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
 

dmase:

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.

Could you provide links for any of this? Can't seem to find stuff, maybe I'm googling with the wrong search words or something.

Kopikatsu:
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.

The Miranda reading is important in the criminal prosecution process, as it's a bright line point at which evidence against them can be used.

And the "public safety exception" (which is what is used in terrorism cases), is limited to prevent further dangers to the public (i.e. a arrested or soon to be arrested suspect says the location of a dangerous device such as a gun), everything outside of that would be barred form being used evidence.

Super Not Cosmo:
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.

US citizen (naturalized in 2012) in a US jurisdiction being apprehended by US authorities for federal and state crimes that occurred in a US jurisdiction. No amount of legal gymnastics is going to support being relocated to anything other than a civilian federal facility.

On topic: I have a feeling this was the late elder brother's plot and he was on for the ride out of sibling loyalty (or as a surrogate father). It would be better to offer him a plea deal where everything is put out in the open (plan, motives, resources, any support or encouragement) in exchange for 40 to life in prison. The public get's their perpetrator, the investigators get their evidence and intel, and the judicial system avoids the financial and logistical nightmare of trying to try him (imagine trying to get a fair and impartial jury in this case).

Karathos:

dmase:

Karathos:

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.

Could you provide links for any of this? Can't seem to find stuff, maybe I'm googling with the wrong search words or something.

Boston marathon bombing wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

Check under manhunt and capture mainly.

Kopikatsu:

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.

I think it means you must be given a reminder so you can choose your words i.e. not incriminate yourself. I imagine being handcuffed can make remembering things a bit messy.

The article makes the point that there are exceptions to MRs in regard to immediate safety; they use the example of demanding the suspect to show his weapon. In this case and with any future suspected terrorist, EVERYTHING can come under "regard to safety", and if he doesn't talk (whether he actually knows anything or not), under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) he can be detained indefinitely, even if he's an citizen (which he is).

That is a gigantic can of political worms that throws our justice system and the Constitution into question. The scariest part is that I simply can't see this being a matter of politics: there is no better target Republicans could've painted if they wanted to damage the Dems and Obama. Why didn't they? Because they most likely support it too. Both political parties won't bring up the subject that civil rights are being sacrificed in a conflict that has no definite conclusion: it's Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, except the Civil War never ended.

In regards to the guy's Miranda Rights, isn't he hospitalized? Hospital comes first before arrest, therefore until he's fully capable of being receptive(no surgeries, full mental capabilities, not sedated), the suspect isn't under arrest I believe. So until we know for sure the suspect is not in immediate threat of death due to his injuries, he's in the care of the hospital.

That's what I think the deal with the MR is with the police. How can someone who is incapable of understanding the rights at the moment be read them? Because everything I have read says the Miranda Rights must be said prior to interrogation. And a suspect currently drugged up and undergoing surgery is not capable of interrogation without violating US and Human Right laws (though the US justice system has done such things before).

The death of the suspect via injuries sustained during altercations with police while the officers read them the Miranda Rights. How would that look to the public's eyes when the apprehension and subsequent hospitalization of the suspect brings a better chance to not just read the suspect his rights, but also has the chance to improve the polices' image.

Heck, let's compare this to the 1994 North Hollywood Bank Robbery in CA. The second robber could have been saved, but the LAPD SWAT unit let the man die due to the threat of explosives. Boston PD/FBI took the chance to secure the suspect and keep the guy from dying through his own means or the injuries sustained.

The government is clearly lying to you about this whole thing and none of you are even questioning it. They lied about the drill, there were clearly military contractors from Craft during the event, not 20-30 feet from where one of the bombs went off. There are pictures of the contractors talking to an FBI agent after the bombing, as well as one using a rad detector for dirty bombs. What else are they lying about?

How about the Saudi they caught and are now deporting due to national security risk. The director of the DHS, Janet Napolitano, flat out lied to a congressman who confronted her about this piece of news- denying it ever happened. The congressman wanted to know why the hell we are letting go. We know his name for fucks sake. We saw pictures of an arrest.

Glenn Beck, who I don't care for and was quick to bash Alex Jones along with the conspiracy crowd in general, was visibly disturbed on the air the other day and issued an ultimatum that either the government comes clean about the Saudi man, or he will go public with what he has found. The Saudi is Abdul al-Harbi, there are at least two high ranking "al-Harbi"s in al qaeda... I wonder what Glenn Beck could have possibly found out about the guy we are sending back to Saudi. Hmmmm.

In the face of evidence showing the officials are lying, people still cling to the official story. Will never understand it.

Opposed to the death penalty in all cases, so no. Was going to point out he should be kept alive regardless if you don't want the conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork, but Darc has already beat me to the thread.

Why kill him? Maybe this can be an opportunity to learn from him, why he and people like him do the things they do.
If he is guilty, and I believe he is, would killing him really solve anything? Better to lock him away, and try to get a better understanding so we might prevent this sort of thing in the future.

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.

I thought you were pro small government? Giving the government the right to take the lives of its citizens is as big as it gets. On principle i dont beleive a government EVER has the right to:

Torture
Kill
Unlawfully detain

Its citizens under ANY circumstances. Ever. Thats too much governmental power for me and im a liberal.

Shock and Awe:
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.

Pretty much this. I think he DESERVES it but i think its practically useless. In regards to cost see the death penalty is a catch 22:

Ensuring someone is 100% guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt LEGALLY is extremely expensive because it takes many different appeals to explore every possible avenue of possible innocence. So if you REALLY want the death penalty you get two options. An expensive system where you test rigorously to minimize innocent deaths. Or a cheap system where you DO murder innocent people because you dont explore guilt very far. So you either murder people or waste money. Seems better to have neither to me.

BiscuitTrouser:

I thought you were pro small government? Giving the government the right to take the lives of its citizens is as big as it gets. On principle i dont beleive a government EVER has the right to:

Torture
Kill
Unlawfully detain

Its citizens under ANY circumstances. Ever. Thats too much governmental power for me and im a liberal.

You specified 'unlawfully detain', but as the government makes the laws...

You see the problem there, yeah?

dmase:

Karathos:

dmase:

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.

Could you provide links for any of this? Can't seem to find stuff, maybe I'm googling with the wrong search words or something.

Boston marathon bombing wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

Check under manhunt and capture mainly.

Wikipedia, of course. Derp! :D

Thank you. I'll get to reading the stuff.

Kopikatsu:

You specified 'unlawfully detain', but as the government makes the laws...

You see the problem there, yeah?

...For reals?

A government can do things that are illegal. Breaking the laws that they, themselves, have put in place is acting illegally.

I realise that they can, and do, break the law with far more ease than do ordinary citizens, but that's a practical point, not a legal one. It doesn't imply that we should be fine with it legally; it only implies that there's less we can do about it practically.

Morally, the guy deserves to die a slow painful death.

Practically, im against the death penalty. It costs too much. As for the whole killing innocent people vs life sentence, I would say that killing an innocent person with the death penalty is as likely as a murderer on a life sentence escaping prison (which we have had two incidents this year). Would have been in everyone's best interest if they both died in the shootout rather than just the one. No more taxpayer money wasted.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
---Gandalf

I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Who is being supportive of the guy? All I see here is support for the rule of law, and lack of support for barbarism.

Jux:

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Who is being supportive of the guy? All I see here is support for the rule of law, and lack of support for barbarism.

Then whats so bad about this guy getting the death penalty? a quick, painless death and we will never have to worry about him again. After all, there are 8 year olds that are having to deal with the pain of LOSING THEIR LIMBS due to this guys selfish motivation to target entirely innocent people.

Just imagine that emergency room, pulling pieces of debris out of an 8 year old KID and CUTTING his / her leg off who the day following were probably running around having fun during recess in school with no idea that this could happen to them or any idea the kind of hellish pain they will soon be in for. I say death penalty, and if I'm a barbarian for that then I would gladly take that label knowing that if it were MY kid I would want it that way. I won't just say no on a message board for the sake of self satisfaction, I thought this through. Maybe the rest of you should too should consider what it would be like to happen to you yourself or your own kid before passing judgement on people wanting death penalty. He hurt kids, let him die.

Zeckt:
Then whats so bad about this guy getting the death penalty? a quick, painless death and we will never have to worry about him again. After all, there are 8 year olds that are having to deal with the pain of LOSING THEIR LIMBS due to this guys selfish motivation to target entirely innocent people.

Just imagine that emergency room, pulling pieces of debris out of an 8 year old KID and CUTTING his / her leg off who the day following were probably running around having fun during recess in school with no idea that this could happen to them or any idea the kind of hellish pain they will soon be in for. I say death penalty, and if I'm a barbarian for that then I would gladly take that label knowing that if it were MY kid I would want it that way. I won't just say no on a message board for the sake of self satisfaction, I thought this through. Maybe the rest of you should too and consider what it would be like to happen to you yourself or your own kid before passing judgement on people wanting death penalty. He hurt kids, let him die.

Well, off the top of my head, I would say that there is a moral stance against the death penalty. That's one. There is also a practical argument against the death penalty as an institution: even if this guy is guilty, and deserves to die in some peoples eyes, is having that institution worth the innocent people that have been, and will be, put to death? So I guess that's two. We could also ask 'what good will come out of killing him?' We don't have to worry about him now, he's in custody. You will learn absolutely nothing about this by simply convicting him and killing him. If his motivations are that of a religious extremist, putting him to death will only make him a martyr. That right there is a reason not to put him to death.

You're making an emotional appeal here, talking about kids and blood and guts. Maybe you should consider the widespread effects kneejerk reactions have. What you are asking for is not justice, but only a satisfaction to bloodlust.

Zeckt:

Jux:

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Who is being supportive of the guy? All I see here is support for the rule of law, and lack of support for barbarism.

Then whats so bad about this guy getting the death penalty? a quick, painless death and we will never have to worry about him again. After all, there are 8 year olds that are having to deal with the pain of LOSING THEIR LIMBS due to this guys selfish motivation to target entirely innocent people.

Just imagine that emergency room, pulling pieces of debris out of an 8 year old KID and CUTTING his / her leg off who the day following were probably running around having fun during recess in school with no idea that this could happen to them or any idea the kind of hellish pain they will soon be in for. I say death penalty, and if I'm a barbarian for that then I would gladly take that label knowing that if it were MY kid I would want it that way. I won't just say no on a message board for the sake of self satisfaction, I thought this through. Maybe the rest of you should too should consider what it would be like to happen to you yourself or your own kid before passing judgement on people wanting death penalty. He hurt kids, let him die.

To put it in another perspective, how would you feel when it's YOUR family member potentially being executed for a crime you know they didn't commit? We can argue about emotional appeals til the cows come home, fact of the matter is emotions should not play a part in the criminal process, because down that road injustice lies. Which is why the many people in this thread express their opposition to the death penalty as a rule, because they recognize that no matter how angry or revengeful they might feel in such a situation, the criminal justice system will not and should not base it's sentence on emotional appeals.

Leadfinger:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
---Gandalf

Whee, fictional character quote time!

"Blood calls out for blood."
--Londo Mollari

Zeckt:

Jux:

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Who is being supportive of the guy? All I see here is support for the rule of law, and lack of support for barbarism.

Then whats so bad about this guy getting the death penalty? a quick, painless death and we will never have to worry about him again. After all, there are 8 year olds that are having to deal with the pain of LOSING THEIR LIMBS due to this guys selfish motivation to target entirely innocent people.

Just imagine that emergency room, pulling pieces of debris out of an 8 year old KID and CUTTING his / her leg off who the day following were probably running around having fun during recess in school with no idea that this could happen to them or any idea the kind of hellish pain they will soon be in for. I say death penalty, and if I'm a barbarian for that then I would gladly take that label knowing that if it were MY kid I would want it that way. I won't just say no on a message board for the sake of self satisfaction, I thought this through. Maybe the rest of you should too should consider what it would be like to happen to you yourself or your own kid before passing judgement on people wanting death penalty. He hurt kids, let him die.

We don't live in a society that lets the victims or the family of victims decide what punishments to mete out. I saw an episode of Stargate once where the team discovered a planet with that kind of justice system. Teal'c, a former bad guy who turned on his evil overlords and now helps the good guys, was nearly put to death because a boy whom he had personally slighted was out for revenge. I don't consider that to be just. Yell all you want about little boys losing their limbs; all that means is that said child's family is TOO invested in the case. We try to get impartial juries for a reason. There is no justice unless you consider all the facts from an objective, non-emotional point of view. What you are calling for is revenge, and yes, it is rather barbaric.

I disagree with the death penalty for a number of reasons and wouldn't even want it for criminals I truly despise because well death is just so... final; there is nothing after it and while the criminal is dead the loved ones of the victims will spend the rest of their lives grieving. So for me locking them up in a cell for the rest of their lives until they die is a far better punishment, yes let's prolong their suffering and draw it out because people like him deserve it.

Jux:

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

Who is being supportive of the guy? All I see here is support for the rule of law, and lack of support for barbarism.

Barbarism isn't always a bad thing, in this case it's pretty clear they killed people so in this case the death penalty is perfect.

TKretts3:

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?

No, I doubt he did. That still doesn't mean that I believe in capital punishment, for anyone. Most civilized countries around the world have done away with Capital Punishment and eventually I believe in my heart we will do away with it in the USA and China as well. (In the USA the trend is more and more states not using the death penalty. My own state of Colorado, for example, hasn't executed somebody since the 1970's.)

I believe that even if you blow people up the proper response is containment and life imprisonment, not further death. I did some pretty dumb things as a teenager (I won't get into them here) - I'm really, really glad I wasn't punished by people who believed in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I learned how to be merciful because I've had mercy shown to me many times. Sometimes justice must be balanced with mercy. Justice is that he is imprisoned for life; mercy is that we allow him a lifetime in a dark cell to reflect on his crimes.

Execution makes martyrs. Someone who has died for what they believe in. An example for the rest of those who think similarity that if they make the same horrible actions they will get a quick and fairly painless death.

A sentence to imprisonment without bail brings no glory. There was no finality, rather their lives continue without all the joys or meaningfulness that could have been without the actions.

A heroic death is an inspiration. A slow death brought over decades is a deterrence.

Super Not Cosmo:
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.

Glad it isn't up to you.

On topic, what purpose would his death serve? If he can't be rehabilitated, just get him away from people for the rest of his life so he can do no more harm.

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

In that case, why not let the victims decide?! Hell, they can personally dispatch the sonsabitches themselves! Maybe with a good side of torture, if they feel so inclined!

Nothing wrong with letting victims decide the fates of their aggressors, amirite? Or are you really that blind?

And for the record, appeals to emotion constitutes a logical fallacy, not an argument.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Zeckt:
I doubt you all would be so supportive of him if it were someone in your family that lost their limbs. Maybe your girlfriend or boyfriend? most would be more likely to dump him / her. maybe YOUR 8 year old kid having to live their lives without a RIGHT ARM? I know I'm on the unpopular side here, but I know for a fact no one really cares about anything till something happens to someone THEY love. Then they sing a different tune.

Just imagine the people who now have to live their lives without limbs. Imagine it being someone close to you or even it being YOU, and being reminded of the pointlessness of the violence every day. Would you be able to live your life looking at your legs and seeing nothing there for the rest of your life?

In that case, why not let the victims decide?! Hell, they can personally dispatch the sonsabitches themselves! Maybe with a good side of torture, if they feel so inclined!

Nothing wrong with letting victims decide the fates of their aggressors, amirite? Or are you really that blind?

And for the record, appeals to emotion constitutes a logical fallacy, not an argument.

Oh, I'm so sorry to disagree with you all that you accuse me of TORTURE just for wanting them to get the death penalty. Why even make this topic if your not all even willing to discuss it and you make the people who disagree with you all out to be VILLAINS?! this is not a discussion, you all really only do care about your own personal smugness. I would never condone torture EVER. Forget it, I'm done with this message board. Don't make topics if your just all looking to bash the people who disagree with you. You've all insulted me by thinking I would approve torture and I'm not going to take it. You think your all such good people, yet I seriously doubt any of you really care of what happens to people unless they are either you or people close to you.

Instead you all just accuse me of condoning torture rather then actually think about how YOU would feel getting your arms blown off by someone who would just as soon shoot you in your leg and laugh at your suffering rather then apologize. Maybe it still will happen to you, the way the state of the world is headed. Oh I'm sorry? too close to your comfort zone?

Xan Krieger:
Barbarism isn't always a bad thing, in this case it's pretty clear they killed people so in this case the death penalty is perfect.

So, you feel barbarism is sometimes acceptable. I'd love to hear some justification for this one. I've already laid out a few reasons in post #88 why the DP is not only bad in this specific case, but why it is a weak institution.

evilneko:

Leadfinger:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
---Gandalf

Whee, fictional character quote time!

"Blood calls out for blood."
--Londo Mollari

"Why yes, of course, you're right, Bruce. Emotion is always the enemy of true justice. Thank you. You've always been a good friend."
--Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent

lol wut

Zeckt:
Oh, I'm so sorry to disagree with you all that you accuse me of TORTURE just for wanting them to get the death penalty. Why even make this topic if your not all even willing to discuss it and you make the people who disagree with you all out to be VILLAINS?! this is not a discussion, you all really only do care about your own personal smugness. I would never condone torture EVER.

Only one guy even mentioned torture. It's rather rude of you to then call out every other person who's replied to you.

Forget it, I'm done with this message board. Don't make topics if your just all looking to bash the people who disagree with you. You've all insulted me by thinking I would approve torture and I'm not going to take it. You think your all such good people, yet I seriously doubt any of you really care of what happens to people unless they are either you or people close to you.

Well, first, none of the people who've replied to you have been the OP, who in fact seems to be rather neutral if not leaning towards the death penalty. It's hardly a circle jerk or a bash-fest; there's plenty of disagreement. Secondly, none of the people who have replied to you, save the most recent one, have implied you would advocate torture. Again, you're overreacting. Thirdly, it is again extremely rude to imply that any of us don't care what happens to people. This incident was a tragedy. The people who were injured and the family of those who were killed - their lives are never going to be the same, and that's horrific. But exacting violent revenge on the perpetrator doesn't help the situation. Killing Dzhokar Tsarnaev will not bring the dead back to life, and it certainly will not regrow anyone's limbs. The only thing the death penalty does is take the life of a young man who could, in theory, be rehabilitated and made to feel sorry for his actions. And if such rehabilitation is not possible, then what is the harm of keeping him in a cell? He'd be isolated from society, never to hurt an innocent person again. Perhaps the families of the victims do want him dead, but there are many people who wish others dead. I do not believe we have the right to enact those wishes.

Instead you all just accuse me of condoning torture rather then actually think about how YOU would feel getting your arms blown off by someone who would just as soon shoot you in your leg and laugh at your suffering rather then apologize. Maybe it still will happen to you, the way the state of the world is headed. Oh I'm sorry? too close to your comfort zone?

You are again being extremely rude and disrespectful, claiming that everyone has accused you of torturous intentions when the majority have not. And to top it all off, you make what seem like veiled threats. Regardless of if that is your intention or not, it's simply unbecoming. And for the record, if I were to ever be in a situation wherein I was in immense pain at the hands of a sociopath, I can only hope that someone else be the ultimate judge of his or her fate. Yes, I would be wrathful. Yes, I would probably want the son of a bitch dead. But anger is a hell of a drug. We don't let intoxicated people sign contracts or operate vehicles, why would we let a victim decide the fate of his or her attacker? If I was in that situation it could easily be seen that I was not "of sound mind and body" as the legalese goes. You are motivated by wrath, and it is understandable. The perpetrator of this massacre did terrible things. But we should not allow wrath to cloud our judgement of what is the best course of action.

I admit I'm overly emotional, and that I am really upset after hearing stories of all the amputations and sharpnel stuck in people. Stuff like that really, really gets to me. Now that I had time to relax you guys really should be more careful throwing the word "torture" around like it means nothing and discuss the points of the people that are trying to debate with you, because I would never condone torture of any kind. And for the record 3 of the people who quoted me used the word torture. I do NOT like that. And veiled threats? I was simply reminding you all of just how lucky you really are. The boston massacre was unexpected, random and could happen to any one of us. Not a threat, simply the truth. Why should I pretty the point up when it is in fact a reality?

I will wake up tomorrow happy and thankful I don't have to be scraped off the side of the road or lose my leg due to half of it being blown off or having sharpnel stuck in it. That's what happened in Boston and its the reality, no use using pretty words to hide it. All that caused by those 2 people and I'm simply glad I was not there. Children not even 10 now have to live the rest of their lives haunted by the pain of that day and the loss of their limbs. So let's slap the perpetrator in the wrist and put him in jail where he can play basketball and watch tv in the common room the rest of his life and laugh at those kids thinking about how successful he was and how he won.

Oh, and I find it ironic you accuse me of being disrespectful after being upset of being accused of condoning torture. As if accusing me of such a thing is not disrespectful in return. This topic is way too biased to exist and to continue discussion, all you all are doing is ganging up on people who do not share you view.

Zeckt:
I admit I'm overly emotional, and that I am really upset after hearing stories of all the amputations and sharpnel stuck in people. Stuff like that really, really gets to me. Now that I had time to relax you guys really should be more careful throwing the word "torture" around like it means nothing and discuss the points of the people that are trying to debate with you, because I would never condone torture of any kind. And for the record 3 of the people who quoted me used the word torture. I do NOT like that. And veiled threats? I was simply reminding you all of just how lucky you really are. The boston massacre was unexpected, random and could happen to any one of us. Not a threat, simply the truth. Why should I pretty the point up when it is in fact a reality?

I will wake up tomorrow happy and thankful I don't have to be scraped off the side of the road or lose my leg due to half of it being blown off or having sharpnel stuck in it. That's what happened in Boston and its the reality, no use using pretty words to hide it. All that caused by those 2 people and I'm simply glad I was not there. Children not even 10 now have to live the rest of their lives haunted by the pain of that day and the loss of their limbs. So let's slap the perpetrator in the wrist and put him in jail where he can play basketball and watch tv in the common room the rest of his life and laugh at those kids thinking about how successful he was and how he won.

Oh, and I find it ironic you accuse me of being disrespectful after being upset of being accused of condoning torture. As if accusing me of such a thing is not disrespectful in return. This topic is way too biased to exist and to continue discussion, all you all are doing is ganging up on people who do not share you view.

I didn't accuse you of condoning torture, but if you advocate an emotional approach to this issue, you can surely see how that might be a result. When we're angry, we tend to want to inflict suffering on the people who've made us angry, who've transgressed against us. I made the comment I made because putting us in the shoes of someone who would want only the greatest amount of harm for these murderers is counter to everything that works in our justice system. Anger should never be the motivating factor in judging people who've wronged us.

I'm quite interested in why the younger brother committed these acts. People who go on to commit this sort of terrorism tend to fit a certain profile, and the deceased elder brother matches very well. The younger, however, does not, so I'm curious to see what drove him to it.

xDarc:
The government is clearly lying to you about this whole thing and none of you are even questioning it. They lied about the drill, there were clearly military contractors from Craft during the event, not 20-30 feet from where one of the bombs went off. There are pictures of the contractors talking to an FBI agent after the bombing, as well as one using a rad detector for dirty bombs. What else are they lying about?

How about the Saudi they caught and are now deporting due to national security risk. The director of the DHS, Janet Napolitano, flat out lied to a congressman who confronted her about this piece of news- denying it ever happened. The congressman wanted to know why the hell we are letting go. We know his name for fucks sake. We saw pictures of an arrest.

Glenn Beck, who I don't care for and was quick to bash Alex Jones along with the conspiracy crowd in general, was visibly disturbed on the air the other day and issued an ultimatum that either the government comes clean about the Saudi man, or he will go public with what he has found. The Saudi is Abdul al-Harbi, there are at least two high ranking "al-Harbi"s in al qaeda... I wonder what Glenn Beck could have possibly found out about the guy we are sending back to Saudi. Hmmmm.

In the face of evidence showing the officials are lying, people still cling to the official story. Will never understand it.

Glenn Beck, visibly disturbed on the air? That's a shocker.

Seriously, though, nothing you just said invalidates what we know: that is, that two suspects have been arrested in connection to the bombing, and that one officer died in the course of arrest. If you can cast doubt on those facts, which are the only ones we have at the moment, I see no reason to suspect a conspiracy. Why would the military being there be cause for suspicion, even if they did lie about it? And what does the Saudi have to do with anything? Sure, he COULD be involve, but the mere coincidence of him being there is frankly inadequate in judging what has happened.

Jux:

"Why yes, of course, you're right, Bruce. Emotion is always the enemy of true justice. Thank you. You've always been a good friend."
--Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent

And then you realize that he uses a coin to decide whether or not someone should die. It is emotionless by virtue of being chance (Except in the continuities where he cheats and has a weighted coin), but the punishment still ends with death in all circumstances.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked