Boston Bomber found guilty

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Guilty on all counts.

 

Jury to decide sentence.

[CapTon 592]

Give me justice and give him death.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Considering his age, life imprisonment with no chance of parole would be more like it.  Death is too easy.

[MushyMushy 3,617]

Considering his age, life imprisonment with no chance of parole would be more like it.  Death is too easy.

 

I agree with you about that.

 

I frequently am confused as to why people think the death sentence is worse than life without parole. I'd rather be dead than serving a life sentence in an unpleasant place like a prison. Besides, if the crime is heinous enough (like this one, for example), other prisoners tend to not take to kindly to the perpetrator. 

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

 

Considering his age, life imprisonment with no chance of parole would be more like it.  Death is too easy.

 

I agree with you about that.

 

I frequently am confused as to why people think the death sentence is worse than life without parole. I'd rather be dead than serving a life sentence in an unpleasant place like a prison. Besides, if the crime is heinous enough (like this one, for example), other prisoners tend to not take to kindly to the perpetrator. 

 

 

Well it's not supposed to work this way.  That would make prison cruel and unusual punishment, and the death penalty more humane.  The opposite of what most people would argue.

 

Norway of course fixes this problem by giving imprisoned serial killers a better quality of life than most free citizens enjoy around the world.

 

Tsarnaev probably won't be executed because most Massachusetts citizens oppose the practice.  However 17 of his 30 convictions allow the sentence.

[CapTon 592]

This may sound harsh and inhumane, but I wish they would strap him to a chair in a room and set a ticking bomb next to him. Either that or torture him to death. It may be cruel, but it should be known that domestic terrorism isn't tolerated. Of course, however, Obama could care less about what's right for the country.

[Mister Giggles 310]

I am opposed to the death penalty in 100% of cases. Yes, even with this douche.

 

It's not because I'm morally against putting folks like Tsarnaev to death. Oh no, he deserves to be executed; he consciously, willfully, and eagerly engaged in behavior he knew could and would end lives and maim others.

 

My opposition comes due to the costs. It'll cost millions more via appeals before he's dead if he's sentenced to die, and frankly that money can be better spent anywhere else. Mere state-sanctioned vengeance does not move me to spend my tax-payer dollars on ending someone's life, even if the person in question very strongly deserves that vengeance.

 

My more general opposition to the death penalty is the fact, in the United States, we've executed possibly innocent people and have sentenced innocent people to death. Unlike the justice system which we must have, which by its very nature allows innocent people to be convicted wrongly in certain circumstances, there is no reason to sentence someone to death when an innocent person could ever possibly be sentenced to death. It's more costly, and more so, it's pretty hard to release an executed innocent person from prison.

 

There are additional problems to consider when viewing the matter through a prism of the society's morals. Let's say in 20 years we no longer believe the death penalty in any form is acceptable. You can't bring the people you've already killed back from the dead.

 

Lastly, the death penalty fails to do the number one thing I believe it should do best: Deterrence. Back when you could try, convict, and have a horse thief hanging from a noose in a relatively short period of time, this argument had some merit. These days with it taking a decade or more to get to the whole "killing them" part of the death sentence (AS IT SHOULD!), the effects of the punishment are little felt as they are so far removed from the initial crime.

 

Edit: Clarifying.

 

Edit 2: More clarifying because why not.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

This was inevitable.

[Mister Giggles 310]

This was inevitable.

 

His lawyer faced something of an uphill battle, yes.

[CapTon 592]

 

My more general opposition to the death penalty is the fact, in the United States, we've executed possibly innocent people and have sentenced innocent people to death. Unlike the justice system in general, which by its very nature allows innocent people to be convicted wrongly in certain circumstances, there is no reason to sentence someone to death when an innocent person could ever possibly be sentenced to death. It's more costly, and more so, it's pretty hard to release an executed innocent person from prison.

That's kind of like saying we shouldn't arrest anyone because they might be innocent. We can't rule out a form of punishment simply because innocent people may have been executed. It's tragic, but the justice system and the government can't surround themselves around the "what-ifs". If our constitution was like that, we'd be living in a totalitarian state.

[Easy Bakes 253]

he has a name?

[Mister Giggles 310]

 

 

My more general opposition to the death penalty is the fact, in the United States, we've executed possibly innocent people and have sentenced innocent people to death. Unlike the justice system in general, which by its very nature allows innocent people to be convicted wrongly in certain circumstances, there is no reason to sentence someone to death when an innocent person could ever possibly be sentenced to death. It's more costly, and more so, it's pretty hard to release an executed innocent person from prison.

That's kind of like saying we shouldn't arrest anyone because they might be innocent. We can't rule out a form of punishment simply because innocent people may have been executed. It's tragic, but the justice system and the government can't surround themselves around the "what-ifs". If our constitution was like that, we'd be living in a totalitarian state.

 

 

...right. Did you read the articles I linked to?

[CapTon 592]

 

 

 

My more general opposition to the death penalty is the fact, in the United States, we've executed possibly innocent people and have sentenced innocent people to death. Unlike the justice system in general, which by its very nature allows innocent people to be convicted wrongly in certain circumstances, there is no reason to sentence someone to death when an innocent person could ever possibly be sentenced to death. It's more costly, and more so, it's pretty hard to release an executed innocent person from prison.

That's kind of like saying we shouldn't arrest anyone because they might be innocent. We can't rule out a form of punishment simply because innocent people may have been executed. It's tragic, but the justice system and the government can't surround themselves around the "what-ifs". If our constitution was like that, we'd be living in a totalitarian state.

 

 

...right. Did you read the articles I linked to?

 

I did look around at them, yeah. From what I saw in your post, you were saying the opposite of what I was saying. Unless I'm mistaken?

[LexusInfernus 908]

This may sound harsh and inhumane, but I wish they would strap him to a chair in a room and set a ticking bomb next to him. Either that or torture him to death. It may be cruel, but it should be known that domestic terrorism isn't tolerated. Of course, however, Obama could care less about what's right for the country.

I very much doubt that lowering yourself to the level usually inhabited by such enlightened rulers like Assad or Kim Jung Un is 'whats right for the country'. 

 

Not to mention that the justice system is not supposed to be concerned about what is good for the country. The law is not designed to give people the justification to torture people simply because that fills some base desire. It exist to grant protection to citizens, all citizens, from arbitrary punishments. You know, exactly the kind of thing that is not happening in countries like Syria or North Korea, where the kind of punishment you receive depends entirely on the whims of whoever is looking at your case. 

 

That's kind of like saying we shouldn't arrest anyone because they might be innocent. We can't rule out a form of punishment simply because innocent people may have been executed. It's tragic, but the justice system and the government can't surround themselves around the "what-ifs". If our constitution was like that, we'd be living in a totalitarian state.

Actually what you are suggesting, brutal punishment for everyone, tough luck for any innocents caught up in it, is exactly what happens in totalitarian states. It are the enlightened states, where the rule of law is respected, that concern themselves with such things as 'what ifs'. Why do you think that one of the most important principles in Western criminal law is 'Presumed innocent unless proven guilty'? 

 

And actually, the American constitution is entirely designed around 'what ifs'. What if the President tries to become an absolute ruler? Well, thats where we got checks and balances. What if the person we suspect of committing a crime is innocent? Thats why there is a clause that bans any cruel and unusual punishments. What if the President or Congress want to bend the laws for political purposes? Thats why the judiciary is an independent branch, so they don't have to concern themselves with political motives, only with what the laws say. The entire constitution is a document designed to counter the corrosive influence of power and ensure that the 'what if' worst case scenario cannot happen so easily. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

Exactly what does Obama have to do with this?  Geesh I don't like the guy either but he has no bearing on this discussion or 99% of things he's invoked in for that matter.  I swear people in this country WANT a despot with an overblown cult of personality - and you'll (not we'll) get it eventually.

 

I'm torn, I guess.  While I do enjoy biblical levels of vengeance (they don't execute people like they used to!) but on the other hand this guy deserves to rot and be forgotten in the basement of a Turkish dungeon.  So I think I'm with Mister Giggles here, this low-life sack of redundant DNA doesn't deserve any more than the bare minimum possible attention and expense.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Fortunately for him, our civilization has eschewed the use of the oubliette.  For those who don't know this term, it is a hole or cavern in the earth with no way out into which you toss a prisoner, then forget him.  No light, no food, no water.  The other similar punishment is immurement.  An example of this can be found in the last act of Verdi's Aïda where Rhâdames gets walled up in the temple of Ptah.

 

But seriously, I am against the death penalty simply because it is against the current mores.  If you can't create life, you've no business terminating it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Ugh, what is it with people all clamoring for all kinds of horrible punishments for everything. Yeah, of course, this guy is a terrorist and should be punished. However, no matter what he did, he is still a human being, never forget that. And being a human being should entitle you to some basic level of decent treatment and respect. 

 

He may not have considered his victims human beings, or understood/cared about what that entails, but that doesn't give us leave to conveniently forget about it as well. I find all this dehumanization of everyone who ever did something bad highly disturbing. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, sentence notwithstanding, if he was in the Canadian correction system he could wind up with a high education qualification in almost any discipline.  Usually, all courses at the nearest university are available to long term prisoners, so he could even wind up with an LL.D.

[Mister Giggles 310]

 

I did look around at them, yeah. From what I saw in your post, you were saying the opposite of what I was saying. Unless I'm mistaken?

 

 

What is your reasoning for believing in harsh executions when faced with facts suggesting it is, in the least, an inefficient way of going about things?

 

Ugh, what is it with people all clamoring for all kinds of horrible punishments for everything. Yeah, of course, this guy is a terrorist and should be punished. However, no matter what he did, he is still a human being, never forget that. And being a human being should entitle you to some basic level of decent treatment and respect. 

 

He may not have considered his victims human beings, or understood/cared about what that entails, but that doesn't give us leave to conveniently forget about it as well. I find all this dehumanization of everyone who ever did something bad highly disturbing. 

 

It's human nature to dehumanize others we view as not conforming to the morals of the society. We don't like considering that the mass murderer was born, just like we, had a loving family, just like we, and grew up deciding murdering a bunch of people was a jolly good things to do. We try to separate ourselves from the fact he's just another human by trying to remove the human from him.

 

Worse, it goes beyond the extreme evil of murder. Depending on the society, gays and minorities get it just as badly.

 

A bit of a read of the manner, explaining the phenomena of dehumanization: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization

 

It becomes quite easy to recommend the worst kinds of suffering when you've removed the man from the beast.

[hym 358]

One of the things I find difficult to understand is how people can be against the death penalty because it is inhumane, but be for life imprisonmentioned because it is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.

[CapTon 592]

Well I've been raised and told that committing crimes is wrong and that in doing so, you should be punished. The severity would vary depending on the situation. I get so angry when terrorists take hundreds of lives and they get life in prison or something like that. There's almost something like a void that needs to be filled in my heart when it comes to that, and that's usually execution of the same way that person killed others. I shouldn't have brought politics into something like my own opinion.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I see that as sort of a biblical sense of revenge; an eye for an eye.  While I don't personally have any reservations with it, I think you do have to get past the raw emotion of it and realize there are other factors to consider.  The first ones I can think of are public expense and attention and notoriety that the perpetrator receives.  Often it seems the latter is the motive and execution tends to satisfy it.  And quite often death is also what they want.

 

To that end I think the ideal is the oubliette Nonny mentions.  Throw someone in a hole and forget about them.  Cheap and easy; no muss no fuss.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

One of the things I find difficult to understand is how people can be against the death penalty because it is inhumane, but be for life imprisonmentioned because it is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.

It becomes a matter of perspective.  If the state kills someone, who is the killer?  In our society of government of the people, each and every citizen must bear the guilt of committing murder.  On the other hand, if we stash the convict in a safe place for life, we always have the chance, while he lives, to find out we've made a mistake.  The medieval practice of sending suspects to God for judgement doesn't work in a modern society, especially with the separation of the church and state.  Then, of course, there is the possibility that there is no God.

 

Well I've been raised and told that committing crimes is wrong and that in doing so, you should be punished. The severity would vary depending on the situation. I get so angry when terrorists take hundreds of lives and they get life in prison or something like that. There's almost something like a void that needs to be filled in my heart when it comes to that, and that's usually execution of the same way that person killed others. I shouldn't have brought politics into something like my own opinion.

The problem of "an eye for an eye" is that soon everyone will be blind.

 

As you get older, you'll find you care less and less about what happens to individual miscreants.

 

The problem with the oubliette is that the person will die fairly soon of personal want.  The squeaky wheels in our society would be most offended, but most of them are also candidates for this punishment.

 

"I've got a little list

"I've got a little list

"Of society offenders who'd be better underground.

"I've got a little list

"And they never would be missed.

"They ... nev..er....would..be..missed."

-- Paraphrased from the Mikado's song in (what else) the Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It becomes quite easy to recommend the worst kinds of suffering when you've removed the man from the beast.

 

Which is why it is so disturbing to me. We should be trying to move past that, rather than indulge in it. We have seen the horrors that dehumanization has created in the past, we should have learned how dangerous it is to keep around. 

 

One of the things I find difficult to understand is how people can be against the death penalty because it is inhumane, but be for life imprisonmentioned because it is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.

As I find it there are two kinds of people against the death penalty. There are people that are against it because they believe that life in prison is worse than death and are in favor of it because essentially they see it as the more cruel, brutal way of punishing people. The second kind of people against it are the ones that are against it on moral grounds, pointing out that state sanctioned executions are done in the name of the people, essentially making every citizen complicit in the process. They also point to the fact that a lot of innocent people are executed and that its often done in an exceedingly incompetent manner. Also, while they are in prison for life, hope remains that they might be set free for various reasons. Furthermore, the fact that life in prison is cruel is only because the American prison system is horrible. But prison conditions can be changed, improved, while death is absolute and permanent. 

[Nesral Sredna 62]

Uhm, since Indiana Joe brought Norway and Breivik into this topic...

 

Yes, Norwegian inmates are in general allowed tv, with limited channels and a Playstation 2. The thought is that its better for the inmates to be occupied with something, than to go insane and violent. Less violence means safer/less expensive prisons. Of course, in a mostly privatized prison system it is in it's interest to keep the inmates as aggressive and uncontrollable as possible, as you can't afford to loose potential revenue from rehabilitated prisoners.... /sarcasm

 

Of course, mass killer Breivik will never be able to return to society and thus has more restrictions than unisolated inmates. Only media listens to his unjustified complaints over these... 

 

Anyway, if society can't afford something bought from flea markets, I think it says more about social economy rather than imprisoned's regulated benefits.... 

Just my thoughts.

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Well I could counter-argue that if TVs and Playstations are considered basic human rights, that says something about a country too...

 

The only entertainment I'd give him is a menial job.  He can assemble stuff or sit doing nothing.  I wouldn't let him play video games all day.  How does that make his life any more constricted than teenagers that spend all day in their rooms?

 

Sure society is protected from him, but where's the "just" in "justice"?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Now, doesn't it depend on what 'games' are available?  And there is surely not an Internet connection.

[Duke87 1,070]

Jury to decide sentence.

 

Now this caught my attention. Normally it is the judge that decides the sentence.

 

But apparently judges are not allowed to impose the death penalty, so the jury decides the sentence in cases where it is an option. Huh. Well I learned something.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well I could counter-argue that if TVs and Playstations are considered basic human rights, that says something about a country too...

 

The only entertainment I'd give him is a menial job.  He can assemble stuff or sit doing nothing.  I wouldn't let him play video games all day.  How does that make his life any more constricted than teenagers that spend all day in their rooms?

 

Sure society is protected from him, but where's the "just" in "justice"?

Where is the 'just' in slavery? Because thats what you are suggesting. Forced labor is slavery, even if the slaves are convicted criminals. 

 

Also, you have to understand that the Norwegian model is fundamentally different from the US model. The US model of justice is little more than retribution, punishment for punishments sake. It is not intended to be humane, nor is the prisoner intended to learn from his mistakes. The Norwegian model is focused on 'fixing' people. Its punishment is designed around rehabilitation so that once prisoners are free again, they can become functional citizens. Now this might not seem like punishment to an American, because inside the prisons the prisoners have more luxuries than in American prisons, and this too highlights a fundamental difference between Norwegians and Americans. Where Norwegians actually value freedom, and the punishment aspect of Norwegian prisons is the fact that freedom is taken away from prisoners, Americans are wholly materialistic. While they pay constant lip service to the idea of freedom, what Americans really care about is materialism. The punishment in America is not so much that prisoners lose their freedom, its that they lose their access to 'stuff'. Getting locked inside a controlled environment, one which I cannot leave is perfectly acceptable as long as you can watch basic cable and play games. 

 

It should be noted though that letting prisoners watch tv and play games serves another purpose though. It prevents boredom, and that in turn prevents prisoners from thinking to much about escaping or rioting. Its a pretty smart and very cheap security feature, probably more effective than having a small army of guards, manning dozens of checkpoints and reinforced gates. 

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Never ever did I say it had to be forced labor.

 

He can assemble stuff or sit doing nothing.

 

 

Optional work.  No one would have to do it if they don't want to.  But the alternative would be to sit staring at walls.  The boredom would influence them to do the only activities available, on their own time.  And then the prison system turns into a productive manufacturing institution.  The kind of work that educated citizens don't want to do because it doesn't pay well, but is necessary.

 

The American prison system is messed up because it's overcrowded and underfunded.  Never said it was a model I approve of.  But how is the argument that Americans are materialistic because we don't give our prisoners video games not a little hypocritical?  It's obviously not preventing Breivik's boredom if he is bothering his lawyers for all these changes.

 

The rehabilitation part makes sense up to a certain point, but for mass murderers?  Are you saying that if in 30 years this guy renounced everything he did and had a history of good behavior you'd approve of his release?

 

Giving prisoners something to do is absolutely a great idea, but video games is not the correct answer.