to distrust the government in general
2) I've been in jury deliberations twice. This was far more damaging to my faith in our justice system.
But I'm not going to lose sleep over this one.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
exactly. there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of the death penalty. Everyone should be.
However when there are clear cut cases, like this one, or timothy mcveigh in OK city. we should not hesitate.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
they should take out the back of the courthouse and hang him. bastard.
TLDR: Version
The worst criminals often live the best lives. The perversity of justice is that inside prison it's nobody's job to punish.
quote from amazon
"For twelve years Robert Blecker, a criminal law professor, wandered freely inside Lorton Central Prison, armed only with cigarettes and a tape recorder. The Death of Punishment tests legal philosophy against the reality and wisdom of street criminals and their guards. Some killers' poignant circumstances should lead us to mercy; others show clearly why they should die. After thousands of hours over twenty-five years inside maximum security prisons and on death rows in seven states, the history and philosophy professor exposes the perversity of justice: Inside prison, ironically, it's nobody's job to punish. Thus the worst criminals often live the best lives.
The Death of Punishment challenges the reader to refine deeply held beliefs on life and death as punishment that flare up with every news story of a heinous crime. It argues that society must redesign life and death in prison to make the punishment more nearly fit the crime. It closes with the final irony: If we make prison the punishment it should be, we may well abolish the very death penalty justice now requires.
The dead do not exist for all their lives in a six foot by ten foot box. They do not weep for lost freedom, nor yearn for sunshine and gentle wind. They do not slip gradually to the madness of long isolation. Tsarnaev should be made to know these things.
Because half the USA wishes we were still in the 18th century.
Table-ized A.I.
How long will he last?
Meh.
This guy is obviously a massive douche and murderer, and there's no doubt as to his guilt, but I think killing him doesn't reflect well on us as a society. To me, killing killers always had the same logic as suspending people who ditch school. It's like-- wait, what's the message here exactly?
Given the history of "humane" non-cruel, non-unusual tools for execution ("hanging! no wait, firing squad! no, we mean electrocution! Umm... lethal injection? Gassing?"), it strikes me as just one of the many feel-good but fucked up practices we haven't dropped yet.
death penalty is.
I've always felt that the death penalty is far preferable to a life in a cage. To me the cruelest thing they could do is stick him in a cell with a 300 pound faggot named Bubba and let them play house for the rest of his miserable life.
What good will it do to kill him?
It won't bring the three dead people back, it doesn't solve anything, and while
his guilt is not in question it helps perpetuate a system that has flaws, which
cannot be corrected if an innocent person is executed.
Dzhokhar would be seen as a hero by some, as well.
I wish we would be useful if we spent just a fraction of the money used
to kill him on figuring out why folks like him get radicalized. THAT would
be useful.What good will it do to kill him?
It won't bring the three dead people back, it doesn't solve anything, and while
his guilt is not in question it helps perpetuate a system that has flaws, which
cannot be corrected if an innocent person is executed.
Dzhokhar would be seen as a hero by some, as well.
I wish we would be useful if we spent just a fraction of the money used
to kill him on figuring out why folks like him get radicalized. THAT would
be useful.
Death by lethal injection is efficient but I would have to say that death by one thousand stab wounds is much more satisfying. Wait for him to see the white light then, give him a blood transfusion to bring him back to coherence and then set him on fire. Put the fire out and then dump him in a salty ocean of your choice with a 100 pound weight suit. Resuscitate, and then make him watch the series finale of How I Met Your Mother on repeat for eternity, locked in in a room with nothing but a sweaty underwear noose from Super Bowl XX. That is still not enough to rectify his actions. Judy Clarke having represented so many killers, I wonder how she can even sleep at night! Fighting for her clients to live the remainder of their lives in prison.. What's her cut of the deal?
You put your shit in my face, so fuck you for that.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The Abrahamic god is a vengeful douchebag who demands blood, is the short answer.
His adherents are bloodthirsty and heavily into vengeance and keep telling us their god demands it.
From stoning to the death penalty, this is 100% about humans exacting retribution through violent means in the name of their god.
Either the humans are bloodthirsty savages, or god clearly is.
But the underlying justification is "god has commanded me to kill people in his name".
Ask yourself: why do we listen to deluded people who can't grasp that if god demanded a death, why doesn't he do it himself?
Fuck it. If you're going to kill someone. It should be in the most obscenely horrific and painful way you can possibly think of.
Death by giant mechanical grinder.
Death by giant belt sander.
Or go old school. Vlad Tepes had it right. Sit them on a spear. And let go.
You want to deter people from doing things that'd get them the death penalty?
Make the death penalty something nobody in their right mind could think about without shitting themselves in fear.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I live in the USA and I never laughed about the death penalty.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
A single drone attack kills an average of 5 to 10 people. This guy killed 3 people in total. Draw your own conclusions.
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Guy in prison named Bubba who's a "faggot"?!! Classic mid-80s comedy. Wait a- didn't you open once for the Dice-man at Chuckles in Wooster? I'm pretty sure me and my frat buddies yucked it up during your set in '87. You did that bit on airplane food too, ammirite?
Not hard to kill a human.
Humanely, plastic bag fed by a nitrogen gas bottle over the head, he'll take a couple of breaths and lose consciousness. Dead soon. Cheap.
Less humanely, surely Boston has drug dealers? A cocktail of a collection of $100 street bags of heroin, speed, coke and whatever else the victim's families can think of mixed on 500ml of saline on a fast IV drip. Job done.
It's ok when Obama does it.
He is a murderer and some will say he deserves to die. But - a death sentence will keep his name in the news for a long time. Better that he be locked up and forgotten.
Personally I do not support the death penalty. It is too rare to be a deterrent. Too irreversible if there is a mistake. Too barbaric for a civilized society.
I understand Europeans and others have difficulty understanding this. I'll explain:
We generally believe that certain crimes are so horrific that the only possible punishment is death. Unlike other places, our criminal justice system is not merely based around removing the threat from society, or rehabilitating them, but also around the idea of punishment.
Personally I find it horrific that in places like Norway someone like Brevik can be sentenced to only 21 years in prison for murdering dozens of people. This negates and ignores what he has done, and instead only focuses on rehabilitation, i.e., focusing on what this man can do in the future. The idea being that the past is past, and punishing someone won't bring back the people he killed.
This misses the point. Justice based upon the idea of punishing someone, as a part of retributive justice or deterrence, has a long history, and while continentals may disagree, it's what we in the US choose to do. We believe, or at least our court system does, that some people DESERVE to die for their actions.
Here's my conclusion: this asshat placed an improvised explosive behind a line of kids. He says he was lashing out against the American government, but he picked a bunch of civvies as his target. Wanna wage jihad against the evil American government, attack a government facility, otherwise just confess to the fact that you're a twisted fuck who's looking for a body count.
I'm not sure how to feel, and I'm not sure how to feel about that.
On the one hand, I'm no fan of the death penalty, because I've read about far too many cases where such a sentence was handed down and the accused turned out to be innocent. We're freeing death row inmates on a regular basis now, paying them millions of taxpayer dollars for the period during which they were wrongly incarcerated. Worse, we've executed some who were convicted and later, posthumously, exonerated.
On the other hand, in this particular case, part of me wants to say "let him die, and if you can't figure it out, I'll drive up and do the deed." I don't know any of the victims. I wasn't on the jury. I don't know all of the facts. I presume him to be guilty (why?) and assuming he's guilty I want him executed (why?). It's not very often that I find myself contradicting my own strongly held principles.
This case raises an internal moral conflict that I'm neither used to feeling nor comfortable with. I'm very grateful that I wasn't on that jury. It isn't my place to hold another person's life in my hands.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Would such a death penalty have been a deterrent on 9/11?
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...
What deters murderers is not the penalty, but the likelihood of being caught.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Make him use nothing but Windows 8 for the rest of his life.
Given that the appeal process can last for many years, even decades, there is little practical difference between the two penalties.
It pisses me off that this family came into the US as refugees. Talk about the ultimate betrayal. They sought asylum in the US and we welcomed them in. We provided safe heaven for him and his family and this is what we got back from them. The guy is not worth the cost of the lethal injection. A .22 round would do it just fine.
So? There's 7+ billion of us. There's bound to be manufacturing defects somewhere. Your body has cells, sometimes cells become cancerous, and you kill them. So what? Humans are at cockroach levels now on this planet.
I don't understand how people think life in a cage is some kind of social sign of progress compared to the death penalty. I guess they prefer to watch someone suffer for as long as possible.
What deters murderers is not the penalty, but the likelihood of being caught.
And the tobacco companioes of all have gotten this one right. Practically all the advertisements over here display the "smomking may kill you" warning, not a single print ad I've seen has ever shown the "causes impotence" warning (which is just as frequently printed on the real boxes). Death is a long way off, and unlikely, so the average smoker doesn't care. Same with the death penalty.
This is slashdot - the correct question is "Does he blend?"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
IIRC they used to draw & quarter the worst offenders, oh and then disembowel them if that wasn't enough.
They should strap a grenade to each of his legs, let them go off separately. Then stuff one in his mouth so we'll never see his face again.
Eye for an eye, leg for a leg, death for death.
Honestly, he even deserves much worse.
Bombers are cowardly, just like poisoners, but they tend to do a lot more damage.
He ran over his brother - that makes 4. Before that, he and his brother also killed Sean Collier, the MIT police officer. That's 5. And then there's the hundreds who are maimed for life.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Unlike cases where there is a question of whether someone is guilty or not, there is no doubt in this case that he planted to bomb, killed at least three people, and maimed scores of others (including a lot of kids.)
If there is a chance of a conviction being overturned, I don't agree with the death penalty. But in a case like this, I'm all for it.
What sickens me is that despite the clear guilt, there are probably going to be years of appeals costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars before this sick bastard is put to death.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
the greater the death, the happier the allah, the more the virgins.
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
You're mostly right, except of course it removes those who would commit the same crime again.
Om, nomnomnom...
if they deserve to suffer....yes
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
you mean the ones who want to do away with our energy creation??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I agree, we should let the terrorists have drones so that they can attack government facilities instead of having to contend with civilian targets.
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
... to revenge-killing. Particularly state-sanctioned revenge killing.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
FWIH, There are several analogs in Ft. Leavenworth that would do just as well.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
We don't stop the terrorists from having drones. They have run their countries in ways that are prohibitive to the development of the necessary technology. Dzhokar, on the other hand, was in the country of his oppressor! He could have targeted a military base! But - but - they shoot back. Bombing a crowd of people who have never wronged you is much easier than taking on someone who just might kill you back.
He admitted it in court, just take him out after the sentence and put a bullet in his head. Done.
Don't like it? Offended, see it as too harsh?
See the riots and the sense of entitlement?
That's on you..
because it is not very nice when people come into your home and kill people at random is it
The world that we live in is fucked, for two main reasons:
1. Islam
Whereby Islam being a cult with the ultimate aim of total global dominance and they are willing to kill all the infidels to achieve it
2. Stupidity + Ignorance
Western liberals such as yourself is the perfect example why Islam has penetrated into your society so easily --- even after they kill people in your countries you guys will still say things to make it as if it is the fault of the Western society, not Islam
Because 70 years of rape and torture is *so* much more civilized than an execution.
Get with the leftist propaganda, or you'll be re-educated!
Because half the USA wishes we were still in the 18th century.
The 18th century had laws. Most american rednecks wish they were back to the late 16th century. You know the start of the colonisation of the american continent. Only you, the nature and those pesky indians.
We believe, or at least our court system does, that some people DESERVE to die for their actions.
That is not true, since a great many US states do not have the death penalty.
Out of the 52 states, 18 do not implement the death penalty (they're civilised states).
The other 32, a mix of republican and democrat states are well uncivilized because they still subscribe to the law of retaliation as it is expressed in the old testament. Justice has nothing to do with revenge. A judicial system predicated on revenge is a barbaric system.
No, because those who committed 9/11 did it with the intention to die in the first place. And that is exactly what they did when they crashed their planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If they would be willing to risk certain death by that means, then they certainly would have risked the possibility of death by a worse mean.
Sigh.. You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. In certain environments, that can also cause or risk your own death/health.
The problem is freedom, you cannot force it onto people and still be free. Sure it is a betrayal but lets be honest or perhaps realistic, it is only a betrayal by this guy and his brother (speed bump or whatever his name was). The rest of his family and all the others taken in as refugees, even if they are sympathetic by circumstance or familiar relation, haven't crossed that ideal of betrayal. This guy was brought in by his parents and likely not of his own choice although I doubt he rejected the idea. So lets be conscious about this enough to not allow corruption of blood.
And no, while a .22 will do the job just fine, I think it is important to give this guy every legal chance possible to dispel the concept of it being a show trial and summery execution. People have already stated they think he was set up. But a good and thorough appeals process along with exhaustive exercising of his rights will show not only that justice is fair, but that what he betrayed is better than him.
How many executed prisoners reoffend?
...in the comments as to why bombing the shit out of the shithole called USA can't ever be wrong.
Where's the death sentence for Obama, you hillbillies? Oh right, wedding guests aren't humans. Or something, hurr durr 'murrica!
I'm surprised this hasn't been modded up higher yet. Very funny.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
It might not deter other murderers, but it will prevent him from murdering others again.
We have three choices:
* Kill him.
* Lock him up forever.
* Let him out someday and hope he doesn't kill more people.
We have plenty of reasons to think he'd do this sort of thing again and locking him up for life is arguably less humane. Do we really want him out on the streets again? Would you want to live next to him, knowing that he might murder large numbers of people for no reason?
If they let him die when they found him.
How many executed prisoners reoffend?
Therefore all offenses should be punishable by death. No reoffenders that way.
> we in the US
5 states have executed someone this year. 7 last year. And it mostly just happens in Texas.
So when you say "we in the US", what you really mean is "just a couple of us, because everyone else is kind of over it".
Hell, Nebraska's senate advanced a bill today to repeal the death penalty by a veto-proof margin.
Even the more conservative states in the union are giving up on the act.
What country has 52 states? Is this one of those 87.3 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot things?
Prison is not an effective deterrent either. So what's your point?
If you're going to martyr him, at lest martyr him by lowering him into a vat of boiling pig fat. His fans will get the message.
...after a couple years and a couple hundred million dollars. It doesn't matter; imprisoning them for the rest of their life would accomplish the same thing, more cheaply, and the money could be put into fixing whatever the fuck is wrong with society that produces criminals, not into punishing criminals.
What deters murderers is not the penalty, but the likelihood of being caught.
And the tobacco companioes of all have gotten this one right. Practically all the advertisements over here display the "smomking may kill you" warning, not a single print ad I've seen has ever shown the "causes impotence" warning (which is just as frequently printed on the real boxes). Death is a long way off, and unlikely, so the average smoker doesn't care. Same with the death penalty.
Hang on... sooo... you are advocating a sentence of death by compulsory smoking?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Anyone expected anything else?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You mean, like, say, them Romans hanging people onto crosses? Yeah, that sure nuked that idea for good.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh please. Can you imagine the stench? And I don't mean at the execution, but imagine Jesus had been hung instead of crucified, there'd be gallows in every church now. Then again, maybe the smell would make fewer of his buddies want to remember him through the form of his execution.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
You're mostly right, except of course it removes those who would commit the same crime again.
That's how I feel about it - some people simply do not deserve to live with the rest of humanity. There should never, ever be a chance that some people should ever have the possibility of afflicting more atrocities on society. I can can understand arguments about when it's perhaps not clear the perpetrator was guilty (and, of course, it sadly has happened before)... but of course, that didn't happen in this case.
People think it's all about punishment, but it's also about keeping those who'd violate your rights away from you.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
it was the right decision. now lets hope he is at least 1/2 way decent and doesnt spend the next 20 years wasting tax payer money on appeal after appeal
The Tsarnaev case has already wasted millions of Tax Payers' Money, along with the death and injuries of totally innocent people, just in case you do not know
The Tsarnaevs should not have been allowed to enter the United States in the first place, but if anyone dare to speak up against immigration of moslems into the United States of America that person would be automagically chastised as "hater" and "racist", by none other than those who subscribe to the political correctness doctrines
Till today, those political correctness fuckers are still insisting that " All Moslems Are Peaceful " and even right here, at slashdot, their comments "drone strikes kill moslems so moslems have the right to kill Americans inside America" still trying to portray the moslems as "victims" and justify the totally unjustifiable bombing of the Boston Marathon in which the Tsarnaevs are involved
I don't know about you, but I am really sick and tired of them political correctness assholes and their absolutely asinine excuses
How about kidnapping kidnappers (i.e. putting them in jail, confining them against their will?)
What about robbing people (i.e. taking money from them against their will?)
Justice is about imposing commensurate costs on offenders and trying to prevent them from committing those same crimes again (at which the death penalty is exceedingly effective BTW).
Allow me to quote one of the bets lines from "Dark Knight". Because it explains quite well why:
"You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
Same shit here. People die in Iraq. Not only Iraqis (and I don't even want to quote the tasteless dentists joke), American soldiers die there. Nobody freaks out. Because that's pretty much expected. Terrorist attacks are different. We don't expect them. And this is why a single death from such an attack is worse than a hundred soldiers killed in battle.
We didn't plan it to be that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If incarceration is a deterrent, it seems exceedingly likely that the harsher punishment of the death penalty would be as well.
Among other things, changed so many times, quite frankly any narrative the governmental prosecutors would present already has me biased.
They on purpose, shot the guy in the throat after capture.
If this is a dangerous man, why would you not aim for the head?
Why would you shoot the guy in the throat?
Then there is the whole Russian government involvement which I won't get into as you can track that little rabbit hole anywhere on the internet, which leads all the way back to an American military, private company involved in lots of terrorist bombings and CIA nonsense in just about every field of operation currently ongoing in the middle east right now.
Finally what purpose could it serve to kill the kid? How is that going to solve terrorism?
I see lots of small children and young adults like this kid and they normally do not want to blow up and kill people unless a government or society somewhere conditions them to do so.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I'd be inclined to believe life in prison is a harsher penalty when lifers en masse start trying to have their sentences "reduced" to death.
Probably the same number that suicide bombers have. The problem is not the repetition but doing it in the first place.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bollocks. You want revenge, pure and simple.
To keep society safe, you keep the perp locked up and make the crime look lame so that copycats don't follow. Killing one more person won't help in any way.
72 virgins.... hell, it's 90s LAN parties all over.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It'll give me a raging boner, and that's good enough for me.
They can't obtain the knockout drugs used for lethal injection since drug companies won't sell it for use in execution, but they should just give him the KCl to stop his heart anyway.
I don't really believe that capital punishment is justified, just in case you get it wrong, an in a country where murder is wrong, the country is committing murder (the king should be subject to his own laws). On the other hand, they were pretty sure it was him, he had no problems killing and maiming innocent women and children. I can fully understand why he got the death sentence, and can also recognize people that see his destruction as one small step in ridding evil from the world (and also any chance that he could (and likely would) commit evil again, given the opportunity. They have a right to justice. One life taken for taking the lives of many others and severely harming the lives of many others. Sadly the evil within this man won't stop the source of the evil that filled him. He's like a drug dealer: you caught an evil dealer, but the drug lord remains. For every bit of punishment given to the guy at the bottom, you should pass a billion times as much to those that passed the evil to him (deal with them just as harshly). Then you will rid the world of evil.
It doesn't deter the people who commit murder. There's no telling how many people who did not commit murder were deterred.
I object to death penalty even in Brevik's case not because they don't want him to be executed but because the state cannot be trusted to wield this power responsibility. If not being able to execute Brevik no matter how much he may deserve it means that someone else who doesn't is spared then it is a trade I can live with.
Revenge: "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands".
What's so bad about that? How can you punish this guy without inflicting some sort of harm on him? A sentence in Supermax - which is the alternative - is soul-destroying by any account that I have read.But if he went to a regular prison he either be brutalized or killed by the other inmates. That's not civilized either. What is the civilized way to deal with him? Send him to live on a maple syrup commune, or train him as a pedicurist for homeless people, and hope he has a learning experience? But wait, wouldn't trying to coerce him out of his deeply held Islamic fundamentalist views also be a form of harm to him? I mean, he killed three people for those beliefs, they must be pretty important to him.
As a citizen of the US. You do not speak for me.
Favoring punishment over law and order is barbaric. If someone is a threat to society, lock them up until they aren't. Try to figure out what makes them how they are, how one might recognize them before they do anything and how to prevent others from becoming like him.
That's how I feel about it - some people simply do not deserve to live with the rest of humanity. There should never, ever be a chance that some people should ever have the possibility of afflicting more atrocities on society. I can can understand arguments about when it's perhaps not clear the perpetrator was guilty (and, of course, it sadly has happened before)... but of course, that didn't happen in this case.
People think it's all about punishment, but it's also about keeping those who'd violate your rights away from you.
I think all of your concerns can be addressed equally with execution or incarceration. So, why not chose incarceration? It's cheaper, it maintains a morally superior position for the justice system, and it can be reversed in the event a conviction is wrongful.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
WTF?
Like most of our history future generations will looks back with shame and wonder why we couldn't have been a bit more enlightened and a bit less barbaric.
Prison is not an effective deterrent either. So what's your point?
My point is that deterrence is not an argument in favour of the death penalty.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If someone, this guy deserves some proper, long prison treatment, locked together with some Boston gang-bangers.
Death penalty is both his wish to martyrdom - and is an easy way out.
If not: At least, since he is so religious, and it is their tradition: could the sentence get carried out via public stoning?
He executed/mutilated those innocent people in public, so I guess it is only fair.
Yeah .. I am not a sadistic psychopath .. he is ... :(
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
HUMANE execution isn't an effective deterrent.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
FTW
Then your point is mostly irrelevant because there are other good reasons for death penalty.
Again, prison is not an effective deterrent. Do you think we should abolish prisons?
Tsarnaev's mother stated that they were framed. There are too many weird things in this case.
The fact that they announced training for the same day, the fact that FBI/CIA pretended that they did not know Tsarnayev's. The fact that Tsarnaevs did not hide alleged crime, many strange details, including subsequent deaths of FBI agent and other FBI agent killing other friend of Tsarnayevs.
I wish that the literary giant Seymour Hersh would wrap his head around this conundrum.
I understand Europeans and others have difficulty understanding this. I'll explain:
To be clear: polls show that about 1/3 of Americans don't buy your logic. So while you may speak for many in the U.S., there is a substantial minority that disagrees.
We generally believe that certain crimes are so horrific that the only possible punishment is death. Unlike other places, our criminal justice system is not merely based around removing the threat from society, or rehabilitating them, but also around the idea of punishment.
Funny, that. The U.S. justice system has a long history of claiming that lex talionis is no longer our operating principle. That's why we have departments of "corrections" where we supposedly "rehabilitate" people. But you implicitly are claiming that's all rhetoric -- that when it comes down to it, we're just after revenge.
After all, what other justification is there for punishment when it is not intended to rehabilitate?
This misses the point. Justice based upon the idea of punishing someone, as a part of retributive justice or deterrence, has a long history, and while continentals may disagree, it's what we in the US choose to do. We believe, or at least our court system does, that some people DESERVE to die for their actions.
I'm in the U.S. I used to be at least a nominal supporter of the death penalty. I remember having long debates with friends when I was younger, and I made similar arguments to what you do. I also came up with other tangential justifications, which often appear here on Slashdot, like "it'd be worse if I were kept in prison for life, so I'd rather die in those circumstances -- therefore we should kill them" or whatever.
But as I've grown older, I've realized that arguments in favor of the death penalty inevitably boil down to FOUR main justifications:
(1) I'm mad at that guy. That's essentially what you're endorsing -- somebody did something bad, so I'm mad and I'm gonna kill him.
(2) I'm afraid of that guy. This is the argument that some people are so evil and cannot be rehabilitated, so they should be "put down" for the good of society. That might be valid reasoning if there weren't an alternative -- but we have maximum security prisons now. We don't need to kill this person to protect us.
(3) I want to scare other people. This has nothing to do with the actual justice served on an individual, but rather the idea that the death penalty actually deters other criminals from committing murder. There are some studies that suggest the death penalty may have a minor effect as a deterrent; there are others that refute that claim and say there is no statistical effect. One this is clear: Murderers are deterred by fear that they will be caught and go to prison, but a distant possibility of a death penalty is less of a deterrent. Perhaps if we reinstituted public executions where we tortured people in Times Square before killing them in some horrific way, maybe it might deter somebody... but the death penalty is applied so rarely and randomly that it can't function as a realistic deterrent.
(4) We've always done it this way. That's basically your other argument: there's a long history of revenge killing by the state, so why not continue to do it? it's the same wacky logic that propagates all sorts of ridiculous and stupid traditions and keeps our society from getting better. "I'm gonna haze these young dudes, because I was hazed." "When I was first starting out, I had to work 60 hours each week on little pay, so why shouldn't I do the same to these stupid kids." Etc. Sometimes to improve society, it makes sense to interrogate our traditions and ask whether they're actually doing good things, or whether it might be better for everyone if we found another way
The problem with the death penalty is that there is no way to repair damage to people who were not guilty of the crime they were executed for. This happens way more often than anyone likes to admit.
With this case, do you want me to believe that rehabilitation is not possible? I say bullshit, especially when the person convicted was a minor at the time this happened with an adult influencing his behavior. Rehabilitation is possible until proven otherwise, and it was not attempted here.
Unfortunately, people in the US have been duped into thinking that the only purposes of a sentence are punishment and retribution.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Then your point is mostly irrelevant because there are other good reasons for death penalty.
None of which are part of the thread discussion, which was about deterrence. Don't move the goal-posts.
Again, prison is not an effective deterrent. Do you think we should abolish prisons?
Of course not. Murderers should be punished. My point is that the type of punishment is irrelevant to the question of deterrence.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's already the case:
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2...
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Now he will just spend 50 years in jail before they finally decide to kill him.
There is disagreement over that.
"The new deterrence research has been discussed favorably and uncritically by national news outlets and has been declared persuasive in leading academic journals and by prominent scholars and jurists. Legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the new deterrence evidence "powerful" and "impressive." They couple it with "many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects" as the "foundation" of their argument, which holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes. Prof. Becker concurs, finding the evidence "persuasive," while Judge Richard Posner brushes aside worries about the possible execution of the innocent as we ramp up executions to achieve even greater deterrent effects. Twice, authors of some of the articles have appeared before the U.S. Congress, stating the case for deterrence."
https://www.law.columbia.edu/l...
This discussion was not about deterrence, that was only YOUR argument. I'm just saying YOUR argument is irrelevant. It's not me who's moving goal-posts, it's you.
So why should we not kill this guy? Do you have any reason?
Or Malaysia or Thailand and so on.
Be careful when you get on the American hate high horse, you overgeneralize and you risk looking racist. ...
or maybe admit it is a bit more nuanced than "not a civilized country."
Why wasn't there any investigation on the FBI on their inability to prevent the bombing during Boston marathon, especially because of the pro-islam stance of the leadership of FBI?
2 years have passed and we do not see any investigation at all --- everything seemed to be hushed
The congress has done nothing --- there was no congressional hearing done on the failure of FBI
The Justice Department has done nothing
Not even the usual civil societies --- the NGOs and all the other interest groups have filed any formal complaint against the FBI for this serous fucked up
It is as though the entire America is trying its best to cover-up the fact that FBI has been transformed into a pro-islam apparatus
While we all know that liberals such as Diane Feinstein is more afraid of the Christian than them moslems, why then the Republicans have failed to call for an official investigation on FBI for their utter failure?
WHY??
You are determined to avoid my point. Goodbye.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
surgical blindness and remove his voice box so he can't speak
then give him a library full of braille books and music (no current events or outside communication), keep his cell clean, and check on his health and give reasonable pain relief when necessary (but no life-prolonging treatments)
no chance he can be a danger to anyone else, requires minimum security since you know, blind
can't be considered cruel since he will be given the tools to occupy his mind for the rest of his natural life, much less expensive than regular prison
I can get behind that. Let the other side claim it is a show trial and execution only to be dragged out through appeals and process. It shows we aren't the evil masterminds everybody thinks we are, just trapped in our system.
Obama says there are 58 states in the USA. He went to 57 of them during his campaign but wasn't allowed to go to the other 2, Alaska and Hawaii. So not only does he not know there are 50 states, but he thinks 57+2 = 58.
52 states though, I'm not sure which country that is.
Yes, it wasn't his fault. All babies are innocent. It was his parents who brought him up in a toxic society and then a mullah and his brother duped him. We should imprison everyone else and leave the poor kid alone - sniff...
Again, your point was irrelevant. It was only a straw man. Do you think I am that stupid?
So then, you're personally willing to pay the cost of his lifelong incarceration? Good. I don't want to pay even a little part of it anymore.
With all the concern over money, why not use a method of execution which can make money? Put the guy on a game show, pitting him against multiple combatants and take bets on how he dies.
There is disagreement over that.
"The new deterrence research has been discussed favorably and uncritically by national news outlets and has been declared persuasive in leading academic journals and by prominent scholars and jurists. Legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the new deterrence evidence "powerful" and "impressive." They couple it with "many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects" as the "foundation" of their argument, which holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes. Prof. Becker concurs, finding the evidence "persuasive," while Judge Richard Posner brushes aside worries about the possible execution of the innocent as we ramp up executions to achieve even greater deterrent effects. Twice, authors of some of the articles have appeared before the U.S. Congress, stating the case for deterrence."
https://www.law.columbia.edu/l...
Those profs will be funded well by congress so long as they give the answers congress is wanting.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...
What deters murderers is not the penalty, but the likelihood of being caught.
Actually, what deters murders most is not having a gun.
Vox populi, vox Dei.
Makes you wonder about the people.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Justice based upon the idea of punishing someone, as a part of retributive justice or deterrence, has a long history, and while continentals may disagree, it's what we in the US choose to do. We believe, or at least our court system does, that some people DESERVE to die for their actions.
But not cops who kill black people.
Europeans never seem to understand that.
But what if the law were a bit different?
In this case, there's no real doubt he did it. Same with the asshole from the Aurora shooting. And they killed like, a bunch of people each. Normal concerns about whether the DA is trying to kill some mentally retarded man, or find some way to execute whatever skin tone they have a beef with, are off the table.
It's interesting that no one is trying to raise the bar for crimes that can result in execution, given that people are a lot more ok with executions in these cases. I guess no one wants to go out and say "if there's X eyewitnesses and you kill Y people then..."
Perhaps the fact that 18+32=50 escaped you, or you'd rather make a big deal out of a typo because you don't actually have a response.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
People are wondering whether he did it, and then saying no to the death penalty because they don't understand that he confessed to doing it...maybe /.ers should stick to technology. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but is there a threshold for someone receiving the death penalty? I might mean if you're a member of the jury then you have the right to make that choice...everyone else has an opinion. This guy went to the marathon to kill as many people as possible, and succeeded. So if there was a way to make him forget everything then should he be set free? This convicted terrorist should just disappear, no circus of appeals, no drawn-out legal interviews, just disappear...was he executed, was he just dropped from a plane somewhere out in the ocean...gone with no pomp and circumstance, just silenced forever
The Yahoo news account for this story notes the death penalty decision was a "a huge victory for the federal government," as the prosecutors were pushing for it despite pleas from the victims to abstain.
"Huge victory" -- ridiculous. No one wins.
Which is a bit strange since the Constitution has a bit about "cruel and unusual" punishment designed to curb the dark side of the Puritans. However selective interpretation of the Bible and the Constitution is very popular.
That statement is vague and potentially backwards. The victim or potential victim having a gun is proven to be a very good deterrent of murder.
Nothing escaped anybody. You do not know it was a typo because the poster has never clarified it. For all we know he could be confusing bumfuckistan and Mexico with Canada or something.
And that was my response to it. IS all that made up bullshit like the barbaric and civilized BS. Many Europeans considered it civilized to murder, rape and otherwise kill the uncivilized in the new world all the way from Columbus's discovery to the Native American Indians. That term has been used to bring about so much death that it simply doesn't fit the context.
I agree that Manson does get briefly considered for parole every now and again and think that is how it should be - once we make an exception for him it will get applied to anyone who pisses off whoever owns the prisons system and next thing you know there are political prisoners doing life without parole.
your whole post reads much like my own position, present and past both, but is much more eloquently put than i can manage. thanks for posting that.
Being dead means they can't do it again.
That statement is vague and potentially backwards. The victim or potential victim having a gun is proven to be a very good deterrent of murder.
I don't think that's been proven anywhere, unless you define "proof" as "It seems true to me."
We don't have much proof of anything about guns. The NRA lobbied Congress to eliminate all research on gun violence from the federal budget. The NRA also lobbied states and the federal government to prohibit releasing or even collecting most data about gun ownership. So we haven't had any scientifically solid gun research in about 15 years.
What ticked the NRA off was a study based on gun purchase records which found that people who bought guns were more likely to use them for suicide than self-defense.
Doctors have told me (and there are published studies to back them up) that people who are assaulted with guns are much more likely to die than people assaulted by any other means.
So eliminating guns from the scene is a very good deterrent of murder.
The poster's intent was pretty obvious. You just like taking cheap shots.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
When ISIS executes prisoners for committing crime against their institution, they are acting on their own self-interest. When the jury declares death sentence on Dzhokhar, they are acting on my interest. I could be a potential victim and am indirectly related to some actual victims, but we otherwise have no authority to declare or execute the death sentence on the perpetrator. The evidence who'd done it was pretty clear from day one, and nothing so far has raised the red flag of him possibly being a scapegoat of some conspiracy plot. Yes, the authority upped the ante on the security theater as the result of the bombing, but even the actors themselves sympathize with the audience about it. Boston is a place where you can find an outdoor concert in the Boston Common where a rapper shouts out "fuck the police" over the amplified sound system, and the police standing there told me with a grin that they have the permission to do that.
I once had a signature.
Looks like the countries with the highest homicide rates don't have the death penalty.
Yup, just like countries with the lowest rates don't have it too:
Lichtenstein, Monaco, Iceland, France, Switzerland, Macau, Sweden...
(And except Guatemala, Lesotho, etc. which DO have death penalty, despite having high homicide rates).
If anything, that proves that criminality and death penality doesn't seem correlated.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
U.S uniformed assassins are killing civilians in the middle east, and will not be held accountable for any of it.
Mercy is wasted on those without mercy.
Pity is wasted on those without pity.
Remorse is wasted on those without remorse.
Put him in the ground and move on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I thought this was pretty creative, should be modded Funny.
The death penalty was created when Jurors actually had to chop the head off the chicken to eat it. It is easy to say Death to them, if you never have to do it.
If you ever been to prison, life there is worse than death. Ask Jeffrey Dahmer......
*No not Vegan.
**Yes I hunt.
***Yes I grow a garden(Kale ftw)
WRONG, the US justice system and society do not give ONE SINGLE SHIT about rehabilitation.
Evidenced by putting people away for as long as possible, hardly any funding or rehab programs, zero tolerance towards felons for jobs, no time and performance based record wiping process, etc, etc, etc.
The US system is almost entirely based on one thing... hateful kneejerk vengeance.
Carried over from Euro/Brit medieval torture, to puritanical witch hating colonies, on through slavery and lynchings, to today with 23hr lockdown and cops killing and beating everyone and getting away with it.
Fuck the US system, and fuck the people sitting at home getting their lollies from it watching pro-system bullshit propaganda like COPS, CSI, and Judge Judy.
Yep. I'm from the US (Texas even), and I'm sad and embarrassed for the US that so many US citizens are still so gung-ho about the death penalty, making convicted criminals suffer as much as possible, etc. Especially now that the US is the world leader in having the highest number of citizens in prison (both in absolute numbers and per capita), it's extremely short-sighted and self-destructive that the US "justice" system is so revenge-oriented instead of rehabilitation-oriented.
Great going guys, instead of putting him away for life and creating a political situation, you just made the greatest religious martyr in the 15 year history of jihad.
1000 virgins and most rewards for this man.
Allah Akbar.
Kill the infidels.
Allah Akbar.
Eggs in an omlet, fuckwad.
Something tells me that you have an agenda. You sound like a criminal.
So all this surveillence, enough to know what every American waxes their carrot to (or ring their bells, not leaving any ladies out), and we still couldn't stop some Balthazar Whateverthefuckyou from blowing up a bunch of strangers in the middle of Boston. But fear not! We did pester a family for Googling "pressure cooker". Don't cha feel safe already? I know I do.
the state cannot be trusted to wield this power responsibility.
Why would you trust the state to wield any power over a human being, even a criminal, responsibly? What makes the court system justifiable to convict someone to life without parole, but unjustifiable to execute them?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
You left out the fact that it does not work as a measure to reduce serious crimes - it only helps create a more violent and barbaric society.
We used the death penalty for longer than your country has existed. It doesn't work and should be left in the past where it belongs. Norway is a far better place to live, has far less crime, has an overall better quality of life than you. You should be following their example but all you do is complain about it not being American enough for you - it's like something from a comedy sketch show but it loses its comedy when applied to the real world.
Killing Tsarnaev will do nothing but make you look bad, or slightly worse than you normally look anyway. He'll be dead, he won't care. Your country will be that much shittier, and your people will be perceived as shitty barbaric people.
We don't have difficulty understanding it - we just think badly of you for it. Tomorrow you will be back to complaining about China's terrible gubmint, their heinous hacking of US computers, there barbaric treatment of their own people. We get it.
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses -- Lenny Bruce.
So... money? You'd kill a person for money.
How much of society's money would you be willing to have someone killed for? Ten million? A thousand? Somewhere in between, perhaps.
Since nobody here seems to have a clue, the Boston bombing was a false flag operation by the CIA to see if they can lock down a major city and violate peoples rights.Dzhokar(Joker..get it?) was either a patsy or a CIA asset. Nobody is going to be executed here.
Both of these things are true:
1. Tsarnev is evil and deserves to die for his crimes.
2. The USA should abolish the death penalty, for numerous reasons.
These are not mutually exclusive. The state does not need to see everyone get everything they deserve.
I'm not sure that this would work, charging for restroom use is not a thing in the USA. Even in a big city they'd just find the nearest Taco Bell or gas station and shit there. There's a reason why they're called "gas stations"...
Jesus didnt hang on the cross alone. There were two other condemned persons, to his left and to his right. One of them was a murderer and the other some kind of a guerilla, who cut down a roman military guard. Jesus didnt remove either one from the cross, but promised eternal life to the one who confessed and expressed his faith in the salvation offered by Christ. Therefore, any notion of christianity being opposed to capital punishment is anathema by the word of the Gospels!
On the other hand, Tsarnaev wasnt a terrorist, he was a guerilla / revolutionary who punished the USA for betraying Chechnya and tossing it to the muscovite tank hordes of Vlad Putler. It was a huge crime by the USA and the rest of the Free World to feed the chechens alive to the ruffian monster, which already exterminated half of the chechen population back in 1944. I hope one day Chechnya will be independent, the statnic Khaganate of Muscovy will collapse and become a chinese colony and then maybe the Tsarnaevs will have bronze statues like Ernesto Che Guevara. Every guerilla is someones terrorist after all.
what was the proof? they carried backpacks. and supposedly mad some white clouded 'bomb' s in maybe a backpack did that. . there were pictures of them! i swear. a bunch of people saw it.
you are condemned to die. by the publics
woo martial law. lets parade in streets with tanks. while we hunt people down and drag peeps from their houses to strip search them? because they might be hiding in their underwear? what the fuck.
. america needs someone to hate. and prod along while they do all the bad shit to other people, nations, countries, so they can say its better here. while making it worse out there. and prop along the sirvalezants status quo. for our protection. bunch of doctors. hungry hungry hippos !
Personally I find it horrific that in places like Norway someone like Brevik can be sentenced to only 21 years in prison for murdering dozens of people. This negates and ignores what he has done, and instead only focuses on rehabilitation, i.e., focusing on what this man can do in the future. The idea being that the past is past, and punishing someone won't bring back the people he killed.
I find it horrific that in the United States prison seems to be a place where people are sent to be exploited for their labour in increasingly privatised prisons and abused by prison gangs for years on end. It says more than many words about the US prison system that Chinese and Indian outsourcing companies do not bother to bid on contracts where a company benefiting from US prison labor is bidding against them and the justice system in the US seems to be rapidly evolving into a place whose primary purpose is to supply a steady stream of inmates (read: slave labour) to this system by slapping draconian mandatory prison sentences on US citizens for offences as trivial as being caught with a few grams too many of Marijuana. The US prison system seems to have become a round-about way of re-introducing slavery. In Norway (warning: liberalism ahead) like the other Nordic countries the purpose of prison is still considered to be to offer prisoners an opportunity to reform their lives. It may not always work but it does not always fail either. Before I became a code monkey with a CS degree I was trained as an electrician. There were a couple of guys in my shcool who were convicts on a reform program. They had both gotten locked up for doing stupid stuff and they deserved their sentences but they also both turned their lives around and became useful citizens. They achieved this partly because of the education the got from the prison system and partly because people gave them a second chance when they came out of prison instead of shunning them and making them unemployable. Breivik on the other hand is no normal convict nor is he a garden variety murderer. While Breivik has been sentenced to 21 years in prison that still only means that he will be released at the end of those 21 years if he is considered to have been rehabilitated. Norwegian law makes provisions for the continued the incarceration of a prisoner if it is thought that his rehabilitation has failed or he/she is suffers from chronic mental health issues and for those reasons still represents a threat.Breivik, given his behaviour and utterances, seems to fit that bill perfectly, i.e. he may be sane but he also will not be considered rehabilitated at the end of his sentence meaning he will never be released.
One dream I had, which was quickly categorized as way too risky to attempt; was to try to get to japan (because japanese girls are super cute) without flying (because I'm too claustrophobic to fly again). Researching it a little; looked like one way might be to
Even if I had lotsa lotsa money (which I don't) and lotsa lotsa free time (which I don't), that would be kinda risky. So many places for stuff to go horribly wrong.
But, if we've got someone with one free life (Tsarnaev, if he's not executed) . . . why not send him on the above risky trip, and if he survives, pay him to write a book about it ? It would be fun to read.
I took the time to sift through the responses here.
There were only three or four which didn't get pulled into the tar ball debate over whether execution is morally okay. -Which actually paused to question the media and the official story.
What is it with Slashdotters? Why do so many take the news at face value, like it's an actual representation of truth? Even the most cursory investigation leads to ample reason to doubt the official version. Heck, it stinks to high heaven!
It could be that it's not really as bad as it seems; after all, this whole thread is awash in Anonymous posts spurring this idiotic debate over whether to execute or not, which silently asserts that the base assumptions are correct. Herd instincts definitely have the effect of compelling people to go along with the prevailing bullshit when enough sheep are perceived to be bleating, -and on such a momentous day as the announcement of absolute guilt and a pending execution, you can be sure the CIA and other letter-soup agencies with skin in this game will be using their licensed copies of "manage a bunch of sockpuppet social media accounts to sway public opinion" software to the max. They'd be fools not to, albeit evil fools.
For the rest of us with working grey matter, here's a look at some of the problems with the official story:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2...
Also, the dude was sick; hearing voices. Assuming he acted without being handled by agents, (Hahaha, right, but let's assume), are we saying that we're into executing mentally ill people now?
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Since when were actual definitions (you know, like you find in a dictionary) weasel words?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And shooting heroin or any other crap up your veins might be a sacred act.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I appreciate your efforts, but all of your rationalisations are just that. What Europans don't understand (as well as many Americans) is that our whole system of goverment is built around the individual who is endowed with unalianable rights. To declare someone càn abdicate this God given right to life is self contradicting logical fallacy.
God himself honored this precept when he put his mark on Cain. Yes, my heathen freinds, this is an alagory based upon what must have been a true fact. Sometime, very early on in our history, the first sociopathic middle easterner murdered his brother and seemingly got away with it. You either accept the consequences of declarative decree or you don't. What you don't get to do is substitute a bunch of nonsense for natural law. We may only aspire to see this topsy turvey world in clearer sight by leaving as we entered it, head downward. Pray the Pope spends more time contemplating his thoughts than uttering them. No amount of apologia will change the fact that desert dwelling Muslims are not God's chosen people, in fact, they are not qualified for membership into the clubs of the worlds democracies. Let them eat sand ponder what a mug shot of a petty thug like mohammed must look like as posted outside the pearly gates. All are welcome here, but the king of England may not enter here, save I say ye
By that logic, the people who sentenced him to death or carried out the sentence are also guilty of murder, and should also be killed. Anything less is hypocrisy.
Americans are barbarians, plain and simple.
so effective it even works on innocent people. is it odd that I oppose the death penalty yet encourage gun ownership
The poster's intent was to show the ignorance his ideals and beliefs stem from by. Of course you know that which is why you posted it and why you look silly defending it
Sounds like you crossed the line that separates justice from vengeance. Justice dictates that a punishment be handed out that fits the crime. Vengeance adds the desire to make it as torturous as possible.
He became what he loathed most.
Hang 'em - that injection stuff is brutal, but some folks would NOT be happy until they see his feet twitching ...
at the end of a long rope. On Fox TV. In HD. During PrimeTime. American Idle stuff
(The fearsome advocates say kill him with a exploding pressure cooker full of screws and BBs,
but such eye for an eye vengence just makes ya half blind)!
Why so long? Hurry up and detonate a pressure cooker bomb in his cell for crying out loud.
How about we keep death penalty, but only for cases of mass murder with extensive eyewitnesses, self-incriminating statements and/or video evidence? No ballistic/arson evidence where investigator can be mistaken or science could evolve over time. No single eyewitness that leaves the possibility of mistaken identity. And if you targeted a specific person, whether because of greed or rage, it's at least a recognizable human failing from which one can be conceivably rehabilitated in due time.
I personally don't feel any less just or safe with Ted Kaczynski securely locked up for life than if he was executed. But some people believe that there is some level of brutality that deserves death. Well, maybe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or James Eagan Holmes is it. Still a waste of money, but we will not waste too much on a couple of executions in a decade. And I would certainly would not worry much about an innocent/rehabilitated man or a victim of bad circumstances being put to death.
but how are they going to kill him? they have no lethal injection drugs anymore
If I remember correctly, his family defended the Tsarnaev brothers? I remember the aunt who lived in Canada lashed out at the reporters. Just wondering how a family can defend the Tsarnaev brothers even though their is evidence that linked the bombings to the brothers. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mother-boston-bomb-suspects-insists-sons-innocent-article-1.1329983
The father did urge the brothers to turn themselves in to police.
As somebody on Fox's the Five said, the U.S. allowed the Tsarnaev brothers into the United States of America, but then the brothers attacked their host city and country. I know I am paraphrasing but I forgot the reporter's exact words.
So killing another person and adding on the the total number of dead is going to fix that? I think not. This guy will become a martyr, a hero in the eyes of the Islamists who will want to replicate what he has done.
In addition, murder is the crime that has the lowest re-offending rate (where we count *any* crime) after release. Most murderers kill for very specific reasons under great stress and regret it later. Indeed, you could take that argument to its conclusion and say that most murderers should simply be released once found guilty.
[FUCK BETA]
we are not doing it as a deterrent, we are serving justice. We want his life to end because he is human garbage.
I have personally no problem with the death sentence, but I consider your justice system and your prison system an institutionalized crime against humanity. Your country is barbaric.
Let's rape, torture and beat him first. Then I say we shit on him. And then we force him to eat the shit. And afterwards we rape and torture him some more.
> If anything, the length of the prison term should be indeterminate -- based solely on whether we believe a person is still a danger to society. If he is, keep him in prison, perhaps for life. If he's not, let him out.
To stick with the context of those crimes for which execution is served in the US: there is no amount of prison or treatment which would turn someone like Tsarnaev or Breivik into someone who could be trusted not to kill again.
> But to end someone's life? That is irrevocable. If that person wants to commit suicide, I have no problem letting them. (We do force many prisoners to stay alive in our prisons.)
I'd agree but if your expressed view is important to you, you'd need to detect a slippery slope here. If there's no death penalty but prison suicides are not actively prevented, then it can quickly turn to active euthanasia, to say the least.
Personally I find it horrific that in places like Norway someone like Brevik can be sentenced to only 21 years in prison for murdering dozens of people.
You make it sound like he's going to be released after 21 years. His sentance is an indefinite one, so while the time is 21 years, it can be renered for the entire duration of his life.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Screw this dude, fry his balls in the electric chair.
He dismembered and killed numerous people who had done nothing to him. If one of those people were my family, I would of been stalking the court house with a sniper rifle. If he had been imprisoned for life, I would be planning right now how to get inside the prison to kill him.
I'm glad he was sentenced to death. An eye for an eye.
It's not noble to say we cannot kill murderer's. While it terrifying and disgusting to kill someone, it's not noble. Imprisoning someone for life is not any kind of moral high ground. Its just as disgusting and terrifying.
Global Research invites you to take a moment to look at some of the best articles published on the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Tsarnaev brothers, all of which reveal lies, anomalies and inconsistencies in the official story ref.
About as well as Vanilla Ice or Snow. Even better the White wife beater.
So in what part of society where the person is so broken that they go out and cause oh murder, mass murder, and so on? Seems to me that it isn't a 'society problem' but rather an individual problem relating to either psychopathy or indoctrination.
Om, nomnomnom...
No, not really. He didn't get anything yet, and most sentenced to death don't get it for years!
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
What country has 52 states? Is this one of those 87.3 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot things?
The OP was probably counting DC and PR as "states". After all, they satisfy most of the legal requirements for the term, except for their residents being denied representation in Congress.
OTOH, one of the fun US trivia questions is "Legally speaking, how many 'states" are there in the US?" The answer, of course, is 46, because four of them officially call themselves a "commonwealth" rather than a "state". The next trivia question is: Can you name those four "commonwealths" without consulting google or wikipedia?
(Note that PR is also officially a "commonwealth". ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This is the main reason why most other Western countries dropped the death penalty decades ago. This particular case is not a very convincing argument against the death penalty due to the severity of the crime and the killings that were carried out during the pursuit, leaving no reasonable doubt that they got the right guy. But many other cases in the US, some which eventually get overturned in the many appeals a death row prisoner is entitled to, and others such as Carlos De Lunas which have slipped through.
Someone posted a map of where the death penalty is still practiced. The biggest block of those countries is in Asia, where most of the population are not followers of Abrahamic religions.
What does that have to do with someone incorrectly posting that he only killed 3 people? Or are you just trolling ... oh, an A.C., duh!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So it's about revenge and not justice then, right?
Precisely the same as incarceration, except far more expensive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Russia
Keep it on topic - check your political sport team affiliation at the door like grown-ups.
A semi-illiterate person confusing fact with fiction and spewing xenophobic nonsense? No way! What are the chances!?
Save your breath - he's already made his mind up. He's not interested in facts, merely justifying his blood lust to himself and others.
How many executed prisoners reoffend?
So clearly the answer is to execute eveeryone for their first criminal offence, no matter how minor.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Doctors have told me (and there are published studies to back them up) that people who are assaulted with guns are much more likely to die than people assaulted by any other means.
Yes, it's why modern armies tend to arm their soldiers with automatic rifles rather than half a brick in a sock.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't understand how people think life in a cage is some kind of social sign of progress compared to the death penalty. I guess they prefer to watch someone suffer for as long as possible.
The point is to give the criminal a long, long time to think about what he's done. There is not any chance of rehabilitation if you execute them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're getting yourself confused. You think we're living in an enlighteend society. Reality is, we're not that much more advanced than the apes and monkeys that we evolved out of. Humans are still animals, and just because we're a little more resourceful than every other animal doesn't make us terribly more enlightened as a species.
You also mistake thinking the U.S. is a first world country. We're not. Taking all things into consideration, we're at best, on the border between the first and third worlds. The only reason we're even included among our more civilized peers is because we have a really powerful military and a lot of natural resources that remain untapped. Europe and Asia have had a 25,000-year head start in resource use over North America, and that is the only reason why the U.S. is as influential in the world stage as it currently is.
We're a young country, barely in our adolescence. We had a great start (freedoms, rights, equality, etc.) but we need to mature into those ideals. Give it another thousand years and things will start to get better (if we don't self-destruct first).
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Humane execution does not exist. Murder by the state, like any murder, is barbaric by definition.
The backwards system of it being cheaper to incarcerate someone for 50+ years than to quickly execute them is asinine. In some countries they would have a second jury or committee of judges watching a death penalty trial, the instant appeal would be dealt with immediately. This process of incarceration for 20 years through numerous appeals is ridiculous. So I will say this - I agree that we just do life without parole in order to save money, but my preference would be instant appeals and immediate execution, especially in cases where the perpetrator admits guilt and actually asked for the death penalty instead of solitary confinement for the rest of his life, because that's where he's going... locked in a cell for 23 hours, then an hour alone in a little exercise room. And that's it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Hundreds of years ago you also chose to break away from England the oppressors, you choose to fight the wars of others (and create some along the way), you choose to continue your existence in a world that has grown up before you.
Don't let the world grow up without you. You may not like what it has to do TO YOU.
Also, a rehabilitative prison should only be used on a person if they cause physical harm either directly or indirectly.
There is no reason anyone should spend time in a prison because of financial debt. Ever, period. We can provide other means of rehabilitation here.
Rehabilitation is imperative to the meaningful flow of this world unto the next.
What deters murderers is not the penalty, but the likelihood of being caught.
Getting caught, and then being penalised. I can't imagine that catching crooks then letting them go without penalty would be much of a deterrent.
So, why not chose incarceration? It's cheaper,
I can't see how a 50 years+ in prison costs less than one bullet.
it maintains a morally superior position for the justice system,
Morals are subjective. I find it immoral that an animal who rapes, tortures and murders other humans is given more taxpayer resources than the victim's family. I find it immoral that we clothe, house and feed someone like this.
and it can be reversed in the event a conviction is wrongful.
There is no need to reverse anything if your standards for conviction are of a high enough standard.
The problem with the death penalty is that there is no way to repair damage to people who were not guilty of the crime they were executed for.
Isn't the solution here then to improve your judicial system?
I mean, ignoring the fact that the term "first world country" was created to mean "the US and its developed allies", the rest of your logic doesn't hold up. Economically, we're absolutely a first world country. Our GDP per capita is quite good, and we have the largest economy in any single country. In addition, we do tremendous amounts of research - between 75 and 80% of the world's biomedical research, depending on whose numbers you look at. As a country, we have different values from many of our other first world brethren, but that hardly disqualifies us, as Japan shares that quality. In terms of infrastructure, we aren't doing as well as we could, but again, we're significantly better than any country that is reasonably third world.
We could be doing a lot better, I agree, but saying that we're between first and third world is pretty ludicrous.
I'm not going to defend the death penalty, but the person carrying out the sentence isn't guilty of murder. Murder only applies to premeditated unlawful killings. Other unlawful killings are generally manslaughter, and lawful killings are, by definition, not murder. Therefore, no hypocrisy from that standpoint.
Calling all Americans barbarians because of the actions of a jury is unfounded. I'm sure there are people from your country that you don't want defining your identity, but you're defining all Americans by the actions of some, and that's just bigotry.