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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
How dare you! He is a member of the religion of peace!
We should let him choose a punishment based on the cruelty of his actions. Easy death or death by pressure cooker bomb.
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
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.
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.
I believe the death penalty is automatically appealed. The defendant doesn't get a say.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
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.
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
In this particular case, most entities that oppose the death penalty for specific reasons, like those that are concerned for the reliability of justice and the danger of executing innocent people, are extremely unlikely to have grounds for such an objection, given the dramatic and highly public events that led to his eventual apprehension combined with his written words admitting to his actions.
I suspect that most of those who do object to the use of the death penalty for the first reason I mentioned probably wouldn't choose to stake their movement on this particular case, given the nature of what happened. Attempting to fight against it would probably cause more harm for the movement than good.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
I am opposed to the death penalty for exactly the reasons you give. In this case, I'm pretty much OK with it though. The only reservation I have is the high cost of execution when lifetime incarceration is cheaper. Maybe we should put him in a cell with Charles Manson instead.
The worst criminals often live the best lives.
That is only true if they have power, and connections to the outside. Tsarnaev would have had neither. If he had been given life-without-parole, he would have spent it at ADX Florence, which has been described as "a cleaner version of hell".
The problem I have with his death penalty, is that it is sending the message that if you hate someone, you can kill them ... which was his rationale for the bombing in the first place.
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?
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.
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.
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.
because it is not very nice when people come into your home and kill people at random is it.
You keep him in prison for the rest of his life with no possibility of parole.
The State should never ever have the ability to kill its own citizens, and that obviously includes criminals.
The trial was a farce, just like soviet-era show trials. It was about revenge not justice.
What good will it do to make him suffer for the rest of his life in prison?
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 spends his life in jail.
Why is cost a factor? Why do you prefer to watch him suffer in a cage forever? What would you prefer if he killed your kids? Would you like that horror to remain on this planet so that the victims families can get regular reminders of the horror? What if they want that horror gone from this earth so they can put it behind them?
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
I'm not sure about that.
Bill and Denise Richards, the parents of 8-year-old Martin (the youngest bombing victim) were against the death penalty being applied in this case. Their opposition was based on a desire for closure. They didn't want to see the case prolonged by the inevitable appeals and media attention that would be the result of a death penalty.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
Doesn't need to bring the dead people back. Killing him and figuring out why people get radicalized doesn't have to be mutually exclusive either. It's not like that money is the only money in the world and it's magically gone if he dies.
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 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...
And as each group kills members of the other group, they're both encouraged to continue killing in retribution. The mentality is the same for common street gangs and for nations.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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
Even his parents have disowned him.
Far from it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Drone strikes that hit the wrong people, targetting wedding parties etc ie generally killing the wrong people, killing children because of who their parents are and calling them legitimate targets. Many others in numerous incidents your press do not report. It may not be random for the person giving the order it certainly is a random and arbitary death sentence for the poor sod on the receiving end.
I will amend my assertion, to exclude the motivations of those personally involved, to only focus on society-at-large. Those personally affected have an entirely different perspective and it's not one that the rest of us can empathize with unless we've been through a similar tragedy.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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!
Just to make sure I understand you here:
It is OK for Dzhokar to target a crowd of spectators because the U.S. military kills more people than it should with drone strikes?
FWIH, There are several analogs in Ft. Leavenworth that would do just as well.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Just to make sure I understand you here:
It is OK for Dzhokar to target a crowd of spectators because the U.S. military kills more people than it should with drone strikes?
Why not ? Do you think the president of the US or any of the high level officials in his administration give a damn about killing civilians ? They don't, that's why they're waging this absurd drone war over several countries. Killing from afar is easy because you never ever see the real cost on the people, most of whom are civilians. But when that cost hits home it's different isn't it ? Just something to think about.
Well, by that logic, it's fine for me to come into your house and kill you because the USA killed someone somewhere. Right? Logic doesn't matter, intent doesn't matter, just go off and kill people.
A farce? Jesus, if you aren't going to try a mass murderer that you have videotape of committing the crime, who are you going to try? You want to just say "well done" and let him go for it again?
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?
How dare you! He is a member of the religion of peace!
The Tsarnaev exemplifies how FUCKED UP the American government has become
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/tsarnaev-trial-tamerlan-testimony_n_7173250.html
The Russian intelligence agency, - the FSB, - had given the American government the dossier of the Tsarnaevs, prior to the Boston Marathon bombing
Along with the dossier, which includes an interview with a distant cousin living in Dagestan, another region in Russian, who said that Tamerlan had visited and sought an introduction to Islamic fighters, the Russian FSB had warned the Americans that the Tsarnaev are ticking time bombs
But what the American government did? Nothing!
That's right, not . a . mother - fucking . thing
According to the FBI, which is being led by a bunch of moslem loving liberals, "the FBI investigated Tamerlan in 2011 for terrorist connections, but found he had none"
Yep, the FBI "FOUND NO CONNECTION" even after the Russians had given them the dossier and the interview --- and what we got after that?
THE . BOSTON . MARATHON . BOMBING
That is how fucked up the government of the United States of America has become --- and we should thank the Liberals for such a _marvelous_ performance !
No, something closer to a soviet-era showtrial would be 'diversity officers' and 'discrimination tribunals' in the ivy league.
AC hasn't exactly justified Tsarnaev - he has given food for thought. He last sentence, "Just something to think about." He makes it pretty clear that if we weren't such arrogant bastards ourselves, then we may have had more sympathy from the world at large when the terrorists hit us. And, there is some suggestion that if we were less overbearing overseas, then just MAYBE the terrorists wouldn't have hit us.
Food for thought, assuredly.
Is he right? Is he wrong? I can't say for sure. But he does offer food for thought.
Yeah, I'm aware that Muslim terrorists are waging war on three continents already, against people who ARE NOT arrogant, overbearing bastards with military bases located around the world. Maybe the terrorists would have hit the Twin Towers anyway, and maybe the Tsarnaev brothers would have bombed the Boston Marathon anyway. I can't say for sure.
Think about it though.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'm surprised this hasn't been modded up higher yet. Very funny.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
Screw that. Sometimes, you gotta do what's gotta be done. Septic systems need to be cleaned out, criminals need to be executed - stuff just has to be done. If you want to walk around feeling superior by not getting your hands dirty, go right ahead, but don't expect to win any arguments on morality.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
> 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?
Never read the book - I think I'll go looking for it.
I have noted that prison sucks for many reasons, and a lack of genuine punishment for crime is one of the reasons. Prison does little more than serve as a criminal college and finishing school. Petty criminals enter the system, only to become professional criminals. There is something drastically wrong with that picture.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
...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.
Well, what else is there to do? No internet to speak of, the TV program sucks and prayer is only 5 times a day. You gotta keep yourself entertained somehow, ya know?
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.
The trial wasn't a farce, it was a foregone conclusion because...he did it, admitted it and everyone knew it. Duh.
Of course he's guilty. That is not the problem.
What I was criticising was the fact that the aim of the trial was not to exert justice but revenge. And nothing tells you this better than the fact that the trial was being held under federal law, because the state of the Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.
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.
It won't get them back to life, but it allows us to take revenge. That's basically the motivation here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
The real waste of tax-payer's money is the War on Things or Concepts (eg drugs, or terror).
>killed three people ... in the worst terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001
I'm so very scared.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It doesn't deter the people who commit murder. There's no telling how many people who did not commit murder were deterred.
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.
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.
Liberals are to blame, but not the ones your talking about. It's the Liberals who founded this country on ideas such as people being innocent until proven guilty. How many 'tips' do you think the FBI gets? Do you think they should arrest everyone that some 'distant cousin' living half way around the world accuses of doing something sinister.
You clearly don't have a clue how to think.
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder.
HUMANE execution isn't an effective deterrent.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
And those who are opposed to the death penalty aren't allowed on capital crime juries. One reason to oppose the death penalty is that it's only decided by the dwindling number of people willing to impose it, who will increasingly fail to collectively represent the average citizen.
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
Just to make sure I understand you here:
It is OK for Dzhokar to target a crowd of spectators because the U.S. military kills more people than it should with drone strikes?
There are similarities between Dzhokar killing civilian spectators and the U.S. military killing civilian spectators at a wedding.
The main difference is that the U.S. military will say, "We only intended to kill bad guys. We didn't intend to kill civilians."
This is subject to a just war analysis. A war is justified when the aggressor has tried every other reasonable approach, when the goal is justified, and the aggressor tries to minimize damages. I'm not convinced this is true for the drone attacks.
I'm not absolutely against the death penalty. I could accept it under 3 conditions: (1) The defendant must actually be guilty (2) The defendant must have had a fair trial (3) Other defendants who committed similar crimes must have gotten the same penalty.
I would compare the Boston Marathon killings to the Nusoor Square killings, where Blackwater private security contractors killed 17 people. My interpretation of the evidence is that the killings were unjustified and indiscriminate, and part of a pattern of such killings by Blackwater. One Blackwater contractor was sentenced to life in prison, and 3 others were sentenced to 30 years.
Dzhokar's death sentence fails my third condition. If we didn't sentence any of the Blackwater contractors to death, then we can't sentence Dzhokar to death.
and we should thank the Liberals for such a _marvelous_ performance !
Not being up on American Politics, what is the link here?
its only the worst if you ignore all the others that get labled things like "workplace violence"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
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."
And as each group kills members of the other group, they're both encouraged to continue killing in retribution. The mentality is the same for common street gangs and for nations.
Science magazine had a special issue on human conflict. http://www.sciencemag.org/site...
tldr: Human groups have always killed each other. But they've also reconciled with each other.
The model is South Africa, where some of the worst criminals were pardoned in order to get a resolution.
No dipshit.. If you kill someone, we will kill you.
That worked when people were fighting with bows and arrows. Once modern weapons came along, that attitude wound up in wars in which both sides were massacred.
I will amend my assertion, to exclude the motivations of those personally involved, to only focus on society-at-large. Those personally affected have an entirely different perspective and it's not one that the rest of us can empathize with unless we've been through a similar tragedy.
Fair enough.
But what do you say to those not personally involved, who oppose a death penalty because it would make him a martyr to his cause (rather than an opposition to the death penalty in general?)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You are determined to avoid my point. Goodbye.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The post you relied to was specifically about how, and I quote, "petty criminals enter the system, only to become professional criminals." This is absolutely true, and has nothing to do with someone in a maximum security facility.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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
In the meantime (appeals, etc) just feed him greasy bacon until he has a heart attack (or starves to death from refusing to eat pork).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Again, your point was irrelevant. It was only a straw man. Do you think I am that stupid?
Robert Blecker describes himself as an "emotive retributivist". I think that speaks volumes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --attributed to M. Gandhi.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It sends the message "If you mass murder people, you yourself will be executed".
Not about hate. Justice.
I would have thought you of all people would exhibit reasonableness and compassion for those whose inner conflicts drive them to extremes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Can you bring the dead back to life? Then do not be so eager to deal out death to the living.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
No. I can accept the death penalty under 3 conditions: (1) The defendant must actually be guilty (2) The defendant must have a fair trial (3) People who commit the same crimes must all be executed.
American combatants committed worse crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were not given the death penalty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Therefore, it doesn't meet my third condition. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is executed, it will demonstrate the unfairness of our justice system.
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.
you are a stupid punkass fool. I'd like to see you dropped into a maximum security prison out in the open and watch what happened to you when you told the inmates that they were not being punished. Your life would be very short and involve a lot of pain from that moment until you were finished, which would be a few minutes at most.
Looks like you've rehabilitated nicely.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
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.
Dwindling? 63% of the population supports the death penalty, and the low point in public support was actually back in the 1960's. Indeed over the last century support has gone up and down here and there but there is no downward trend overall. We're actually higher in support now than when the first poll was done in 1936.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
Not disowned. Abandoned. They buggered off back to Dagestan a couple of years before this happened, leaving all their kids behind. From there, it's been quite easy for them to issue denials and calls to avenge the deaths of their sons.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So it's all about the money, eh? Some might remark on the quintessential American-ness of that.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The death penalty was very much finished in the USA in the late '60s, but then in the late 70's some clown had the audacity to kill a lot of people in Washington D.C. so it became a foaming at the mouth political issue. A politician can pretend to be a very tough man if they have the "guts" to kill someone already behind bars.
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.
Stupid fuckin capitol punishment is dumbass bullshit. Costs billiontards of dollars, kills innocents around 5% of the time. Lock 'em up and throw away the key for pennies on the dollar!
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.
The link is that the conservatives blame everything bad that happens on liberal ideology when there's a Democrat in the White House, and the liberals blame everything on the conservative ideology when a Republican is in the White House, irregardless of what the rest of the government is actually doing.
Conservatives are stereotypically the party that wants to take the direct approach to solving problems, and prefer to spend tax money on helping winners: military, business, churches, prisons, etc.
Liberals are stereotypically the party that wants progressive solutions to problems, and prefer to spend tax money on helping losers: through education, labor unions, health care, environmentalism, community centers, etc.
So they both want essentially the same things... peace, prosperity, they just go about it different ways. Liberals would like to eliminate poverty by helping poor people become less poor; conservatives would prefer to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people.
Because of things like this, conservatives view liberals as weak, and liberals view conservatives as afraid. And they like to point that out whenever they can.
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 ]
"Just something to think about."
No, those are douchebag words, just like "I'm just asking questions". They attempt to put a cover over nonsense.
This might be news to you, but the FBI can't arrest people who haven't committed crimes. Crazy, I know, but "a distant cousin saying the guy is dangerous" doesn't meet the standard for detention. It meets the standard for investigation, and we did that, and golly it turned out the guy hadn't done any crimes yet. That's how it goes sometimes. The other 25,000 people who the FBI investigated and found nothing, those people didn't go on to bomb a foot race.
"The State should never ever have the ability to kill its own citizens"
Sure it should have the ability -- and not only the ability, but a legal rubric for deciding when to do so. And it does have those things, how grand.
Think about it for half a second. If the cousin of the guy you want to kill is getting married it's a safe bet that he's going to turn up, and if you have no scruples wiping out the entire wedding party gets the job done.
I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing out why I think the spooks are doing it that way.
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.
Perhaps if there were less anonymous cowards, ethical perspectives could be defended in a discussion about the death penalty.
Just pointing out how feckless your attack on the death penalty is.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I never understood these hayseed "kill'em" states. Just execute them by firing squad or (proper) hanging. When its designed to be quick, its not "cruel & unusual punishment". New York City is perfectly designed to execute prisoners "humanely". Just close off a block by the Empire State building, and shove them off from the observation deck. I've never heard of anyone lingering from death once they hit the ground.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Not true, unless it was a Massachusetts (state) thing. The Oklahoma Bomber declined to appeal his sentence, and he was summarily executed.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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.
It depends. Are you against Israeli Jews from immigrating into the US? Latin Americans, because the higher rate of "criminal conviction"? English, French, Dutch, and Germans, for their history of inhuman bloodshed?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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
Yea because best way to protest how wrong murder is, is to kill people.
I'd say fuck the death penalty, he should be forced to live in Alabama making no more than minimum wage and be kept healthy enough to live over 90. That'll teach him.
Indeed, imagine seeing this man in a documentary after a life time in prison contemplating his decisions, or rather living with himself with nothing but himself. That, is a way stronger message than a knee jerk, "Kill'em back".
How's that working out for you? Murder rate in the US is higher than (almost?) any western country that has abolished the death penalty.
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.
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"...
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...
Actually they're making a Muslim Martyr out of the guy. That's not going to work out very well.
Awesome post.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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."
We always hear about how the US does a ton of good around the world -- what do you have for valid citations for the good the US does that others don't?
So for example, shifting rubble in Nepal wouldn't count because lots of other nations have such helpers. Aid in the form of arms to $randomWarlord doesn't count because that's just a symptom of the military-industrial complex. I want to hear about what the US government does around the world that nobody else does, that is objectively a "good", and an estimation of the value of that service, because let's be honest, spending a billion (or whatever -- number totally made up) on droning random people per year is not balanced by spending a million on digging wells in the Sahara.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
To just kill him and dump his carcass in a hole the ground seems like a waste of viable organs. Consider how many people are in desperate need of organ transplants. Why not keep him alive long enough to match his parts to people that could make good use of them? Eyes, kidneys, lungs, liver, heart, whatever. Blood banks can always use more plasma, he's sure to have plenty of that.
To see true justice he should be forced to contribute back to the society he harmed, in my view.
That is not even close to the message being sent. You can hate whoever you want without consequence. However, if you kill someone without justification, you will die. That is the message. Not that hopeful liberal garbage you quoted.
Meh. Nobody is perfect.
Ah yes, the juvenile "if you are not with us you are against us line". Ironically that last line was added in to deal with that stupid view from the other side where some loser would just as likely accuse me of being on the side of terrorists by being critical of blowing up weddings.
Minimum security prison and club fed are definitely not punishment - at least the inmates don't consider it as such. They've got drugs, booze, sex with their spouse, free room and board, don't have to work, don't have to listen to their kids screaming, etc.
It's why they talk about it among themselves as going on a vacation to see all their old buddies.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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
It's easy in fact. Kill the executioner, because he committed the act of killing somebody, willingly and in front of other people.
Of course, if you check the stats historically, the murder rates in those countries was lower than the U.S. BEFORE those countries abolished the death penalty.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"It's amusing to read such utter bullshit generated by a clueless fool like you who has never done time in prison."
No, I've never been to prison. But, I've watched the youngsters grow up, and go off to prison. Some little numbnuts gets in trouble for something extremely petty. He gets some probation, and sent home. He figures he got off lightly, so he continues doing what he got in trouble for, and maybe something a little bigger. He does thirty days in jail, gets more probation, and community service. During his thirty days, he makes some new friends, and those freindships are cemented with meetings at the probation officer's office, and community service time spent together. The knuckleheads dream up bigger schemes to do together, and steadily get into more and more trouble.
FINALLY - these airheads do something serious enough that the judge decides to throw the book at them, and two, three, six of them go off to prison, one after the other, as rapidly as the local court system can run them through.
And - here, they make NEW friends, and dream up new schemes - ad nauseum.
I've watched this shit happening for the past forty years. I've witnessed it. Not up close and personal, like the kids who are part of the system, but from front row seats.
Stupid punkass fool, huh? You figure that men only become men in prison? Really? How would all your prison buddies stack up against me and my buddies? Did any of your prison pals go into Beirut City in 1978? Did any of them ever quell a riot? How about hiking across the desert, just six men and an officer, through No-Man's Land?
"What's No-Man's Land" the boy asks. Well - that is the area BETWEEN two opposing armies. And, me and my pals weren't friendly to EITHER of the opposing armies.
Punk-ass.
I would define punk-ass as wasting years in prison over genuinely stupid fucking shit. Pot, meth, a few hundred dollars, maybe fighting over some skanky whore, armed robbery - stupid fucking shit. THAT is punk-ass.
I do manage to maintain some minimal respect for some convicts. But, when some dumb fucker pops up and starts putting me down because I never spent time in prison? Insulting me because I "don't understand"?
Fuck you, chump.
Want to know what MEANINGFUL punishment would be?
The first time some dumbass kid gets caught shoplifting, he's strapped to the flogging post in front of the court house, and given five lashes. Publicly. His mama can watch him take his whipping like a man - if he's capable of doing so.
Second offense? Double the punishment, plus a couple weeks community service.
Third, and greater offense? Double that punishment AGAIN. How many hard headed little punks are going to last to commit a fourth offense? He'll remember those last twenty lashes half killed him. He's going to be thinking that he might not live through forty lashes. And, instead of a few weeks of community service, he'll be facing a year on a road gang.
Punishment. Fuck sitting in the corner. No air conditioning. No cots. No television. Harsh fucking reality, sucking the life out of him.
Get serious, and stop whining at me about some missing time out of your life. I GAVE eight years out of my life, so that whining pussies could complain about THEIR years sitting in an air conditioned prison. How many years of your life have you given to your fellow man?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Your description of the "stereotypical" views of liberals vs conservatives is the LIBERAL view of the two positions. Here is a different take: Conservatives are stereotypically the party that wants to reduce government to its basic functions (maintaining order, providing for the common defense, etc) and prefer to spend tax money on essential infrastructure (roads, police, military) leaving everything else up to associations of private citizens because they believe that most people are able to care for themselves and that the best way to care for those who can't do so is for private individuals to address the issue on a case by case basis.
Liberals are stereotypically the party that wants progressive solutions to everything, and prefer spending tax money making the bulk of the people dependent on the government and unable to take care of themselves so that the elites can enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty, but cost isn't one of them. If killing someone costs more than locking them up and keeping them alive for 50 years, you're doing it wrong. You're doing it really, really wrong.
You could argue that the high cost is due to decades of appeals and other legal obstacles, but that's not a fault of the death penalty. That's a fault of a society that can't commit to using the death penalty. If you're going to argue on the basis of cost you shouldn't be arguing against the death penalty, you should be arguing in favor of it, and against the interminable appeals process.
(For the record, I generally oppose the death penalty. But if it's going to be an option it should be carried out swiftly. And it should be a damn sight cheaper than jailing someone forever.)
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Thanks for posting those stats. An interesting dip in the 60s (and more no-opinions). Was this the result of the general cultural liberation, before increased crime hardened people's attitudes, then before decreased crime and a spate of wrong convictions started bringing it down again?
Massachusetts is more liberal than the US average, meaning that only one-in three support death sentences (one-in-four in Boston). Even fewer support it in this case.
I do, but unfortunately this is not the case here. He wasn't conflicted - he knew exactly what he was doing, and he fully expected (as did his brother) to die for his cause at some point. There was no mental illness involved, he and his brother took their time picking their target and the means, and his defense (that his brother led him to do it) was rejected by the jury. If they had believed that, they wouldn't have voted for the death penalty. To the contrary, they took his contrition as crocodile tears. This was the epitome of a hate crime.
Now if it had happened up here, where we don't have the death penalty (and I don't agree with the death penalty, but some crimes sorely push the limits, and this is one of them), I would agree that the best course of action is to aim for rehabilitation with the goal of eventually integrating him into society. However, he chose to kill people in a country with the death penalty, and of the two options (death or lifetime incarceration with no hope of appeal) death is certainly far less cruel.
And let's be honest - it's not like he's going to be executed any time soon - and it's doubtful he'll ever be executed. That's why there's an appeals process for the sentencing portion, even though he waived his right to an appeal on the conviction. So why not let him sweat a bit ... especially since he and his brother were committed to killing until they died.
The death penalty isn't a deterrent, and neither are longer jail sentences. But it takes time for each society to realize that themselves, on their own terms, in their own time, from their own history - it can't be imposed by fiat by outsiders.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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]
However you want to rationalize the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on your hands, while wagging you finger at someone who killed....three people.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France
You mean they want no counterbalance to capitalism, greed, inherited wealth, rent seeking or oligarchy. Someone being exempt from work for the next ten generations because their last name is Bush, Clinton or Romney is the system working as intended.
Some poor kid getting foodstamps so he doesn't go hungry, equalized school funding so he's not in a class with 35 other kids, health care so his teeth rots out...that's a crime against humanity.
And humanity is also wasted on those who have none. Do you propose we should give that up too?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Easy comparison is the Ebola outbreak in Africa over the last year. The United States sent occupying troops. Cuba sent hundreds of doctors.
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.
On what planet do conservatives support small government?
making the bulk of the people dependent on the government and unable to take care of themselves so that the elites can enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.
So.. the Koch brothers are liberals then?
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think conservatives are mad for trusting the government whereas conservatives think liberals are mad for trusting the government.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What do you mean by humanity? And who said anything about giving something up?
I'm not giving anything up. I'm just going to waste pointless sentement on a person that went to a marathon to kill as many people as possible. Total innocents. Families. Children. He went there with bombs to indiscriminately kill.
What mercy did he show his victims?
None.
What pity did he show his victims?
None.
What remorse has he shown for the people he's killed? Seemling not only has he shown no remorse but he's actually tried to exploit softies like you to save his skin.
The piece of shit cares nothing for you or your beliefs. He's manipulating you. Have enough self respect to realize you're being played.
You don't like executions on principle? Then don't talk about any specific issue because the facts don't matter to you. What matters is that anyone is being executed and you don't care why. Someone could genocide 99 percent of the human population and some fool would say "but execution is wrong"...
And the reasons for this? There are no reasons. You can't sustain the position that execution is wrong on the basis of facts or logic. Such positions are ideological or religious. Matters of belief.
Whatever you might feel about such things, understand that it is just your faith or your ideology backing that up. And such things can't be debated because you're likely not open to the possibility that you're wrong. The problem with all faiths is that they're ultimately tautology. Circular logic. Something is wrong because it is wrong. It is logically fallacious. You don't know it is wrong. In fact, right and wrong aren't even developed rational concepts in that context. Its just more circular reasoning.
I regret the rant... but I've gone round and around enough times with people on these issues that it has grown tiresome. Very rarely does anyone actually back up their side leaving me with nothing to actually work with...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And we're still at lower rates now. So killing prisoners doesn't influence murder rates. Why do it then? Shits and giggles?
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.
That sounds like the "country mouse" / "city mouse" view. I agree that to a country mouse, the vast majority of what the government does with your tax dollars looks like a pointless waste. Cities have quite different problems on a different scale than what independent rural societies deal with. I'm quite comfortable to admit that there are people much smarter than me working on those problems with my tax dollars, even if once in a while there are reports of corruption which was appropriately handled by some oversight committee.
I did grow up in the DC metro area and worked for the defense industrial complex across the street from the Pentagon, wining and dining with DoD officers and the occasional congressman. I also have a lot of friends from HS doing social work in the surrounding area. Let me tell you sometime about which group has become dependent on the government and is enjoying the lavish lifestyle at the expense of everyone else, it might not be very obvious to you.
Mad props to the conservatives for realizing that yes, people lie, cheat, and steal, and shouldn't be trusted with their money. But most liberals I know believe in The System and want government to work and do the best they can in whatever position they have to make it work. And I kinda know which world I'd rather live in, even if there is some amount of corruption overhead.
yep. When referring to government Dept. of Redundancy Dept. functions, it's totally appropriate to use "irregardless", regardless of how wasteful and inefficient adding the excess 'ir' is.
Well that was a lot of rambling. You're a pretty amusing chap really. It's funny how in one line you bang on about "facts and logic" and in all the others you bleat out every emotional argument under the sun.
He didn't show mercy neither whould we!
You're being played because reasons!
You're being emotional because I say so!
You're a softie!
fool would say "but execution is wrong"...
And finally, my favourite:
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!111oneONEoneleven!111!!
You actually did that. You know in all my timearguing on the internet I don't think anyone has actually tried that argument on me until now. So, uh, congratulations, I guess.
You can't sustain the position that execution is wrong on the basis of facts or logic.
The axiomatic position I shall adopt is that killing innocent people is bad. The facts I can refer to are the many instances where innocents have been executed. The justice system is clearly not up to the task of determining guilt or innocence enough to ensure that executions don't kill innocent people.
No system is ever perfect. No system will ever get no false positives while also giving true positives. Therefore if you accept the death penalty you are in favour of killing innocents because there is no plausible way to construct a system with the death penalty which is perfect. Therefore based on the single axiom that killing innocents is bad combined with the facts and logic, arguing for the death penalty is illogical.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to your pointless strawman, there's nothing in it to comment on it. You're not on topic, you're not addressing anything I said, and you're not advancing your own position. So... its null.
As to your axiomatic position, what about imprisoning people that are innocent? Apparently that's fine.
Your argument falls apart once you notice that what you're arguing against is not executions but the accuracy of the legal system itself. And as you're doing that, you're actually undermining the entire justice system... not just one type of punishment.
What makes your position sophistry is that you seem to only be interested in actually reforming the justice system but rather removing this one punishment. Which is odd because your thesis rests on the notion that the justice system is flawed... not that execution is bad.
As to being in favor of killing innocents, I'm no more in favor of that then you are in favor of kidnapping people, subjecting them to a show trial, and then holding them in human zoos for decades on end full of psychopaths.
Is that something you're in favor of? Obviously not. And neither am I in favor of killing innocent people. That the justice system will get the wrong people on occasion is unavoidable.
Lets get on topic and consider this specific case. Because this is really the Kryptonite for sophists... facts and staying on point. It lays you people every time.
So lets do that, you seem arrogant enough to not realize how utterly fucked you are if you let me get you between a fact and hard place, so I suspect you'll just let me do this...
Do you think THIS person that was JUST sentenced to death is innocent?
Shadow of a doubt etc? Yes or no? The evidence seems pretty fucking overwhelming. In fact, there are a lot of people that try to say "science" have proven things with less evidence than convicted this kid.
So... your bullshit ideological nonsense aside... did this kid do it? Yes or no? *dusts off old sparky*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well, no I didn't address most of your arguments since most of them were straw men, ad homenim and arguing from emotion. There's no point in me addressing pointless arguments.
As to your axiomatic position, what about imprisoning people that are innocent? Apparently that's fine.
It's not fine, but you do have the opportunity to de-imprison them and give some sort of compensation if you foul up. You can't un-execute someone.
Do you think THIS person that was JUST sentenced to death is innocent?
It seems unlikely. Then again if you asked the juries of any of the innocent people executes I doubt they'd think the person was innocent either.
Nonetheless, it doesn't alter my point. The justice system is imprefect (this is a known fact). Making a perfect system is impossible (also a know fact). One which involves executing people gives less opportunity to fix any mistakes. IOW, imprisioning innocent people is bad, but not as bad as killing them. It's also a good argument against the American style adult lord of the flies rape factories that seem to pass for prisons. It's a statistical certainty innocent people are being subjected to such conditions.
Your argument falls apart once you notice that what you're arguing against is not executions but the accuracy of the legal system itself.
You seem to believe you have stumbled upon a great revelation. Well done, you actually managed to read my post and work out what my argument was. It's quite astonishing that you believe this isn't known to the person making it. I think the reason for that is that you are clearly so blinded by emotion that you don't realise that there are many different reasons that people object to the death penalty.
To spell it out to you clearly so you're not drawn into believing you have stumbled upon a revelation: I am not against the death penalty because I think such people shouldn't be executed (I'm on the fence leaning towards mildly in favour), I am against it because I do not see any way of making it work in an acceptable way.
So... your bullshit ideological nonsense aside...
Your entire argument is from ideology. If you're going to argue in such ways you should not be so dishonest about it. I actually presented an argument with the axioms, facts and reasoning laid out. You ignored the enire thing and went back to your emotional rambling.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As opposed to the liberals, who are actively trying to return us to a fuedal economic system.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually, if you look at the policies supported by the Koch brothers (as opposed to the propaganda about what they support) those policies make it easier for people to take care of themselves. Perhaps you mistook the Koch brothers for George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Herbert and Marion Sandler.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Just because I pointed out that your argument was full of crap, does not mean I was making a counter argument. If you have an argument against the death penalty, feel free to make it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I should point out that the main point of my post was to give a description of the two viewpoints that was almost as far to the conservative side as your original post was to the liberal side.
OH yes, look how well those "smart" people have solved the problems of Baltimore and Detroit. Liberals have been running those cities for as long as I have been alive, yet the problems keep getting worse. Perhaps it is time to try something different?
As for your example of the DC metro area, perhaps you have not noticed, but the overwhelming majority of the people living there are liberals and vote for the Democratic Party.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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!
If and when you grow up, you'll learn that it's often more courageous *not* to strike back.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
First, you can't un-imprison someone because you don't have a time machine. You can stop imprisoning them but you can't undo what you did.
Lets say you imprisoned me for 10 years... and that was my sentence. You let me out because the sentence is up... then it is proven I didn't do it. Okay... where are my ten years? Either show me how you give me my ten years or have the intellectual integrity to admit you can't undo it.
As to your admission that this fellow doesn't apply to your position because he's clearly guilty. Thank you for that. If we can be sure, then the execution should be just fine according to you. Now you say "but everyone thinks they're sure"... well, not so much. What we've found when there are bad execution trials is that there was evidence tampering etc. There was no such thing in this case.
So by your own reasoning, this execution is fine.
Good.
We circle back to your ACTUAL issue when stripped of the sophistry which is systemic problems in the legal system. A point I'll note continues to be proven to be sophistry because you are showing zero interest in actually talking about except as a pretext to ban executions.
As to great revelations, the argument is not only one you have made and nearly without fail, people that make this argument only show an interest in the topic when executions are involved.
Imprisonments don't seem to trigger it which reveals it to be sophistry.
As to MY argument being ideology... *gets popcorn* Do try to turn this back on me. I'd love to see the attempt.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right, cut out the expensive appeals process. Remove the sliver of legitimacy and watch the innocent death rate climb. My primary problem with the death penalty is the certainty that we kill innocent people. Second is a difference of opinion with our criminal justice system: I think we should optimize human wellbeing, not just focus on punishment. Third is a desire to keep our government out of the business of killing civilians or causing civilians to be killed.
But people aren't persuaded by moral or ethical considerations. Big Government Wasting Money... now that makes people mad.
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.
We circle back to your ACTUAL issue when stripped of the sophistry which is systemic problems in the legal system.
Jesus Christ you're a moron. I even went and spelled out to you that that was EXACTLY my point and yet you keep on patting yourself on the back in a smug, selfcongratulatory manner because you have uncovered some deep truth I was hiding.
No wonder you didn't have any coherent points to make to any of my actual argument because you can't even recognise a bald statement of intent when it's right in front of you.
As to great revelations, the argument is not only one you have made and nearly without fail, people that make this argument only show an interest in the topic when executions are involved.
Yeah, people never rant about the stupidity of plea bargaining, or the excessive sentence for drug "crimes" or any of that stuff on slashdot. No one has ever brought up how they expect police body cam footage to go "missing". Because if they did your point would be stupid. SO THEY DIDN'T OK???
The fucked upness of the judicial system is always on topic here. But then again since you're apparently unable to actually read and absorb facts it comes as little surprise that you didn't realise that.
As to MY argument being ideology...
The best argument you gave so far in favour of execution was to clutch your pearls and bleat "oh please won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!"
That sounds pretty ideological to me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Says the jingoistic idiot. Sending soldiers to death with a medical crisis makes as much sense as sending doctors to fight off an invasion. What part of "tiny Cuba sent far more doctors than the United States" are you having a hard time understanding?
Who needs the reality check? Why are you blathering on about hundreds of people injured when Obama's drone strikes have murdered hundreds of kids? Not to speak of the Iraq war, which has killed a million people, created millions more refugees, and destabilized an entire region of of the world?
100 pounds of racist American Exceptionalist bullshit in a five pound sack.
you're not interested in actually fixing that problem.
The hell I'm not.
So basically the entire premise of your post is based on shit you simly made up.
You also seem untterly determined to "prove" that somehow being executed is equally as permanent as being thrown in prison. You can be exhonerated and released. You can't be unexecuted. The more serious the sentence, the more serious problems in the court are. Or you were in previous posts anyway.
I sort of skim read the rest of your post but it's really weird and rambly. It's like you're throwing everything you can at the wall with no particular coherence and hoping you can find a pattern in the splattery mess.
You're also doing the deeply dishonest tactic of bring up side points, then accusing me of go off topic when I counter them. It's a nice trick of sophistry, but fortunately you're not very good atso I can see right through it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Riiiight, because those end with people being executed. Idiot. It seems you don't mind making absurd claims if they appear to help your argument, regardless of whether they make you look like a dribbling fool in the process or not.
as to your interest in fixing the problem... then lets hear you talk about how you'd fix it.
*steeples hands* Go on... I'm listening.
I'm clearly not impressed with your moral position, so I think we need to hear about the basis of your complaint. What is wrong with the legal system.
And do have it be applicable to execution please. I'd rather not hear more about the people picked up for weed or the people given bad plea bargains. That was a particularly hilarious rebuttal given that both groups are by definition not sentenced to death.
How do you plea bargain someone into execution? Comical.
I'm listening. What is the problem with the legal system?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're clearly not too good at reading or logic...
So it's about revenge and not justice then, right?
Precisely the same as incarceration, except far more expensive...
I don't think the OP was retarded - I think he understood the very basic reasoning behind why the US likes to target weddings, but was attempting to highlight the horrific hypocrisy of the drone strikes when compared to the domestic application of "justice".
So the courts should behave as badly as those they are trying? I fail to see how anyone beyond 8 years of age could think what you propose is anything except sheer insanity. You are willing to throw the reputation of the US on the ground and take a big ol' shit on it because you are angry. Attitudes like yours are arguably doing more damage to the US than this bomber ever could have managed. You are calling for barbarous behaviour as you seem to think it's the only workable, fair solution - a point of view you share with Tsarnaev.
With a decent prison system focussed on rehabilitation and not just retribution, putting someone away for life is far from disgusting and terrifying. The US's justice system is fucked from top to bottom - killing people isn't going to make it better.
And save your bravado for people who believe it. We all know you'd do no such thing, as you are clearly a pussy, who is fine with killing people who are of no threat to you simply because you are scared. Poor baby.
Keep it on topic - check your political sport team affiliation at the door like grown-ups.
Go on... I'm listening.
No you ain't. You're planning on nitpicking some tiny omission, blowing it up into a huge thing then swinging wildly round and accusing me of changing the topic whenever I clarify the point.
At least I assume that's your plan since that's what you've done so far on everything else. I assume you do it because it makes you believe you're smart, because it certainly doesn't contribute the debate.
I'm clearly not impressed with your moral position,
My moral position is that it's worse to execute innocents than to imprison them since the former cannot in any way be fixed or compensated.
So far all I know of your moral position is that we should think of the children. I find that somewhat less impressive.
How do you plea bargain someone into execution?
Wow, you fail at comprehension.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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."
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.
Of course. USA evil, therefore anything goes. Just like me entering your house and killing you, because the USA is evil. It all makes sense.
I looked for a coherent rational argument in your post... there isn't one.
Please structure your comments in the form of rational comments. Ideally make them logical and falsifiable. Try to use supporting arguments.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Sorry, I am having like five different conversations at once and I got two of them confused.
Sorry.
Yeah, so I want to know what you fix is for the legal system.
Waiting. I want to know what changes you think need to be made to the legal system.
If you've got nothing than I will have to question your sincerity that your issue is flaws in the legal system.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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?
Evasion AGAIN confirmed.
No, I answered many questions. You chose to ignore them entirely or nitpick and then engage in sophistry but still ignore the point. I don't see why I should go to the trouble of typing out well thought out answers if you're going to ignore them completely.
Many cryptos
WTF?
That Malthus citation...
What the ever living fuck? Have you finally dissappeared off into la-la land for good?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, that was a mistake. I was having some other discussions in other threads and got his one confused with another one. Sorry about that.
What I meant to ask was if you have any recommendations as to how the legal system be reformed such that you'd be MORE comfortable with the execution.
I'm fairly certain you're going to say that there is nothing you can do that can ACTUALLY make you comfortable with it... so lets just take it for granted that your level certainy is unobtainable and thus unreasonable.
So... what can we do that would IMPROVE the situation? Actually obtaining your standard is not interesting to me in this discussion because it is like asking or unicorns or something. But what is your primary complaint with the legal system?
And please, keep it relevant to executions. Citing the drug war is generally a red herring because the people that get sent to execution chambers generally only arrive there through murder... not drug possession.
And do not either mention plea bargains because no one plea bargains into an execution sentence. Rather, you plea bargain OUT of them.
Those were your two reference above and they are laughable because NEITHER one has any contextual relationship to execution.
Now... what aspect of the legal system do you think is causing innocent men to wind up on the chopping block?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What I meant to ask was if you have any recommendations as to how the legal system be reformed such that you'd be MORE comfortable with the execution.
Reforms no, not as such, because it's generally hard to know how well something would work out well in theory rather than in practice. About the only thing that would convince me would be statistics showing that it has got better, for example lowering the number of exhonerations successfully, but not by merely failing to exhonerate people.
It's still tricky though. No system is 100% perfect and you're always going to have a better chance of atleast partially rectifying a fuck up with life imprisonment than execution.
that your level certainy is unobtainable and thus unreasonable.
Unobtainable yes, unreasonable no, that only follows if you take execution as a system to be an axiom not a logical conclusion of reasoning.
Like I said, I don't have any objection to execution in principle, but I don't see any way of making it actually be reasonable given the justice system we have or, frankly, any I can conceive of.
Currently your solution is to execute people and just accept that innocent people are going to get executed. I don't see that as a reasonable solution.
And please, keep it relevant to executions.
Oh screw off. You went off on a big whine about how people only objected to the legal system when executions came up and I brought up many, many examples of where people complain about the legal system otherwise. So stop being a nitwit and complaining about me giving you examples you asked for, OK?
Please copy pasta the same response to your idiotic complaints about points you asked me to make.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If your only basis is statistical then I have to question your basis of complaint.
Statistics are an extremely wobbly basis for most opinions unless you've examined the methodology of the analysis and the means by which they were taken.
For example, what if most of your exhortations happen in two states and the rest not so much? Perhaps the problem is that some regions have bad legal practices while the others do not.
What is more, some areas without exhortations might simply not have them because they don't have a good appeals process so that no one is exonerated regardless of their innocence.
So the statistical argument is questionable. I'd prefer something concrete and that demonstrated you had a thoughtful opinion on the issue.
As to the distinction between unobtainable standards being reasonable. Give me an example of an unobtainable standard that people feel it is reasonable to apply in any other context?
If you can't think of one then I'm going to have tap my foot and smirk at you.
As to people only complaining about executions, wrong. I did not say that people EXCLUSIVELY complain about the legal system executions came up. I said rather that people only suggested that the that the legal system were inherently flawed to such an extent that you could not sustain a particular sentence in the case of execution.
Again, if you're so worried about people getting falsly executed, let me point out that there are FAR more people getting falsely imprisoned. Shall we abolish that? And don't tell me you can unimprison someone. You cannot. You do not have a time machine. You cannot give someone back their ten years.
Let me be very clear here. If I kidnap you and hold you in my rape dungeon for 10 years and then let you go... are we cool? I think not. If you went to the police and complained about my throwing you in the rape dungeon... could I just respond "I let him go though"... That might have some meaning if you let the guy go after a day or so. But ten fucking years? You can't undo that.
And the fact that you're not calling for the abolition of imprisonment means that you clearly have enough confidence in the legal system that you're willing to accept that most people that go to prison deserved it and you're happy with them being there. Even though far more innocent people are imprisoned than are executed.
I'm sorry, this is a conflict. You can't be against a couple false executions every DECADE if you're completely fine with probably thousands and thousands of false imprisonments.
What is the equiliency between an execution and a year of a man's life? How many years of false imprisonment equals one life.
1?
2?
2000?
2,000,000?
2,000,000,000?
Obviously if you cite the right number one will equal the other. I know that is painfully utilitarian but it is also factual. We send men to forests to cut down trees even though we know that some percentage of them will die when a tree falls on them. We have made the calculation that X trees is worth Y lives. Notice, there is no outcry over the number of loggers that die in forests? Why is that? Because we acknowledge it is a dangerous job and we accept that there will be causalities to see it done. Same thing with almost anything.
And that is just for deaths... consider the years people spend doing things. Lets say you are an insurance adjuster. At some level, our society has determined that the most productive years of this man's life are best spent sitting at this little desk, in a sunless cubical, tapping away on a database.
See the bigger picture.
If I get sufficient evidence to convict someone of multiple murders... they're never going to set foot on the streets as a free man again. Yes yes... appeals and exhortation... but lets assume for a moment that I did my job properly and he's properly guilty.
Why not throw the switch?
Here is my compromise... I am happy to accept exile as an alternative. Another country has to willingly accept them and if they
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
blah
The fact that exhonerations happen mean that the system is not robust enough for the death sentence. It's useless exhonerating someone after killing them.
You can't be against a couple false executions every DECADE if you're completely fine with probably thousands and thousands of false imprisonments.
You have this strange attitude where if I'm against executions, I must be for false imprisonments or somehow an execution offsets false imprisonments. I'm going to say the same thing I've said 3 or four times already which you keep on ignoring:
Both are bad. Executions are worse because prisoners can be relased and compensated where as executees cannot be.
Why not throw the switch?
Sure if everyone does their job properly and we're actually sure that guilty people are guilty then OK. Except that the legal system is demonstrably that good.
Go rape and murder the rest of the planet for all I care. You're someone else's problem and they accepted you.
So if the ruling power of a country accepts them then you don't care if the person goes and rapes and murders citizens who had no say?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You say they're just as bad but you've show ZERO interest in dealing with the problem. In fact, you haven't even thought about it. When I queried you, you had NO solution to ANYTHING. You merely said "well, if there are exhonorations that means you're making mistakes"... okay... but even if there weren't exhonororations there could be mistakes. The legal system in Saudi Arabia doesn't have many exhonorations... are they better?
Basing your position on very wobbly statistics is not supportable.
And the fact that you've not thought about the issue deeper than that means you're not actually interested in the problems in the legal system but rather just concerned with the executions.
Show me you care about reform of the legal system by showing that you've thought about it.
I ask you again... Offer a reform. If you have none that are relevant to this discussion that will sustain my position.
As to ruling powers... they are the authority in that area and it is not for me to judge. "IF" they accept that person in their country... then that is apparently okay there.
There are countries with child soldiers. Horrors beyond your ability to comprehend. Let us say that my country has bigger problems than whether this man is or is not a murderer. Maybe the man is a doctor or has lots of money or is willing to put his services as a killer in my service protecting my people? Maybe accepting him means my country doesn't need to use as many child soldiers.
It is not for me to judge why they would accept such a man. And I don't care.
I am making it plain that I don't need to execute people for capital crimes. I just refuse to pay for them to live.
I am offering exile as an alternative to execution and I'd like to apply it in all cases of life without parole as well. They will have a choice.
If they were slotted for execution they can opt for exile instead. And exile requires that some other country is willing to take them.
And same thing for life in prison without parole. Any other country that wants them can take them.
Only condition is that if they come back to my country without permission... Instant death. No appeals. If they stay away though... they can live out the rest of their lives in any shit hole that will take them.
Works for me.
I'm making this point so you understand I'm not bloodthirsty. I don't need severed heads. I just won't give them so much as a scrap of my bread. They get NOTHING from me. Nothing. If I find you guilty of a capital crime... the only cell I'll feel happy leaving you in is one of those cells that you brick the inmate up in so he suffocates in the dark. That's the only cell I'm going to feel is justified.
I am willing to give these people exile though. I just never want to see them again breathing my air.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wow logic fail. While you are correct that the lack of exhonerations doesn't mean the system is foolproof, the existence of them means it is provably not foolproof.
If you believe that you need double blind statistically rigorous trials to infer from the existence of a single exhoneration that the justice system is not foolproof then your understanding of statistics is so lacking that it is impossible for me to educate you.
I ask you again... Offer a reform.
Try learning to read. I said I don't know of any reforms which would make the system good enough. Note: just because I can't think of a way to make the system good enough doesn't make executions magically error proof.
As to ruling powers... they are the authority in that area and it is not for me to judge.
Merely declaring by fiat doesn't echonerate you from the consequences of your choice. If you knowingly release someone like that then you bear some responsibility.
I'm making this point so you understand I'm not bloodthirsty.
You really don't get it do you? It was never about bloodthirstyness and not executing because killing is "wrong". I don't understand what part of your brain is missing that renders you unable to grasp such a basic point. You almost had it for a moment when you thought I hadn't realised whay my point was and "revaled" it to me with great flourish. But now it seems to have vanished from your mind again.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Unless the exhortations are false?
I mean, if you can convict a man on false pretenses than surely you can release one on false pretenses as well... no?
As to statistics, either show you've given a wet fart for the issue by citing a reform or you will have effectively admitted that you've not thought about the issue in any depth thus undermining your case that your issue is problems in the legal system.
Your causal and frankly lazy position is unsustainable. You're simply proving that your position is simplistic which simply supports my position that you're mostly using the objection to the legal system as a pretext.
Cite a reform or we're done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Unless the exhortations are false?
Well that ALSO indicates something fucked up in the justice system, right? A system which gives imperfect results is not perfect.
citing a reform
Just because I don't know how to fix it, doesn't mean it's not broken. Trying to equate the two is intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping so such low tactics.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
At no point did I ever claim the system was perfect. So your attempt to prove that isn't perfect statistically is utterly irrelevant since no one disputes that.
However, absent any kind of reform suggestion you will reveal that you are incurious about seeking reform. And that will be indicative of the reform comment being used as a pretext.
Show me I'm wrong... what needs to be reformed? Be specific. Be relevant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
isn't perfect ... no one disputes that.
That's my point.
It's not perfect. Well done! Have a cookie!
But you're still intellectually dishonest. You are insisting that in order to know that the system is broken I must know how to fix it. This is of course the kind of sophistry shennanigans I have come to expect from you: argue every point but the central one in order to obscuate your lack of logic and understanding.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So you admit your position is a pretext?
or did you have a reform to demonstrate that you actually thought about it?
Last chance.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you'rebjust going to invent arbitrary barriers, then no, we're done. I thought you were an entertaining person to debate with, but you're no resorting to cheap tactics like moving the goalposts or setting up arbitrary criteria when it looks like you're losing. I though you'd come up with something better. Shame.
So, I guess we're done.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.
I and running you through a sophistry detector and you're coming up wanting.
The sorts of questions I'm posing to you are the sorts the Stoics posed to the sophists. It was the sort of question that Diogenes asked men when he held his unlit lantern to people's faces and told them he was searching the world for an honest man.
I think your position is bullshit. Likely not deliberately. I think someone sold you a prepackaged argument and you've never read the fine print.
Your argument is frankly trite. It is just a common argument from the common echo chamber. You picked it up and you complete bafflement when presented with my questions really just proves you've never really given it any thought.
That's fine. I'm not telling you that have to believe anything or agree with me. However, you cannot presume to have a considered philosophical and intellectual position if you've never really thought about the issue before in any depth.
That's all.
Good day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.
Except that's not what you're doing. You're requiring me to know the answer.
Which you're using as an excuse to evade and be intellectually dishonest.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The answer? No...
Yes, you specifically asked for an answer.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually a challenged you.
What I wanted was some indication that you had any of your own thinking what so ever or that you were not simply using the false convictions as a pretext.
You failed that challenge. You've clearly no personal thinking on the issue what so ever and you are either using this as a pretext directly or are copying an argument from someone else verbatim that is doing so.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually a challenged you.
Don't lie: you specifically asked for a solution.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
u wot m8?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This is the stupidest thing ever attributed to Ghandi. And eye for an eye is a limitation on the scope of punishment for a crime. It states that judicial retribution should be commensurate with the crime committed. You hear about how some person got 20 years in jail for possession of a single joint; "an eye for and eye" is the argument against that. Similarly, when you have some rich kid get probation for murder, "an eye for an eye" supports those that feel justice was not done.
So if Ghandi actually said that he is either a total moron, or he didn't understand the concept.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.