Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

[Archimedes]

Good idea. Justice systems that do things like drag people round the back of the courthouse and immediately execute them upon being found guilty strongly correlate with the kind of societies I want to live in.

Oh the drama !

Yes. Thinking that an appeals should be in place is dramatic. Pointing out that summary executions immediately after a confession or trial is the thing that the worst regimes do is dramatic.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh the drama !

Yes. Thinking that an appeals should be in place is dramatic. Pointing out that summary executions immediately after a confession or trial is the thing that the worst regimes do is dramatic.

He is guilty.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. Thinking that an appeals should be in place is dramatic. Pointing out that summary executions immediately after a confession or trial is the thing that the worst regimes do is dramatic.

He is guilty.

True. In this individual case, there isn't any doubt of the guilt. The system which renders the guilty verdicts, however, is a flawed one where the verdict of guilty doesn't always correspond to actual guilt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2. Would keeping him alive in prison encourage fanatical supporters to try to get him out?

Yeah, this scenario (in general, I don't know enough about this case in particular) is to me one of the cases the death penalty should be used. Execute those that are too dangerous to keep around, whether due to their own actions or their supporters.

 

[ronburgundy]

In this case, whatever costs less.

If he says he would rather die and forgoes all appeals, then strap him in tomorrow.

Killing him doesn't mean you cannot also oppose the death penalty in general, except if your opposition is that even a person 100% guilty should not ever be killed because its "barbaric". That would mean that you find it barbaric for a parent to kill someone who is actively killing the parent's child rather than merely subdue them. I don't hold that view. My uncertainty with the death penalty is only with the false positives in convictions. That doesn't apply to this person, so if we kill him today that tomorrow decide to get rid of the system due to false positives, then there is no contradiction and no regrets.

 

[tupac chopra]

Is the evidence and response from the court case publicly available to see?
Has anyone in this thread read the transcripts or followed the case?

I'm all for being whipped into a frenzy by the media about "terrorism" but it would be interesting to see the facts too

 

[tupac chopra]

He is guilty.

True. In this individual case, there isn't any doubt of the guilt. The system which renders the guilty verdicts, however, is a flawed one where the verdict of guilty doesn't always correspond to actual guilt.

Ok...you must know the facts of the case. Can you explain what they are? Thanks

 

[PyramidHead]

In this case, whatever costs less.

If he says he would rather die and forgoes all appeals, then strap him in tomorrow.

Killing him doesn't mean you cannot also oppose the death penalty in general, except if your opposition is that even a person 100% guilty should not ever be killed because its "barbaric". That would mean that you find it barbaric for a parent to kill someone who is actively killing the parent's child rather than merely subdue them. I don't hold that view. My uncertainty with the death penalty is only with the false positives in convictions. That doesn't apply to this person, so if we kill him today that tomorrow decide to get rid of the system due to false positives, then there is no contradiction and no regrets.

The bolded statement is not true; it is possible to oppose the death penalty precisely because it fails to satisfy the criteria for killing in self-defense that would apply if a mother's child was in imminent danger.

Many people oppose the death penalty because the threat of an incarcerated person accused of a capital offense is no greater than that of many other incarcerated people accused of lesser (but still violent) crimes, and certainly is no greater than someone actually engaging in violent behavior. In other words, if the Boston Bomber escaped his shackles and went for a guard's gun, the guard may be justified in killing him as an act of self-defense. But to execute someone for past violent behavior, presumably on the assumption that he will repeat it, is nothing like that. So your comparison is not valid.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

True. In this individual case, there isn't any doubt of the guilt. The system which renders the guilty verdicts, however, is a flawed one where the verdict of guilty doesn't always correspond to actual guilt.

Ok...you must know the facts of the case. Can you explain what they are? Thanks

Ya, Putin paid him to set off a bomb in America for the sake of evil. It's called Google, dude.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is the evidence and response from the court case publicly available to see?
Has anyone in this thread read the transcripts or followed the case?

I'm all for being whipped into a frenzy by the media about "terrorism" but it would be interesting to see the facts too

No one is in a frenzy. This was two lone wolves. We aren't all going to die.

I'm all for baseless conspiracy theories, well... ok, I'm not.

2. Would keeping him alive in prison encourage fanatical supporters to try to get him out?

Yeah, this scenario (in general, I don't know enough about this case in particular) is to me one of the cases the death penalty should be used. Execute those that are too dangerous to keep around, whether due to their own actions or their supporters.

Why in the heck would a cell waste resources getting him out? He isn't important. What about Richard Reid, KSM, or the entire WTC Bombing Cell? They haven't even tried to get the guy that ran that cell out.

Render him to Uruguay. Insist he be assigned permanent solitary confinement with no visitors. no communication with prisoners, guards, outside persons. in other words, no human contact even for feeding and liquid providing ever.

Why Uruguay? Kansas is closer and worse, on so many levels.

 

[ronburgundy]

In this case, whatever costs less.

If he says he would rather die and forgoes all appeals, then strap him in tomorrow.

Killing him doesn't mean you cannot also oppose the death penalty in general, except if your opposition is that even a person 100% guilty should not ever be killed because its "barbaric". That would mean that you find it barbaric for a parent to kill someone who is actively killing the parent's child rather than merely subdue them. I don't hold that view. My uncertainty with the death penalty is only with the false positives in convictions. That doesn't apply to this person, so if we kill him today that tomorrow decide to get rid of the system due to false positives, then there is no contradiction and no regrets.

The bolded statement is not true; it is possible to oppose the death penalty precisely because it fails to satisfy the criteria for killing in self-defense that would apply if a mother's child was in imminent danger.

I contrasted killing them to subduing them, and was presuming that either option was equally plausible and would equally eliminate the threat. If you can subdue them and eliminate the danger, then killing them is superfluous to eliminating an immanent threat.
I have zero problem with a parent that would shoot the guy in the head immediately rather than would or warn them to freeze, even if the warning would not have done anything to increase or prolong the threat. A person who thinks that the death penalty for even 100% guilty mass murderers is "barbaric" would also think it barbaric for the parent to kill in the situation I described. IF they don't then their ethics or unprincipled and incoherent.

Many people oppose the death penalty because the threat of an incarcerated person accused of a capital offense is no greater than that of many other incarcerated people accused of lesser (but still violent) crimes, and certainly is no greater than someone actually engaging in violent behavior. In other words, if the Boston Bomber escaped his shackles and went for a guard's gun, the guard may be justified in killing him as an act of self-defense. But to execute someone for past violent behavior, presumably on the assumption that he will repeat it, is nothing like that.

Death penalty over life without parole is not supported on the assumption that they will repeat their crime. It is based on the notion that their person's life no longer has value and they have forfeited their right to that life. Thus, whether we kill them or not should not be based on what is best for or desired by them, but what is best for the rest of us who are the one's burdened with maintaining and controlling this now worthless life if we keep it alive.
There is no inherent value or sacredness to human life, which would require some God or mystical force beyond humans to give it that value. All value is a human creation and we give value to both things and other people. Granting each other value and right to life is part of a social contract, a contract that no longer applies to people that breach it. This is the very reasonable and not at all inhumane philosophy of many people who find death to certain murderers acceptable in principle, even if questionable in practice.

 

[Archimedes]

He is guilty.

Gotcha. So people who are found guilty of heinous crimes should be summarily execute without any delay or appeals. I can't see any problems with that kind of system.

 

[Toni]

Life in prison. I am ambivalent about parole. Probably no parole but I wouldn't rule it out.

I don't believe in the death penalty.

 

[fromderinside]

Render him to Uruguay. Insist he be assigned permanent solitary confinement with no visitors. no communication with prisoners, guards, outside persons. in other words, no human contact even for feeding and liquid providing ever.

Why Uruguay? Kansas is closer and worse, on so many levels.

Oh, I don't know.  [B]Herberts Cukurs[/B], the butcher of Riga was doing quite nicely in Uruguay until he was assassinated by Israel's  Mossad in 1965. Can't have much better torture creds than being someone associated with Nazi torture can one?

All Kansas has is it borders with Oklahoma where Tim McVeigh blew up some fertilizer and diesel and some of the stupidest legislators in the world.

That Uruguay was actually enamored with Nazism is a big plus. And that they still have the  [B]Reichsadler[/B] from the German battleship Graf Spee, for me, seals the deal.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Thread: Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

No

 

[fromderinside]

Thread: Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

No

Follow on: Should the bomber be given maximum discomfiture or the longest period of time?

Yes.

 

[tupac chopra]

Thread: Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

No

Follow on: Should the bomber be given maximum discomfiture or the longest period of time?

Yes.

I know you're not the only one advocating this but can you explain why.
And should this apply to all people who blow innocent people up?

Any of the other people who have a similar view are asked to answer too

 

[prideandfall]

He is guilty.

Gotcha. So people who are found guilty of heinous crimes should be summarily execute without any delay or appeals. I can't see any problems with that kind of system.

when there is effectively zero question of guilt, and you can safely and rationally apply a standard that is past "beyond a reasonable doubt" and into the territory of "without any possibility of doubt"? i would say yes.
people seem to act like "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard you can achieve, which is absurdly ridiculous.

i say death penalty, but without the decades of waiting, and without all the tediousness of humane methods.
fact is, this guy can never be allowed to be reintegrated into human civilization, i think everyone agrees with that whether you think he should be put to death or not... the common consensus is that he should be removed from society for the rest of his life.
in that case, i don't feel any need (morally or otherwise) to spend the time and energy required to keep him alive but securely separated from the rest of the world, as far as civilization is concerned life in prison vs. death has no practical difference, so go with the one that requires less effort.

i don't care about what he did, i'm utterly unmoved and indifferent to the act itself or the fallout from it, i just see it as a simple matter of practicality.
that, and the fact that putting a vaguely arab looking guy who bombed a marathon into a US maximum security prison is probably going to result in beatings, rapings, torture, and most likely death sooner rather than later anyways.
IMO being carted out of the court-house and getting a couple of bullets into the back of the head would be substantially more humane than throwing the guy into a pit where he'll more than likely be physically and mentally destroyed slowly and painfully.

 

[tupac chopra]

fact is, this guy can never be allowed to be reintegrated into human civilization, i think everyone agrees with that whether you think he should be put to death or not... the common consensus is that he should be removed from society for the rest of his life.

I don't agree.
All I see here is emotionalism and people who follow the bible's "an eye for a eye"

 

[ronburgundy]

fact is, this guy can never be allowed to be reintegrated into human civilization, i think everyone agrees with that whether you think he should be put to death or not... the common consensus is that he should be removed from society for the rest of his life.

I don't agree.
All I see here is emotionalism and people who follow the bible's "an eye for a eye"

Any and all response to what to do with him including yours is inherently emotional. All morals are nothing but emotionalism. So, that is not a valid critic of the positions you disagree with. Also, the Bible didn't invent revenge, it has existed for as long as humans have. If vengence and a sense of justice gives the many people he harmed a sense of closure or comfort, then that is more than enough reason, because there is no moral reason not to kill him. He forfeited any value or right to his life. Thus, killing him has no more moral implications than taking the life of a creature that we do not grant moral value or rights to life to, such as a chicken. The only reason not to kill him is any potential negative impact it would have on other people, not on him.

Is there some chance he could be reintroduced to society and never harm others again? Sure, but there is zero chance that we could ever have any rational confidence that such rehabilitation had been achieved. Thus, it would never be wise or ethical to allow him to be free.