So now that one of the Boston Bombers is in custody, should he receive the death penalty?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

It seems likely to me that this guy is going to be treated as a federal criminal a lot like many other big news mass murderers. With that in mind, the federal government executes plenty of criminals and that puts the death penalty on the table. So, most of the escapist seems to be anti-death penalty, but this could possibly be considered a special case. His guilt is hardly up for question, what do you guys think?

If he can be proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt (Not just beyond reasonable doubt), then yes. The death penalty is good in theory, but in practice there is a chance for innocent people to get harmed. However, do I think that the real terrorists behind the act should be put to death? Absolutely.

Could we not at least wait for a trial before we start being hypocrites?

Edit: And for the record, I find the howling for blood and hard-on for torture many people are exhibiting to be disgusting.

Assuming that yes, this guy is 100% guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt open and shut he conffessed it and even helped the prosecution prove everything as being the assumption in this thread, what is the purpose of executing him? That's probably the first question that needs an answer.

DJjaffacake:
Could we not at least wait for a trial before we start being hypocrites?

Why? We're people on the internet, we need to have rash opinions on everything before all the facts become avaliable. What do you think this is, some place of reasonable discussion and gentlemenly debate?

No. 'cause Massachusetts abolished the death penalty a long time ago, and as far as I know, nothing that the bomber did would make him eligible for being prosecuted under the Espionage act. Unless he is. In which case, I imagine that not-Boston will be up in arms against the government for overstepping their bounds, as Massachusetts did during the Sampson trial.

drmigit2:
His guilt is hardly up for question, what do you guys think?

He's 19. I made a lot of dumb mistakes when I was 19. I don't believe in the death penalty for anybody, but in this case it seems especially wrong.

I just can't support capital punishment, in any case. I think it would be a more fitting punishment to keep the boy (because at 19 let's face it, legally you might be a man but... you're basically a boy) - in custody. Forever. Let him ponder his crimes, let him face the families of the victims in the future and perhaps ask for forgiveness. No good can come from his death but some good may come from his continued life and repentance. (Not religious, just repentance towards his fellow man.)

Impossible, the state has abolished the death penalty.

I do, however, bet his prison term will be a death sentence. There is no way he would be granted bail by any bail board, if his sentence even comes with bail (I am not sure if this would count as first degree murder, or if the sentences would can be made concurrent).

Massachusetts abolish the death penalty ? then no, he cannot be executed. I question more the fairness of his futur trial. it will be very hard to find unbias jury in this...

Don't think they have the death penalty in Massachusetts. He's probably going to be thrown into a hole to rot for the rest of his life though.

If the death penalty was legal? I'd say yes. If he was crazy enough to hurt all of those people, then why keep him around?

The Gnome King:

drmigit2:
His guilt is hardly up for question, what do you guys think?

He's 19. I made a lot of dumb mistakes when I was 19. I don't believe in the death penalty for anybody, but in this case it seems especially wrong.

I just can't support capital punishment, in any case. I think it would be a more fitting punishment to keep the boy (because at 19 let's face it, legally you might be a man but... you're basically a boy) - in custody. Forever. Let him ponder his crimes, let him face the families of the victims in the future and perhaps ask for forgiveness. No good can come from his death but some good may come from his continued life and repentance. (Not religious, just repentance towards his fellow man.)

You make it sound as if he just beat up a guy, or stole something. He set up multiple bombs across the city and detonated three. He killed five people and injured nearly 200. That's not just something stupid that everyone does at 19, that's a serious thing. Do you think he thought about his 'fellow man' as he did all that?

Of course he should get the death penalty, there isn't even a need for a discussion. You blow people up, you die. Otherwise we'll just waste tax dollars keeping him alive.

Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

This link is about the federal use of the death penalty and such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government

The last person to be executed by the feds was the Oklahoma City bomber in 2001. Executions are handled by jury. Now it will be interesting to see the case unfold over the coming years. Sentiment right now in the US would be demanding he by put to death. But it will be months to a year or so before the case in court really begins. So what the people who are chosen to jury this case in the future feel probably wouldn't be to different. But it wouldn't surprise me if they only give him life with no parole.
We'll see in the future though how things play out. This wasn't some attack pushing a political agenda, or if it was it was poorly done. It seemed like an act of mass murder for sake of causing an uproar. These guys have been in the states for years, so I very much doubt it's a terrorist attack, rather just mass murder.

w9496:
snip

Not G. Ivingname:
snip

Kopikatsu:
snip

cathou:
snip

Federal Law can overturn State Law and as such it is possible for someone to face the death penalty in a state that has abolished it.

Actually until recently I would have given a definite yes; the bastard deserves the death penalty and we should give it to him. However, recently I have had a change of heart. Partially for Religious reasons and partially for practical reasons I no longer believe in the death penalty. I still think the bastard deserves it, but I think that it is morally wrong and practically does little good.

In keeping with my opinion that a life sentence in jail is a significantly harsher punishment than execution... No

Well, I am against the death penalty in pretty much every case, so my answer is no. I'd certainly like to believe the leading country of the civilised western world would eventually do away with this primitive, barbaric practice, but unfortunately that seems to be very far off indeed.

The more interesting question for me is, should he ever have the chance to re-join society? I'm assuming there is something wrong with the guy, people don't just wake up in the morning and decide to commit a terror-action. So if he can be rehabilitated fully and beyond a shadow of a doubt be mentally fit to re-join society, should he? That is a question I'll need time to ponder myself.

But as to OP, nah. No death penalty. I hope so, at any case.

kiri2tsubasa:

w9496:
snip

Not G. Ivingname:
snip

Kopikatsu:
snip

cathou:
snip

Federal Law can overturn State Law and as such it is possible for someone to face the death penalty in a state that has abolished it.

Well, not without risking massive legal battles between Feds and the states.

Also depends on if they are being tried for a state or federal crime here.

kiri2tsubasa:
Federal Law can overturn State Law and as such it is possible for someone to face the death penalty in a state that has abolished it.

If they're tried under the federal law in a federal court, which it sounds like this guy will be. In which case it's a matter of jurisdiction, not the federal government telling the state government how to punish this guy, which is what I'm assuming you meant.

OT: I wouldn't care either way with this case, personally.

Xan Krieger:
Of course he should get the death penalty, there isn't even a need for a discussion. You blow people up, you die. Otherwise we'll just waste tax dollars keeping him alive.

Do you know what is going to be even cheaper? A plea agreement. No need for a trial and no expensive (and I mean expensive) death row processes. It's actually more of a waste of tax dollars to execute someone than it is to put someone to death.

The guy is probably going to prison for the rest of his life and, considering what he did, will probably not last very long.

I don't see the point. Aside from people who are too dangerous to contain (and ther'e no reason to believe this guy will be now that he's in custody) the only thing the death penalty accomplishes that a life sentence won't is bloodlust.

DJjaffacake:
Could we not at least wait for a trial before we start being hypocrites?

Sigh. Ok if we must. The worst part is I was all hyped to be a hypocrite and you had to go and ruin everything!!

Madman Muntz:

DJjaffacake:
Could we not at least wait for a trial before we start being hypocrites?

Sigh. Ok if we must. The worst part is I was all hyped to to be a hypocrite and you had to go and ruin everything!!

Yeah. Some people ruin all the fun! D:

OT: My bet? Life without a chance of parole.

Want real revenge? Real payback? Do you want someone to truly, genuinely suffer? Do you want to show absolutely no mercy what-so-ever? Life without parole. Seriously.

Think about it: This 19 year old kid could easily spend 60 or more years behind bars in an environment where people degenerate into monsters to survive. Prisoners become animals. Horror stories abound about how bad it is in maximum security prisons. It's very, very, very ugly in prison.

I honestly view executions as being more merciful than life without parole. Others have a different point of view--most notably the very prisoners who want to live and invariably hope to get out some day. But life in maximum security U.S. prisons are hellish.

*shudders*

Tanner The Monotone:
The guy is probably going to prison for the rest of his life and, considering what he did, will probably not last very long.

Yeah, if I remember correctly child killers don't last long in prison. I'd personaly think they should hang the bastard for what he did but that's just me. It's up to the courts so at the VERY least he'll rot in prison for the rest of his life. If it becomes a Federal case well then he's screwed. Though judging by the news he might not see a courtroom if the little creep croaks in the hospital right now.

Copper Zen:
OT: My bet? Life without a chance of parole.

Want real revenge? Real payback? Do you want someone to truly, genuinely suffer? Do you want to show absolutely no mercy what-so-ever? Life without parole. Seriously.

Think about it: This 19 year old kid could easily spend 60 or more years behind bars in an environment where people degenerate into monsters to survive. Prisoners become animals. Horror stories abound about how bad it is in maximum security prisons. It's very, very, very ugly in prison.

I honestly view executions as being more merciful than life without parole. Others have a different point of view--most notably the very prisoners who want to live and invariably hope to get out some day. But life in maximum security U.S. prisons are hellish.

*shudders*

Though, not too different from being sentenced to death row and sitting around for decades before they get round to actually killing him.

thaluikhain:

Copper Zen:
snip

Though, not too different from being sentenced to death row and sitting around for decades before they get round to actually killing him.

I think that many people are more afraid of being sentenced to life without a chance of parole than being sentenced to death. There are plenty of self-destructive people. Plenty who don't really value anyone's life--even their own. Death doesn't frighten such people. That kind of person would draw some closure from the knowledge that there was a definite 'end' in mind. I've met some folks like that. They aren't inherently sociopathic but they lack empathy--even for themselves.

And if someone views himself as a "martyr"--and I'm speaking generally here because we don't know at this time what this particular kid's motivations were--then executing them fulfills their expectations. Leaving them to rot in prison interminably denies them a sense of "accomplishment" if you take my meaning (it's late and I'm getting drowsy so I may not be particularly clear here).

The idea of someone being further punished by sentencing them to death and dangling that fate before them for years or even decades can be viewed as twisting the dagger--not only do they suffer for years but eventually they're going to be executed.

I'm not one for twisting the dagger. I'd prefer it be all or nothing. But that's me.

Hmmm...does any of this make sense? Like I said--it's very late. Almost 2 AM.

I think we need to better understand the contexts and why he did before judging him so quickly. Based on what I read it seems that his older brother was the rotten apple and he was thus more likely the one being dragged into it. Now off course this doesn't excuse the action but I think it's important to better understand the reasons which made him do it.

Of course he shouldn't. The death penalty is a backward, outdated way of dealing justice. How can we as a society expect people to act peacefully and without violence if the first thing we do whenever a tragedy occurs is turn around and demand a life be taken? It's hypocritical and it sends out all the wrong messages.

I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances, so no. Especially so considering the kid's age.

FavouriteDream:
How can we as a society expect people to act peacefully and without violence if the first thing we do whenever a tragedy occurs is turn around and demand a life be taken?

Quite easily, actually. People have opinions and like to talk a lot, but aren't too keen to put words into action themselves. You have to expect people to be very emotional about this when the wound is so fresh.

Death penalty? No.

Then again, I wouldn't give even Hitler a death penalty.

My belief is that while punishment should fit the crime, the primary purpose of the legal code and system of punishment isn't to exact revenge. In cases like this, it is to remove criminal elements from the wider society for the safety of the majority. A goal that can be jut as well served by a life in prison or something almost as severe, and not just by a summary execution. The details of course are up to the legal code and the judges, something I definately am not.

This is of course assuming the person (in general, and in this case both) is actually sane to begin with.

BathorysGraveland2:
Well, I am against the death penalty in pretty much every case, so my answer is no. I'd certainly like to believe the leading country of the civilised western world would eventually do away with this primitive, barbaric practice, but unfortunately that seems to be very far off indeed.

The more interesting question for me is, should he ever have the chance to re-join society? I'm assuming there is something wrong with the guy, people don't just wake up in the morning and decide to commit a terror-action. So if he can be rehabilitated fully and beyond a shadow of a doubt be mentally fit to re-join society, should he? That is a question I'll need time to ponder myself.

But as to OP, nah. No death penalty. I hope so, at any case.

In the event that you decide that he shouldn't be allowed back in society, how is it different from the death penalty? How is life in prison without parole any different from just putting a bullet in their head, besides being vastly more expensive and contributing to our already severe overcrowding problem?

I am normally way, way, way pro-death penalty. I'm certain, against the wishes of the Massachusetts people, he could be put to death by the Federal Government. Even in cases with dual jurisdiction (State and Fed over-lapping), their rules take precedence.

Even so, in this case? I want the guy to live. I want this guy who thought he made a statement to live and know that we heard the statement, and we think he's an idiot. I want him alive to know that he threw his life away and ended up looking like a moron.

Xan Krieger:
Of course he should get the death penalty, there isn't even a need for a discussion. You blow people up, you die. Otherwise we'll just waste tax dollars keeping him alive.

Death row costs more on averate than normal prison, so costs shouldn't be the argument.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked