Boston Bomber found guilty

[LexusInfernus 908]

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.

You make them do work for which you either severely underpay or simply not pay them at all. Thats still slavery. As for it being forced, when the choice is sitting staring at a wall and going crazy or doing menial work, then thats about as much choice as putting a gun to someones head and say they can choose between a bullet in the brain or work. 

 

As for Breivik, he is bothering his lawyers not because he is bored but because he is attention starved. He wants people to pay more attention to him so he acts out, hopes to get a rise out of people. He is literally trying to troll Norway. And no, Breivik or mass murderers like him are probably never getting out of jail, even in a system that is designed to rehabilitate. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Work for prisoners?  Sure why not.  Low pay?  Well, if you consider that fact that for them all necessaries are found right down to clothing, is it really low pay?  If the prison has a canteen, and many do, then a little cash to purchase things can be earned.  You could consider this instilling the work ethic as part of the rehabilitation process.

 

However, let us not forget that a prison is essentially a university of crime.  It is full of expert criminals who happily will pass on their knowledge to anyone who will listen.  The general population of a prison is not a bunch of thugs, but a place of incarceration for some of the brightest people in the country, except they got caught (not too bright, eh?).  Many who enter prison for a relatively long sentence can be released with a doctorate in armed robbery, or safe cracking.

[Duke87 1,070]

The trouble with using prisoners as cheap labor is it creates a perverse incentive to send more people to prison so you have more cheap labor. Prisons SHOULD be a huge resource drain - this way we have incentive to minimize how many people we put in them.

As for the psychopathic waste of protoplasm at hand here, I favor disposing of him in whatever way is ultimately cheapest. Given the arduousness of the death row process and the inability to fast track it, life in prison would likely cost less. So go with that.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Work for prisoners?  Sure why not.  Low pay?  Well, if you consider that fact that for them all necessaries are found right down to clothing, is it really low pay?  If the prison has a canteen, and many do, then a little cash to purchase things can be earned.  You could consider this instilling the work ethic as part of the rehabilitation process.

I very much doubt that working hard labor for next to no pay that you need spend in order to get a bit of extra food in the cantina every day is going to instill a work ethic. If anything it would be an incentive for me to find shortcuts, many of which would not be legal. And I would double my efforts on not getting caught while taking those short cuts. 

 

Also, even if you do somehow get out with a good legal work ethic, the fact that you went to prison and therefor can never get a well paying job afterwards sort of cancels out the benefit of having that work ethic. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^I very much doubt that 'hard' labour is the case.  They day of rock-busting chain gangs is over.  Prison work might go so far as making license plates using metal stamping equipment, but I hardly think that it would be basket weaving either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Jury decides on death.

 

Perhaps the best result.  Now if 20 years of imprisonment can be avoided while they slog through the appeals process, it might be over soon.  Whether this is exemplary is another story.

[Meg 368]

As for the psychopathic waste of protoplasm at hand here, I favor disposing of him in whatever way is ultimately cheapest. Given the arduousness of the death row process and the inability to fast track it, life in prison would likely cost less. So go with that.

 

I agree.   However, they have sentenced him to death.

 

I can't figure out if they are inappropriately going easy on him or being appropriately merciful.

 

The family of the dead boy wanted life without the possibility of parole so they wouldn't have to be dragged through it again during each appeal.    I would have gone with their wishes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The whole appeals process for prisoners sentenced to death is a kind of living death or death by inches.  I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to keep putting it off.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Guys like this are the reason why we need the death penalty.  Strap a pipe bomb to him and let it blow.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Punishment serves only one logical utilitarian function, to deter would be criminals.

Joy in vengeance and finding subhumans to torture is a violent version of sexual desire or appetite. Entirely subjective, biased, and emotional.

Killing criminals who can not be trusted to live by the law is as logical as weeding your vegetable garden. Nobody wants to devote fields to growing useless weeds.

Death, especially through modern methods, is not only more himane but more logical and way less costly than life imprisonment.

Imagine if a large amount of people started comitting deathworthy crimes yet had to be given cells for their existence. Wasteful.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Unfortunely the appeals process in the U.S. is nothing more than torture at the mental level.  The prisoner has a better chance of dying of old age than being executed.  If Americans don't trust their jury system, why do they bother?

[Hellken 1,658]

Unfortunely the appeals process in the U.S. is nothing more than torture at the mental level.  The prisoner has a better chance of dying of old age than being executed.  If Americans don't trust their jury system, why do they bother?

 

Right. Here is an interesting statistic.

 

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Likely Won’t Face Execution For A Very Long Time

 

Tsernaev is 21 years old now. If he is executed, some lowlifes will treat him as a martyr. I do think they should imprison him for life in solitary confinement and let him die of old age. Lock him up in a hole. Throw away the key. Drop a sandwich and water bottle and some toilet paper and a new prison jumpsuit every now and then. Make sure his only companion for life is a child rapist or similar and ban all contact with the outside world. That will be far worse than death. The world will forget about him eventually while he rots in solitary confinement.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Mass murderers of all sorts who are guilty and proven to be guilty should not be able to file appeals for themselves, however, if new evidence is found and a third party (such as their lawyers) would like to appeal (and it is not too late), then appeals should be allowed. A life sentence with no possibility of parole or appeals of any sort is a much more logical decision than a death sentence with the possibility of appeals.

 

I think that the death penalty should be reserved for guilty mass murderers where they have confessed to at least 1 death and were convicted of at least 1 case of Murder 1. All other cases should be life imprisonment. On the topic of Breivik, Norway went far too easy on him and I will not be surprised if they experience more murders in the future (whether they are copycats or not).

 

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Who is the worst murderer:  Who kills his fellow man; or Who kills freedom?

 

Until the state is capable of creating life, it has no business taking it.

[Hellken 1,658]

Until the state is capable of creating life, it has no business taking it.

 

Under certain circumstances, I would argue that death penalty would be permissible on certain individuals whose existence is a threat to people's safety or whose crimes are so grave such that if they ever escaped, the costs would be so devastating to society. For instance, I do think that many captured terrorist leaders should be executed ASAP to prevent their comrades from attempting hostage takings to demand their release (see flight PK 326 among others).

 

As for Tsernaev, life imprisonment may be a far better punishment. He's getting the "rock star" treatment by some (remember this?) already. If he is allowed to appeal his death sentence, we will see him in the news for years. Better to make his life miserable by locking him up, throwing away the key, thereby stopping any more publicity. In time, the world will forget about him while he rots away in solitary confinement.

[Titanicbuff 1,262]

heres the way he should die- put him in a room with several false bombs- and 1 real one- made the same way he made them. then make his sweat it out wondering when the real bomb will go off- Now thats justice.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Who is the worst murderer:  Who kills his fellow man; or Who kills freedom?

 

Until the state is capable of creating life, it has no business taking it.

 

 

So you're fine with allowing child rapists/murderers and those who cowardly bomb innocent civilians to live when they forfeited that right by their actions?  At least I know where you stand now.

[hym 358]

Let's remember to discuss the issues, not each other.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Let's remember to discuss the issues, not each other.

 

Not referring to me are you?

[AkemiAzula 280]

Sometimes one wonders why the proponents of life sentences and 'prison justice' don't give up pretending to be Batman and just join the Joker. If you have such excessive desire to torture why restrict it to criminals?

If you wish to kill a weed growing in a garden then you choose the quickest simplest method. Harsh punishment may deter would be weeds but possibly we should consider that weeds only thrive in the first place if the soil is not tended to.

We kill life all the time. I had a chicken sandwich for lunch. Are we seriously saying that a rapist or madman shooter is better than a chicken or a cow? The problem with fanatic criminals is they believe in a supernatural adjudicator. They aren't detered by mortal punishments.

Given that few of us will become terrorists, the deterrent factor in defending cruel punishment is somewhat negated. And of course one doesn't have to spend much time or enter the realm of racks and dungeons to deter someone. A fine for instance deters us from breaking laws.

The lust for blood people have for criminals is hardly honorable. And if death sentences were carried out efficiently without all this judicial nonsense we would have less taxpayers money going down the oubliette.

[APSMS 1,892]

The problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the judicial system. Tsernaev (?) is guilty, I'm pretty sure of that, but there are many other instances where I am not so sure, and I don't think that the public is so sure either. Given the tendency of the current US (and I'm sure the EU system isn't much better) towards bribery and kickbacks, justice is highly unlikely, and thus even though I support the death penalty in principal (certain actions are indeed worthy of death), I distrust the executor, and therefore would prefer a different system that puts less strain on the taxpayer and focuses more on rehabilitation than punishment. We lack a modern day umim and thumim, and forensics is no use if the men in charge of the trial are crooked. Until we come up with a better system, I cannot advocate the death penalty.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 (and I'm sure the EU system isn't much better)

Eh, just wanna point out that there isn't an 'EU system' when it comes to criminal justice. All member states have got their own system with their own checks and balances and weaknesses. Otherwise I agree with everything else you said. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The problem with death penalties is they are not immediate for fear of a wrongful conviction.  The justice system is not at all sure of itself.  Considering the fact that D.A.s are elected and not selected and often go for a conviction despite the facts or the weakenss of the case is a good reason to overhaul the whole system.  The courts must be apolitical, period!

[jmsepe 2,038]

That's because death penalty these days have gone soft. It's not a matter of nature of the execution but the implementation of whole bonanza itself from the moment one is to be hanged and its after effects. In earlier ages, death penalty does not end with death but even a posthumous abasement of your human dignity by either putting your head up on public display like a jewel in the museum or putting your death itself the main show of the town. Nowadays, who would fear death penalty if they know it takes year before you get to fulfill your sentence? Plus, people rarely get to witness the thing itself such is why they only fear for their life when they are already on the courtrooms rather than in the outside world. 

[JP Schriefer 5,590]

I do not agree with the death-penalty. Life imprisonment would be better.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Our civilization has reached the point where any life is precious, even that of the worst miscreant.  Many would consider this attitude decadent and ln light of some cultures they'd be right.

 

In the case of the Boston bomber, the evidence of guilt is incontrovertable.  Whether this young man (a callow youth at the time) truly deserves death because he was led astray by an elder is moot IMHO. 

 

In medieval times, he wouldn't have even had the luxury of a trial.  Some noble holding the high justice would have looked at the evidence and sent him to God for judgement.  Courts in those days were for things like property and marriage disputes mostly.  The high justice holders simply dispatched such criminals to have their cases disposed by St. Peter.  Whether they were truly guilty or not was left to God.

 

Of course modern thought and legal obfuscations have now arrogated such powers to the state as a whole.  And if they get it wrong, well then let the Almighty reward the innocent and punish the guilty.  There is a fly in this ointment, however.  If you are a true Christian you know that Hell is closed.  If you believe in the Resurrection of the Christ, his purpose in dying (for our sins) was to descend into Hell and put it out of business.  Every churh bell tells the tale "No Hell...No Hell".

 

Now if you think about it, even if you are a convinced atheist, there is really no point in killing people who have transgressed unless you can show they are beyond rehabilitation.  Certainly keeping them in prison until they die is as much of a death sentence (very expensive for the state) as whipping off the person's head.  The only difference is the cost to the state.

 

As for the sophisticated screwing around with this and that drug cocktail, why bother?  If you are going to kill a prisoner by lethal injection you could optionally sedate him then give him a nice shot of Prussic Acid.  No fuss, no bother, just a corpse.  Cheap  and fast.  You just deprive every cell in his body of the ability to continue.

[APSMS 1,892]

@LexusInfernus:

You're right of course. My generalization was a poor one, and done only because I have no idea how the individual EU states handle trials (I was aware it was all different). I am sure that similar levels of corruption occur in these systems, but forgive my poor oversimplification.

 

In medieval times, he wouldn't have even had the luxury of a trial.  Some noble holding the high justice would have looked at the evidence and sent him to God for judgement.  Courts in those days were for things like property and marriage disputes mostly.  The high justice holders simply dispatched such criminals to have their cases disposed by St. Peter.  Whether they were truly guilty or not was left to God.

 

The problem with this of course, is that governments don't seem to be allowed to believe in God anymore (make of that what you will). Judgment by St. Peter is no longer a "guarantee" for modern courts, and indeed I think very few justice officials of olden days ever doubted the guilt of the condemned. If they had, death would not have been strongly considered because then it would be murder and the guilt on their hands for shedding innocent blood. Pontius Pilate comes to mind.
 

Of course modern thought and legal obfuscations have now arrogated such powers to the state as a whole.  And if they get it wrong, well then let the Almighty reward the innocent and punish the guilty.  There is a fly in this ointment, however.  If you are a true Christian you know that Hell is closed.  If you believe in the Resurrection of the Christ, his purpose in dying (for our sins) was to descend into Hell and put it out of business.  Every churh bell tells the tale "No Hell...No Hell".

Methinks you need to stop listening to televangelists and mainstream media when you discuss Christianity, and crack open a Bible. No offense meant here, but there is a reason the OT is there and 3 times the length of the NT. It is not just for filler and convenient reading, and as someone that doesn't believe in a literal hell (death is death, not eternal torment in flames IMO, and it doesn't ever say explicitly that the dead go to Hell, but it does say that they know nothing--I'm getting off topic) I still find that comment completely off base because it completely fails to understand the whole argument.

 

You don't have to believe in the Christian message to understand what it is saying, but suggesting that you do understand in statements like these is a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
 

Now if you think about it, even if you are a convinced atheist, there is really no point in killing people who have transgressed unless you can show they are beyond rehabilitation.  Certainly keeping them in prison until they die is as much of a death sentence (very expensive for the state) as whipping off the person's head.  The only difference is the cost to the state.

Rehabilitation outside of state correctional facilities should be a primary goal, as prisons have demonstrated that they produce more criminals than go in (petty criminals come out hardened instead of reformed typically). After that, I still have no faith in the justice system, and an atheist has no final reckoning, so death really should be the last alternative if you can't guarantee someone's guilt.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I happen to have a KJ Bible, and I don't much care for the newer translations because there seems to be an even more twisted agenda as each new edition comes out.  As far as the Old Testament is concerned, it is no more than commentary after the appearance of the Christ unless you care to deny Him.  All those old rules were made for biblical times, and the New Testament, notwithstanding some of the interpretation in the Acts, is pretty clear.  Of course this is a matter of faith, so I don't profess to lead anyone into temptation.

 

At best I am agnostic and at worst a professed athiest.