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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

TKretts3:
He set up multiple bombs across the city and detonated three. He killed five people and injured nearly 200.

"He is suspected to have set up multiple bombs across the city and detonated three. He is suspected to have killed five people and injured nearly 200". Fixed that for ya.

Tanner The Monotone:
considering what he did, will probably not last very long.

"What he is suspected to have done".

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

Yes, it really is! He fled the scene, and he fired at officers, but that does not automatically equate with guilt, no matter how damning it seems. People have pleaded guilty (without coercion) to things they haven't done in the past, and innocent people have fled crime scenes. There are other explanations for his behaviour. Not as likely, I grant you, but they're possibilities, and it's not accurate to say his guilt "isn't up for question".

To be clear: I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know he's guilty.

Silvanus:
Yes, it really is! He fled the scene, and he fired at officers, but that does not automatically equate with guilt, no matter how damning it seems. People have pleaded guilty (without coercion) to things they haven't done in the past, and innocent people have fled crime scenes. There are other explanations for his behaviour. Not as likely, I grant you, but they're possibilities, and it's not accurate to say his guilt "isn't up for question".

To be clear: I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know he's guilty.

Fleeing the scene is one thing, shooting at police is something else.

Certainly he should get his day in court, but when one fires at police, there's only so innocent one can be.

Kopikatsu:
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?

That's a valid point, and one I can't argue against too strongly for it makes sense. It's a moral thing for me. I am a very strong believer in redemption and forgiveness, and while someone lives, they may somehow gain that redemption. Killing them removes that chance indefinitely. Besides, executing someone for what they did just reeks of dragging an animal behind the shed and butchering them. In the end, he is still human, very much so. That won't change, no matter how much people want to delude themselves by calling him "monster" in the vein attempts at trying to ease themselves. And humans have rights, more so than animals.

Besides, we (many of us here) live in civilised western societies who should be setting an example to the rest of the world that aren't quite as advanced as us. We should seek peaceful solutions to problems where possible.

Well, assuming he's as guilty as he looks to be, life without parole would seem quite sufficient.

I doubt an American prison is going to be too comfortable for a 19 year old terrorist. And since he'll never be let out, the complete lack of rehabilitation in the midst of the penance isn't a problem. He'll die eventually, and have lived forgotten without any hope of tasting freedom or accomplishing anything all the way up to that point.

Truly a fate worse than martyrdom.

He should die and he should look dead in the eye ....no prison that cost money wedont want to pay
give him what he gives others

he must die 100%

stupid you are, if you think prison for live is good enough
it isnt he will adapt to the prison and wel have good life inside if i has adapted to the circomstances

he is alive as cancer to the world he must be removed of the planeet
all torrorist must be killed swift and with out hesitation

prison is for those who can learn to have a good life of for those who cant be in the normal world but didt do something like this

so he must be get rid of he is ah monster and has no respect for human life
he killed childeren and ppl who are innocent

Offtopic...if i had the change to kill him i would, just quick with out a fuzz or remorse
dont want to let him feel pain because its useles,,cancer feels no pain
just must be removed

The problem with the rehabilitation theories in criminal justice is that not everyone can be rehabilitated. Some people are incapable of functioning in normal society, no matter how much psychological and psychiatric help they receive.

At what point do we acknowledge that an individual is incapable of doing so though? Is it never? Do they get to sit in prison for 60 years, trying to be rehabilitated, despite their doctors saying they can't make a inroad? What if they themselves say they do not want to be rehabilitated, or can't be rehabilitated after trying for so long?

I also reject this constant saying of 'How can you turn someone into an animal to butcher them'. Since when was that a thing? The justice system treats even its executees as people; but pretending people are somehow moralistically perfect beings that deserve life by default just for being human, even after committing a crime against humanity, the thing they are a part of? Every man gets a chance, but when you use that chance to murder, and worse, is it morally wrong to say that you used your chance badly and now you have none left?

Penance is a religious idea, by the way.

BathorysGraveland2:

That's a valid point, and one I can't argue against too strongly for it makes sense. It's a moral thing for me. I am a very strong believer in redemption and forgiveness, and while someone lives, they may somehow gain that redemption. Killing them removes that chance indefinitely. Besides, executing someone for what they did just reeks of dragging an animal behind the shed and butchering them. In the end, he is still human, very much so. That won't change, no matter how much people want to delude themselves by calling him "monster" in the vein attempts at trying to ease themselves. And humans have rights, more so than animals.

Here's the problem with that sentiment.

Humans are animals. Always have been, always will be. Any and every person you have ever met is some social reconditioning away from acting like a beast.

We set ourselves apart because we have collectively chosen to be something more than that, and have achieved much because of that sentiment.

Some people however, choose to embrace at least a portion of that bestial nature, endangering others and society in general in the process. At the absolute worst, calling for an execution in such a case simply means treating the individual by their own standards.

That stated, the gleeful calls for blood here are nearly as disturbing as the bombing itself, for much the same reason.

Heronblade:
That stated, the gleeful calls for blood here are nearly as disturbing as the bombing itself, for much the same reason.

Makes me glad that I was born in a country that ignores people when they call for blood... which some will still do at the drop of a hat. And as someone that was raised in such an environment my opinion is the same as it is for everyone else, no. It's stooping to their level and killing defenceless people for punishment or vengeance sets a horrible example.

Silvanus:

TKretts3:
He set up multiple bombs across the city and detonated three. He killed five people and injured nearly 200.

"He is suspected to have set up multiple bombs across the city and detonated three. He is suspected to have killed five people and injured nearly 200". Fixed that for ya.

Tanner The Monotone:
considering what he did, will probably not last very long.

"What he is suspected to have done".

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

Yes, it really is! He fled the scene, and he fired at officers, but that does not automatically equate with guilt, no matter how damning it seems. People have pleaded guilty (without coercion) to things they haven't done in the past, and innocent people have fled crime scenes. There are other explanations for his behaviour. Not as likely, I grant you, but they're possibilities, and it's not accurate to say his guilt "isn't up for question".

To be clear: I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know he's guilty.

While we do not know at the moment, and while he certainly deserves a trial, it is very likely that he did do it. And yes, I apologize for the wording of that previous post, but the essence of it still stands. What I believe Gnome was saying is that even if he did do it, it was just his 'dumb mistake' and that he should not get the death penalty, to which my point still stands.

And while innocent people certainly might run from an explosion, running from the police and shooting two to death is not something that innocent people do.

Dryk:

Heronblade:
That stated, the gleeful calls for blood here are nearly as disturbing as the bombing itself, for much the same reason.

Makes me glad that I was born in a country that ignores people when they call for blood... which some will still do at the drop of a hat. And as someone that was raised in such an environment my opinion is the same as it is for everyone else, no. It's stooping to their level and killing defenceless people for punishment or vengeance sets a horrible example.

This guy, for example:

clearwater:
HE IS NOT HUMAN, HE IS A MUSLIM BEAST JUST HIM KILL HIM
ILL HOPE HE DIES>>>>AND FAST

A very sober, measured response.

That being said, I don't really have a problem with the death penalty for cases like this. The people of Massachusetts seem to (or else their laws don't reflect their preferences) and their wishes probably ought to be respected in this matter.

TKretts3:

And while innocent people certainly might run from an explosion, running from the police and shooting two to death is not something that innocent people do.

Oh he isn't innocent, his actions during the chase alone determine that

He may however be innocent of the bombing itself, and ran due to the massive heroin stash he thought the cops were after, just for instance. Hell of a coincidence, but possible.

thaluikhain:

Fleeing the scene is one thing, shooting at police is something else.

Certainly he should get his day in court, but when one fires at police, there's only so innocent one can be.

TKretts3:

While we do not know at the moment, and while he certainly deserves a trial, it is very likely that he did do it. And yes, I apologize for the wording of that previous post, but the essence of it still stands. What I believe Gnome was saying is that even if he did do it, it was just his 'dumb mistake' and that he should not get the death penalty, to which my point still stands.

And while innocent people certainly might run from an explosion, running from the police and shooting two to death is not something that innocent people do.

I certainly agree that it's more likely than not that he's guilty.

Though, shooting at police when you didn't commit the crime is something an otherwise mentally handicapped or disturbed individual might do, or potentially even somebody severely confused or traumatised. I can imagine scenarios that account for his actions at the scene.

This is not to say that I find those scenarios likely; they're pretty damn unlikely. But, the nature of the Death Penalty is final, and innocent people have been executed in situations just as seemingly compelling.

And at that point, the state becomes a murderer, whether or not they were 99.9% sure he was guilty, because it found itself willing to take that risk.

Silvanus:

thaluikhain:

Fleeing the scene is one thing, shooting at police is something else.

Certainly he should get his day in court, but when one fires at police, there's only so innocent one can be.

TKretts3:

While we do not know at the moment, and while he certainly deserves a trial, it is very likely that he did do it. And yes, I apologize for the wording of that previous post, but the essence of it still stands. What I believe Gnome was saying is that even if he did do it, it was just his 'dumb mistake' and that he should not get the death penalty, to which my point still stands.

And while innocent people certainly might run from an explosion, running from the police and shooting two to death is not something that innocent people do.

I certainly agree that it's more likely than not that he's guilty.

Though, shooting at police when you didn't commit the crime is something an otherwise mentally handicapped or disturbed individual might do, or potentially even somebody severely confused or traumatised. I can imagine scenarios that account for his actions at the scene.

This is not to say that I find those scenarios likely; they're pretty damn unlikely. But, the nature of the Death Penalty is final, and innocent people have been executed in situations just as seemingly compelling.

And at that point, the state becomes a murderer, whether or not they were 99.9% sure he was guilty, because it found itself willing to take that risk.

Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

Kopikatsu:
Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

My point exactly. Regardless of whether or not he is guilty of various other murders, shooting a police officer is a very serious crime in of itself.

In the broader scheme his potential innocence of the bombing would be relevant, in that whoever really did it is still at large (which might be true anyway, if there were more than 2 people involved), but speaking of him alone, he's still a criminal guilty of a serious crime.

Heronblade:
snip

Well, obviously we're animals, but you know exactly what I meant. We are intelligent, we have an understanding on the world around us and of emotions. To put ourselves, even the worst of us, on the same level as beasts both wild and domesticated is a flawed view. Humans are animals, yes, but we are not comparable to other animals, nor they to us.

And yes, the torture fetishists are as disgusting as always.

If it were up to me I'd just ship his ass down to Guantanamo Bay at the earliest opportunity so they could conduct his interrogations out of the public eye and in a more appropriate manner than is allowed on on US soil. He needs to be treated like the terrorist that he is.

yes ithink very easyof killing them and that because they kill so easy
you guys who dont call for blood are stupid

but i ant calling for blood i dont want them to have pain ...i dont like pain for them to its sensles
we must do what is sensfull

cut them out of society purg it kill the cancer ...i i could kill them i would do it quick
and not in front of a camera not with a big story just kil them burn them and tro it away
like wast

we most not act like there are humans...they are not ...yes they look the same they arent
being a human in this world is being good foor another
they arent good so they not human the are the cancer the human that embody's al that is bad in the world

so get rid of them with out remorse there is nu guild inkiling cancer

Kopikatsu:

Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

That's another question. Whether or not he's guilty of the original crime should not be assumed, simply because it wraps up the issue with a neat little bow. Understanding what truly happened is of great importance, both for reasons of personal justice and for a society that wishes to prevent these things from happening again.

Super Not Cosmo:
He needs to be treated like the terrorist that he is.

"Might be".

I've yet to see a single shred of evidence linking him to the bombing beyond HIM BEING THERE. So were thousands of other people. The fact he and his brother shot at police officers in no way connects them to the Boston incident. It just proves they're stupid enough to attract police attention during a crisis situation with thousands of heavily armed men and women walking the streets just looking for an excuse.

This whole "innocent until proven guilty" term that AMERICANS LIKE TO BOAST THEY INVENTED seems to be forgotten the moment anything actually hits close enough to home for you guys. I'm not saying this to flamebait, it's just a bit of an observation and reminder that yes - bad things happen, and maybe they should be looked into all the time and not just when the news value rises above a certain point.

End of the day, WHEN HIS GUILT IS PROVEN, I'm all for him receiving a death sentence. But until he is, I wish people would stop howling for blood like some kind of emotion- and adrenaline-fuelled pack of carrion feeders. This whole lynch-mob mentality is a bit too 19th- early 20th-century KKK for my tastes.

If we can prove him guilty, then kill his ass. I don't get the drama for the death penalty. If you are a murdering asshole, then you don't get a second chance, period.

clearwater:
yes ithink very easyof killing them and that because they kill so easy
you guys who dont call for blood are stupid

but i ant calling for blood i dont want them to have pain ...i dont like pain for them to its sensles
we must do what is sensfull

cut them out of society purg it kill the cancer ...i i could kill them i would do it quick
and not in front of a camera not with a big story just kil them burn them and tro it away
like wast

we most not act like there are humans...they are not ...yes they look the same they arent
being a human in this world is being good foor another
they arent good so they not human the are the cancer the human that embody's al that is bad in the world

so get rid of them with out remorse there is nu guild inkiling cancer

This post gave me cancer

thaluikhain:

Fleeing the scene is one thing, shooting at police is something else.

The whole Hollywood shootout thing would be more believable if there were eyewitness accounts. Everything we know has been fed to us by official statements. I find it hard to swallow considering they didn't kill any of the civilians they came into contact with over the past couple of days, even the guy they allegedly carjacked walked away.

I don't believe anything the government tells me, ever. They've been caught lying too many times, the FBI in particular has been caught in recorded phone calls as being behind the 1993 WTC bombing that was a string operation that went live. Like so many other foiled plots where the FBI swapped out explosives for fake stuff at the last minute. Like Fast and Furious where the guns disappear. I don't see how anyone could believe a word they say anymore. I have to see it for myself.

BathorysGraveland2:

Heronblade:
snip

Well, obviously we're animals, but you know exactly what I meant. We are intelligent, we have an understanding on the world around us and of emotions. To put ourselves, even the worst of us, on the same level as beasts both wild and domesticated is a flawed view. Humans are animals, yes, but we are not comparable to other animals, nor they to us.

And yes, the torture fetishists are as disgusting as always.

I and much of the scientific community disagrees. There is no single item or characteristic that is unique about the human race in comparison to other animal species. Tool use, self awareness, analytical ability, intelligence, emotion, etc. are all found in other species, in many cases to a nearly identical degree. Granted, these attributes are emphasized in our case, and are not all that common to begin with, but the ONLY thing that cleanly separates us from them is the social structure we have developed (and even that is an extension of troop behavior)

No.
As simple as that.
Justice is not about revenge. It serves to punish the individual, not to feed the calls for blood by the crowd.
I think he should get life in prison, but with a chance of parole.
He's young, he has a lot of time to change.
In the end,everyone should have a chance to redeem themselves.

clearwater:
snip

Grammar is a helpful tool when communicating through the medium of text. Use it.

Copper Zen:
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.

True, being an inmate in a US high-security prison is probably the worst punishment imaginable. I personally would rather get shot by law enforcement on the spot than go to a US maximum security prison for a longer amount of time.

So yeah, I reckon almost any argument for death penalty here will come down to a longing for revenge, be it because he's a terroist suspect, generally just took lives and thusly has revoked any chance for parole or because he is a "Muslim beast" (my favourite so far).

And it's nice to know the penalty bureaucracy for this case, local news was very badly informed as always and simply said Massachusetts had capital punishment.

Yes, there is enough evidence that a blind monkey could convict him, so there is no chance that the death penalty will kill an innocent man.(as everyone always complains) To be clear I'm normally pro-death penalty anyways.

Kopikatsu:
Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

Fun fact while massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty it isn't neccesary to impose capital punishment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-death-penalty/2099413/

I had no idea that the fed could impose the death penalty despite the state.

dmase:

Kopikatsu:
Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

Fun fact while massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty it isn't neccesary to impose capital punishment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-death-penalty/2099413/

I had no idea that the fed could impose the death penalty despite the state.

They can, but the Fed has a number of restrictions on it. I don't think he's eligible for it under normal circumstances, despite what Bunin said.

You should search for the public response to the Fed imposing the death penalty in the Sampson trial (in Massachusetts). They were pissed.

dmase:

Kopikatsu:
Well, shooting and killing a police officer in and of itself is a capital murder charge. They could put you to death for that alone (in states that still have the death penalty anyway)

Fun fact while massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty it isn't neccesary to impose capital punishment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-death-penalty/2099413/

I had no idea that the fed could impose the death penalty despite the state.

Different jurisdictions. He was tried in a federal court under federal law, so their penalties apply, not Massachusetts'. In the case of Sampson, as Kop mentioned, it's an obvious attempt to get around the prohibition on the death penalty in Massachusetts, but it's not the Federal government making Massachusetts punish him a certain way as it is the Federal government taking him away from Massachusetts and doing what they will with him.

Do you know what's awesome?

Sentencing people to death before they've even been formally charged with a crime. It's just fucking great.

Seanchaidh:
I don't really have a problem with the death penalty for cases like this. The people of Massachusetts seem to (or else their laws don't reflect their preferences) and their wishes probably ought to be respected in this matter.

I'm pro death penalty, but in this thread, I've written that this is one guy I might like to see live to hear that his "message" is derided. He accomplished nothing. He is a monster and a Hell bound fool.

As to the wishes of the people of Massachusetts though, we have Federal laws and regulations even I respect. You may be pro-industry to the point that you don't care about environmentalism in Mass, but can point out, pollution doesn't respect state borders. Like pollution, this monster could one day be released upon the public, effecting the people of other states. It's happened before. You could argue the Fed has a role to play here.

Just playing devil's advocate. For the most part I agree with you. Crime and social control measures should reflect the values of the people of a given jurisdiction. This authority is too closely linked to liberty and self government for me to like seeing the Fed involved.

dmase:
Yes, there is enough evidence that a blind monkey could convict him, so there is no chance that the death penalty will kill an innocent man.(as everyone always complains) To be clear I'm normally pro-death penalty anyways.

Could you please point out the evidence? I've yet to hear anything about the guy beyond "He's suspected" and "He's been caught."

For him to actually have done it there needs to be - you know, PROOF that he's done it. Such as tracing the materials from the bombs to him and his brother, evidence that he and his brother planted them. Etc etc.

As for shooting that officer near the uni campus or wherever it was; they still need to PROVE he killed the man. If his brother did, and with his brother already dead, he'll only be guilty of aiding, which is not a capital crime.

It's the principle of "innocent before proven guilty" - even if a case seems open and shut, by our laws and the ideals we live by, a person, any person, needs to put through the justice system.

Though that may become archaic since he's going to be interrogated without being read his Miranda Rights, effectively meaning he's been judged and convicted upon arrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

I'm honestly scared right now.

Karathos:

dmase:
Yes, there is enough evidence that a blind monkey could convict him, so there is no chance that the death penalty will kill an innocent man.(as everyone always complains) To be clear I'm normally pro-death penalty anyways.

Could you please point out the evidence? I've yet to hear anything about the guy beyond "He's suspected" and "He's been caught."

For him to actually have done it there needs to be - you know, PROOF that he's done it. Such as tracing the materials from the bombs to him and his brother, evidence that he and his brother planted them. Etc etc.

As for shooting that officer near the uni campus or wherever it was; they still need to PROVE he killed the man. If his brother did, and with his brother already dead, he'll only be guilty of aiding, which is not a capital crime.

One of them had a video taken while he placed the bomb. The other one was seen and perfectly described by a witness as he placed the bag near him. The videos show the same back packs used for the bombs on their backs.

After their images where released to the public they proceaded to go on a marathon crime spree. They where not goaded into comitting crimes as some have suggested. They opened fire on a cop(after killing another cop and taking hostage a man and forcing him to withdraw money from his account) they then proceaded to throw a pressure cooker bomb(like the one they used in the attack) at the officer along with 4 homemade grenades. 200 shots fired. Information online linking the eldest brother to terrorist websites. They told the guy they took hostage that they where the bombers. And either yesterday or today they found more IED's at their homes.

vid87:
It's the principle of "innocent before proven guilty" - even if a case seems open and shut, by our laws and the ideals we live by, a person, any person, needs to put through the justice system.

Though that may become archaic since he's going to be interrogated without being read his Miranda Rights, effectively meaning he's been judged and convicted upon arrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

I'm honestly scared right now.

Do you really need to be read your Miranda Rights? I don't mean from a legal standpoint (The answer there is no, if the government considers you to be a terrorist), I mean if there is anyone who doesn't already know what they are.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked