• 191 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Paracelsus (1730 posts) - - Show Bio

From the simply absurd to the flat out crazy( Donald Trump tweets that Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber should be "waterboarded"- which inasmuch as "waterboarding" is considered a form of torture and has been correctly banned by Barack Obama upon assuming office says more about Trump than it does about Tsarnaev), a group of Republican senators want Tsrarnaev treated as an "enemy combatant"(whatever that means!) and tried by military tribunals, ignoring the fact that civilian federal courts have successfully tried and convicted more alleged terrorists since 9/11 than military commissions at "Gitmo" ever have, and now federal prosecutors want to seek the death penalty for him( Massachusetts has no death penalty).

Even allowing for the heinous crimes of which Tsarnaev is accused of, I will explain why this last move is an especially bad idea, given my society's experiences during the NI "Troubles".

The only justification that there can ever be for capital punishment is twofold- firstly deterrence and then retribution. In cases of terrorism, the idea that a man (or more rarely a woman) could pssibly be deterred from joining a terrorist group(be it the Provisional IRA or Al Qaeda) and taking part in its violent campaign(which obviously involves risk of life and if captured by authorities and convicted by courts, means years, possibly decades in prison, strikes me as ludicrous. Retribution( a polite euphemism for revenge) is even more problematic- we execute terrorists just to show our disgust and abhorrence of their violent crimes.

Whilst we can sympathise with the sentiments of an outraged citizenrey, cold hard logic makes both lines of thought dubious in the extreme- did Timothy McVeigh's execution in June 2001 prevent the hijackers of 9/11 flying planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon three months later? Or (assuming the death penalty was still in force during the NI "Troubles" which it was thankfully not) would the prospect of the gallows have seemd more terrifying Bobby Sands ans his fellow hunger strikers in the Maze Prison back in 1981 than the prospect of starving themselves to death?

No, to quote the Duc d' Enghien's remark to Napoleon after the latter's execution of a political rival " sire , it was worse than a crime-it was a blunder!", the worst thing we can do with this "loser" is to give him the mantle of martyrdom by putting him on Death Row- far better to let him live out his misbegotten life in an obscure cell!

#1 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

Rotting in a cell forever is a great punishment. The problem is that people end up paying for it.

#2 Posted by TheNooseIsLoose (1900 posts) - - Show Bio

And?

#3 Posted by russellmania77 (15704 posts) - - Show Bio

thats our (if you live in the u.s.) tax payer money paying for murderers to sleep, eat and shower

#4 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

Then again, I don't really care. Do whatever with him.

#5 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

People need to move on from this, and the victims and their families need closure so go ahead and execute him. As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

#6 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (25672 posts) - - Show Bio

Rotting in a cell forever is a great punishment. The problem is that people end up paying for it.

#7 Edited by k4tzm4n (49886 posts) - - Show Bio

@paracelsus said:

From the simply absurd to the flat out crazy( Donald Trump tweets that Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber should be "waterboarded"- which inasmuch as "waterboarding" is considered a form of torture and has been correctly banned by Barack Obama upon assuming office says more about Trump than it does about Tsarnaev), a group of Republican senators want Tsrarnaev treated as an "enemy combatant"(whatever that means!) and tried by military tribunals, ignoring the fact that civilian federal courts have successfully tried and convicted more alleged terrorists since 9/11 than military commissions at "Gitmo" ever have, and now federal prosecutors want to seek the death penalty for him( Massachusetts has no death penalty).

Even allowing for the heinous crimes of which Tsarnaev is accused of, I will explain why this last move is an especially bad idea, given my society's experiences during the NI "Troubles".

The only justification that there can ever be for capital punishment is twofold- firstly deterrence and then retribution. In cases of terrorism, the idea that a man (or more rarely a woman) could pssibly be deterred from joining a terrorist group(be it the Provisional IRA or Al Qaeda) and taking part in its violent campaign(which obviously involves risk of life and if captured by authorities and convicted by courts, means years, possibly decades in prison, strikes me as ludicrous. Retribution( a polite euphemism for revenge) is even more problematic- we execute terrorists just to show our disgust and abhorrence of their violent crimes.

Whilst we can sympathise with the sentiments of an outraged citizenrey, cold hard logic makes both lines of thought dubious in the extreme- did Timothy McVeigh's execution in June 2001 prevent the hijackers of 9/11 flying planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon three months later? Or (assuming the death penalty was still in force during the NI "Troubles" which it was thankfully not) would the prospect of the gallows have seemd more terrifying Bobby Sands ans his fellow hunger strikers in the Maze Prison back in 1981 than the prospect of starving themselves to death?

No, to quote the Duc d' Enghien's remark to Napoleon after the latter's execution of a political rival " sire , it was worse than a crime-it was a blunder!", the worst thing we can do with this "loser" is to give him the mantle of martyrdom by putting him on Death Row- far better to let him live out his misbegotten life in an obscure cell!

"The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings will not be designated an enemy combatant, but will instead face criminal charges in civilian court, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday."

Per CNN.

Staff
#8 Posted by Chronus (1115 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

That's how all executions should be like. Dzhokar should be executed for his crimes.

#9 Posted by InnerSuperman (858 posts) - - Show Bio

What the hell is wrong with you people are you sick or something its wrong to kill somebody no matter what!

#10 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@chronus said:

@xanni15 said:

As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

That's how all executions should be like. Dzhokar should be executed for his crimes.

It is how they should be, but we all know with the endless system of appeals in this country it would never happen.

#11 Edited by Sideslash (5907 posts) - - Show Bio

That's the guy's name?
Huh. Just lock him up or whatever.

#12 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20387 posts) - - Show Bio

Just lock him up in a cell for the rest of his life. Mental torture is usually more painful than physical torture.

#13 Posted by GhostRider2 (3408 posts) - - Show Bio

Just lock him up in a cell for the rest of his life. Mental torture is usually more painful than physical torture.

I agree, he would go crazy anyway(if he doesn't go out).

#14 Edited by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd be fine with killing him...chances are if he gets locked up, he'll be killed in prison anyway. Either way he deserves it. Sure, killing is wrong but when it's ridding an evil I'm all for it.

Think of it from the perspective of the parents of that 8 year old...you know the one who this sob placed a bomb next to? I mean seriously, I can't see how people wouldn't want this guy dead...or how many people lost limbs that will never walk or be the same again?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. This guy deserves no mercy. I also love how this guy always blames republicans and not the libs for "outrageous articles" what about the fact that the libs on CNN were insisting that the "terrorist bomber was white and not apart of any terrorist group" haha, how'd that turn out? Too funny...

#15 Posted by dboyrules2011 (13960 posts) - - Show Bio

Rotting in a cell forever is a great punishment. The problem is that people end up paying for it.

#16 Posted by Mr_riddler (15734 posts) - - Show Bio

Blood for Blood, sounds fair.

#17 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

He killed three people including an 8 year old boy. And cost alot of people their limbs. Not to mention helping his brother kill a cop. I don't have a problem with them killing him.

#18 Edited by tupiaz (2230 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

@chronus said:

@xanni15 said:

As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

That's how all executions should be like. Dzhokar should be executed for his crimes.

It is how they should be, but we all know with the endless system of appeals in this country it would never happen.

Yeah because there is no reason for appeals right? Every person committed with death penalty has been guilty. No one has never innocently been killed by the death penalty. Killing is wrong and the best way to show it is to kill the killers.

Warning: This message may contain irony.

#19 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

@xanni15 said:

@chronus said:

@xanni15 said:

As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

That's how all executions should be like. Dzhokar should be executed for his crimes.

It is how they should be, but we all know with the endless system of appeals in this country it would never happen.

Yeah because there is no reason for appeals right? Every person committed with death penalty has been guilty. No one has never innocently been killed by the death penalty. Killing is wrong and the best way to show it is to kill the killers.

Warning: This message may contain irony.

It also contains assumptions.

Where did I say everyone is guilty? I'm glad you live in a fairy tale world where your morals are unbreakable, I'm sure the "bad guys" will play by the same rules. I don't think incarceration works, from a few articles I have read criminals released from prison are more likely to commit another crime. Prison system is WAY overcrowded. Do you want to pay for someone to live in a jail cell for their entire life? This is while others are starving in the world, homeless, no healthcare, etc.

#20 Posted by Pyrogram (41142 posts) - - Show Bio

What the hell is wrong with you people are you sick or something its wrong to kill somebody no matter what!

That statement alone, shows what is wrong with society and its social taboos. That statement alone. Right there.

#21 Edited by thespideyguy (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

We need to interrogate him first. He was a terrorist who attacked the greatest country in the world! I'm not going to pay my tax dollars so some foreigner can get butt-f*cked by a bigger, fat, terrorist.

#22 Posted by XIIXIIX (57 posts) - - Show Bio

donald trump is the biggest douche bag on the planet. everyone who's throwing out their opinions needs to relax, no one's going to listen to what you have to say anyway. I'm sure whoever it is in charge of handling this situation won't be going to the internet anytime soon for advice.

#23 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (8008 posts) - - Show Bio

Meh, put him to death. Put the Aurora shooter to death while you're at it also. You take someone's life, your life should be taken as well in return. Just how it is. Sitting in jail for life is a waste of tax payers dollars and not THAT BAD of a punishment, honestly.

#24 Edited by XIIXIIX (57 posts) - - Show Bio
#25 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (8008 posts) - - Show Bio
#26 Posted by tupiaz (2230 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

@tupiaz said:

@xanni15 said:

@chronus said:

@xanni15 said:

As long as it's quick, not a long drawn out process where this person is given more screen time, I'm fine with it.

That's how all executions should be like. Dzhokar should be executed for his crimes.

It is how they should be, but we all know with the endless system of appeals in this country it would never happen.

Yeah because there is no reason for appeals right? Every person committed with death penalty has been guilty. No one has never innocently been killed by the death penalty. Killing is wrong and the best way to show it is to kill the killers.

Warning: This message may contain irony.

It also contains assumptions.

Where did I say everyone is guilty? I'm glad you live in a fairy tale world where your morals are unbreakable, I'm sure the "bad guys" will play by the same rules. I don't think incarceration works, from a few articles I have read criminals released from prison are more likely to commit another crime. Prison system is WAY overcrowded. Do you want to pay for someone to live in a jail cell for their entire life? This is while others are starving in the world, homeless, no healthcare, etc.

Now I live in a country where we got about 55 killings per year with approximately 5.5 millons citizens. Now the maximum time you can spend in jail is life however most people get released after 16 years. IMO is is more important that people can live probably in the society rather than keeping people in jail or killing them. You should have morals because you believe it is the right thing to do, not if you expect to be treated good for it (that is just well thought egoism).

#27 Posted by Nefarious (21430 posts) - - Show Bio

It is time to move on.

#28 Posted by The Stegman (25166 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes! Another Capital Punishment debate! Just what I was hoping for!!

#29 Posted by Raw_Material (3298 posts) - - Show Bio

Is this all yahoo stuff right here?

But yea that seems like the most reasonable answer. Death Row would be the call for this kid.

#30 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

Now I live in a country where we got about 55 killings per year with approximately 5.5 millons citizens. Now the maximum time you can spend in jail is life however most people get released after 16 years. IMO is is more important that people can live probably in the society rather than keeping people in jail or killing them. You should have morals because you believe it is the right thing to do, not if you expect to be treated good for it (that is just well thought egoism).

I completely agree with everything you posted, but I just don't think the majority of people feel the same way. I would like nothing better than there to be no murders in the world but that's just not possible. I don't believe that everyone in jail is guilty, nor are all murderers deserving to the DP, this guy clearly is, though, and everyone needs ot move on from the entire event.

#31 Edited by russellmania77 (15704 posts) - - Show Bio

What the hell is wrong with you people are you sick or something its wrong to kill somebody no matter what!

i somewhat believe that, but then i think about the people who suffered, and the people that are inspired to bomb or kill people because of these men, but no, give em food and shelter and protection from everyone else

#32 Posted by deaditegonzo (3686 posts) - - Show Bio

Frankly, this guy will have a worse time in prison than I care to imagine. Execution may be merciful. Just because theyre convicts, doesnt mean they arent a bit patriotic.

#33 Posted by judasnixon (6704 posts) - - Show Bio

He Killed Bostoners....... Throwing him in a prison in Boston is a fate worse than death.

#34 Posted by Paracelsus (1730 posts) - - Show Bio

I might point out that to quote the late US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the beleif that it is cheaper to execute somebody rather than sentence them to life imprisonment(without parole) is an absurdity- the average cost of a capital trial is up to two MILLION dollars-more than twice than what it would be to look after them if simply sentenced to life imprisonment(see my previous post about Maryland's decision to abolish its death penalty)!

#35 Edited by Cassidy_ORourke (201 posts) - - Show Bio

Death's too good for him.

#36 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

Rotting in a cell forever is a great punishment. The problem is that people end up paying for it.

It's a much larger waste of our money having so many people in jail that shouldn't be there on drug related charges. Realistically to lock one man up for-ever isn't a lot of money of my wallet.

#37 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123 said:

Rotting in a cell forever is a great punishment. The problem is that people end up paying for it.

It's a much larger waste of our money having so many people in jail that shouldn't be there on drug related charges. Realistically to lock one man up for-ever isn't a lot of money of my wallet.

Yeah, I realized my post was probably ill-informed right after I made it, so I was all like:

Then again, I don't really care. Do whatever with him.

#38 Edited by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub (5156 posts) - - Show Bio

This kid deserves to die. He killed 3 people, one who was a little boy not too mention the hundreds of others injured some of their lives ruined. I grew up with a girl that was at the marathon, she lost her leg. I'd happily put a bullet through his skull if it was my child that he killed.

#39 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

Retribution murder is still murder. Publicly sanctioned murder is still murder. The death penalty is still murder when carried out - a legally allowed murder. Every time someone is murdered under the death penalty, it makes those citizens within that jurisdiction murderers themselves -- or at the very least, accessory to murder.

#40 Posted by Or35ti (1101 posts) - - Show Bio

Guys capitol punishment costs a lot more than keeping criminals in prison does. Just putting that out there for whoever supports the "waste of tax payer's money" argument.

#41 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Good. Run him over with a police car, so as to avoid any further cost to the taxpayer.

#42 Posted by Pyrogram (41142 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

Retribution murder is still murder. Publicly sanctioned murder is still murder. The death penalty is still murder when carried out - a legally allowed murder. Every time someone is murdered under the death penalty, it makes those citizens within that jurisdiction murderers themselves -- or at the very least, accessory to murder.

I never asked you, like ever. You against the Death Penalty?

#43 Posted by God_Spawn (38138 posts) - - Show Bio

Eye for an eye. Tooth for tooth. Blood for blood.

Moderator
#44 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (18965 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes! Another Capital Punishment debate! Just what I was hoping for!!

let's sit back and enjoy :D

popcorn?

#45 Posted by Lvenger (20864 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

Retribution murder is still murder. Publicly sanctioned murder is still murder. The death penalty is still murder when carried out - a legally allowed murder. Every time someone is murdered under the death penalty, it makes those citizens within that jurisdiction murderers themselves -- or at the very least, accessory to murder.

#46 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis said:

Retribution murder is still murder. Publicly sanctioned murder is still murder. The death penalty is still murder when carried out - a legally allowed murder. Every time someone is murdered under the death penalty, it makes those citizens within that jurisdiction murderers themselves -- or at the very least, accessory to murder.

I never asked you, like ever. You against the Death Penalty?

I am against murder. If that means I am against the death penalty, then so be it.

#47 Posted by Pyrogram (41142 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

I am personally not against it to an extent.

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Definition wise...Murder is not the death penalty.

#48 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis:

I am personally not against it to an extent.

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Definition wise...Murder is not the death penalty.

Death penalty is murder.

#49 Edited by Pyrogram (41142 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

By Definition you are wrong...but...I know what you mean. However, I do not think it is always wrong, if we have a convicted terror suspect who is guilty beyond all doubt - lets say we found a participate in the 9/11 terror attacks, he was 100% guilty, He had helped cause the death of thousands, Does he deserve to have tax-payers money wasted on him?

But then we have the other side of the spectrum, What about the people are are NOT 100% guilty, what about flaws in the system etc...

Personally I am glad we do not have that penalty in the UK.

#50 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis:

By Definition you are wrong...but...I know what you mean. However, I do not think it is always wrong, if we have a convicted terror suspect who is guilty beyond all doubt - lets say we found a participate in the 9/11 terror attacks, he was 100% guilty, He had helped cause the death of thousands, Does he deserve to have tax-payers money wasted on him?

But then we have the other side of the spectrum, What about the people are are NOT 100% guilty, what about flaws in the system etc...

Personally I am glad we do not have that penalty in the UK.

Well -- I go by the definition in the Criminal Code of Canada (229) that defines murder as such:

"The person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;"

It goes on to describe murder being applicable still should the person kill another person while attempting to kill another but that isn't relevant here. So the death penalty fits the criteria of murder or culpable homicide.

Arguments about tax dollars being wasted on murders has been proven to be wrong. It costs much more to put someone on death row. (see above post by the OP who mentioned it).