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...
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.
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'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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... to revenge-killing. Particularly state-sanctioned revenge killing.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
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 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 !
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --attributed to M. Gandhi.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Yea because best way to protest how wrong murder is, is to kill people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.