Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

[TSwizzle]

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.

Tsarnaev will still be guilty today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year etc. The boy is guilty and he should be executed. The sooner the better. In my opinion.

 

[tupac chopra]

He forfeited any value or right to his life. .

According to who? Moses in the bible?

- - - Updated - - -

I would let the immediate family of those who died or those who were seriously injured decide his fate.

This guy had zero chance of a fair trial and most likely got bad advice from a compromised lawyer

 

[Terrell]

If this article on The ADX is correct, lethal injection may be pleasant by comparison. (ADX = United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17663629

 

[RavenSky]

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

Is that an actual thing that happens?

ISIS has demanded prisoner releases for hostages multiple times.

I don't know if anyone would demand this kid, but I do wonder if this is one of those times we are less safe with him alive in prison, or dead.

It is not a matter of vengeance to me - and if it were, I think life in prison is far worse than death.

More likely, I suppose, is that no terrorist group will want him, but some twit will marry him in prison

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Given the specific charges and 30 guilty counts, parole is not ever going to be an option for him. That's not my opinion That's what has been reported.

And the only reason the death penalty is even on the table is because he was prosecuted federally. Massechusets does not have the death penalty.

 

[Archimedes]

Tsarnaev will still be guilty today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year etc. The boy is guilty and he should be executed. The sooner the better. In my opinion.

Putting aside the pros and cons of capital punishment, do you really not see a problem with a system wherein as soon as a guilty verdict is read out by a jury (for a capital crime), the defendant is immediately taken to a location where he's executed on the spot?

 

[Keith&Co.]

This guy had zero chance of a fair trial and most likely got bad advice from a compromised lawyer

Isn't that redundant?

If he never could have had a fair trial, why bother to compromise his lawyer?

Were i his prosecutor, i'd have felt that it was very likely he'd be guilty, the jury would vote to shoot him across Boston Harbor from a cannon, and the only people to object would be the bleeding hearts that always object, anyway. Why would i risk giving him a chance on his appeal? Denny Crane couldn't have gotten him off.

 

[Archimedes]

Is that an actual thing that happens?

ISIS has demanded prisoner releases for hostages multiple times.

But Tsarnaev isn't a member of ISIS and I'm not aware of any Islamic extremists in US prisons who ISIS or Al-Qaeda or anyone else has asked to be released for exchange of hostages (I may be completely wrong about that). Ramzi Yousef has been in a US prison for 20 years now and I don't see anyone calling for his release in exchange for ISIS hostages.

Do you think that if Tsaenaev were executed, that ISIS would actually be less likely to take hostages and find someone or something to demand and exchange of?

This seems to me to be an extremely far fetched reason to execute someone. From both a practical and moral point of view. I can't see myself approving of a justice system that sentences someone to death because there's some remote chance that someone might kidnap someone and demand their release or they'll kill the hostage.

 

[TSwizzle]

Tsarnaev will still be guilty today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year etc. The boy is guilty and he should be executed. The sooner the better. In my opinion.

Putting aside the pros and cons of capital punishment, do you really not see a problem with a system wherein as soon as a guilty verdict is read out by a jury (for a capital crime), the defendant is immediately taken to a location where he's executed on the spot?

Not in this case I don't.

 

[RavenSky]

ISIS has demanded prisoner releases for hostages multiple times.

But Tsaernev isn't a member of ISIS and I'm not aware of any Islamic extremists in US prisons who ISIS or Al-Qaeda or anyone else has asked to be released for exchange of hostages. Ramzi Yousef has been in a US prison for 20 years now and I don't see anyone calling for his release in exchange for ISIS hostages.

Do you think that if Tsaernev were executed, that ISIS would actually be less likely to take hostages and find someone or something to demand and exchange of?

This seems to me to be an extremely far fetched reason to execute someone.

You asked for any example and I gave you an example. I did not say the kid was part of ISIS, and I rather explicitly stated that I wasn't sure if any terrorist group would want to claim him. It was something I was thinking about, though, when they were reporting the verdict.

 

[tupac chopra]

This guy had zero chance of a fair trial and most likely got bad advice from a compromised lawyer

Isn't that redundant?

If he never could have had a fair trial, why bother to compromise his lawyer?

I don't think anyone would have try try to compromise his lawyer. I am skeptical that many Americans would really fight for someone who had already been so vilified in the media.

Were i his prosecutor, i'd have felt that it was very likely he'd be guilty,

Why would you feel that way?

 

[Archimedes]

Not in this case I don't.

And therein lies the problem. "In this case". To allow someone to be executed on the spot because they are "obviously guilty" sets precedent for future cases where someone is "obviously guilty"

A justice system that dispenses with its checks and balances for cases where the public is baying for blood is no justice system at all.

 

[ronburgundy]

He forfeited any value or right to his life. .

According to who? Moses in the bible?

No, according to the sole source of all value for life, subjective human feeling. The idea that life has inherent value is the kind of irrational absurd idea that can only be based in the Bible or other blind faith. To say that life has value is like saying that ice cream has "good taste". IT doesn't. It isn't an objective property of the thing itself, but rather a statement about how we feel about things and about people. Lives only have value if we feel that they do, and making that value conditional upon actions does nothing to undermine it and in fact gives it a principled basis that allows for coherent laws and ethical systems.
To the vast majority of humanity, lives have value depending upon whether they respect the social contract to value the lives of others. That is why most decent humans would save the life of an innocent person over Hitler, because they place less value on Hitler's life due to his violating the social contract. If you want to grant life unconditional value, that is your perogitive, but you are in the minority and I bet you don't actually do that and that your values and actions show that you do not, because to do so is rather unnatural (and not at all more moral), and requires a very steadfast religious like commitment to that ideal. My social-contract conditional for life having value is at least as legit and moral, and it is what I apply.

I would let the immediate family of those who died or those who were seriously injured decide his fate.

I agree that they should have some say, but the broader public interest and safety must matter too. They are not likely the one's to be harmed if he is ever released. Other random people are the more probable victims. Also, if their desires must be tempered by the financial burdens and other potential costs to the community of the various options.

This guy had zero chance of a fair trial and most likely got bad advice from a compromised lawyer

There is zero reasonable doubt of his guilt, thus the trial outcome was as it should have been if the trail had been fairest possible trial.

 

[Archimedes]

You asked for any example and I gave you an example.

Ok. But do you think that because examples exist where terrorists have asked for prisoners to be exchanged for hostages, that it is therefore might be a good reason to execute prisoners where there is a slim chance that they will be asked to be exchanged for hostages?

 

[TSwizzle]

Not in this case I don't.

And therein lies the problem.

It's not a problem at all, in this case. He's guilty and he should be executed. If you want to leave the execution a couple of weeks, fair enough but he's not going to win any appeal this week or next year or ever.

 

[tupac chopra]

According to who? Moses in the bible?

No, according to the sole source of all value for life, subjective human feeling.

OK. It did sound like you were making a statement based on something more.

The idea that life has inherent value is the kind of irrational absurd idea that can only be based in the Bible or other blind faith. To say that life has value is like saying that ice cream has "good taste". IT doesn't. It isn't an objective property of the thing itself, but rather a statement about how we feel about things and about people. Lives only have value if we feel that they do, and making that value conditional upon actions does nothing to undermine it and in fact gives it a principled basis that allows for coherent laws and ethical systems.
To the vast majority of humanity, lives have value depending upon whether they respect the social contract to value the lives of others. That is why most decent humans would save the life of an innocent person over Hitler, because they place less value on Hitler's life due to his violating the social contract. If you want to grant life unconditional value, that is your perogitive, but you are in the minority and I bet you don't actually do that

I didn't say i did. sorry if I gave that impression

and that your values and actions show that you do not, because to do so is rather unnatural (and not at all more moral), and requires a very steadfast religious like commitment to that ideal. My social-contract conditional for life having value is at least as legit and moral, and it is what I apply

We all do that sort of thing. Hence your appeal to "decent" people.
So would you have thought Chris Kyle should have been punished too. Or was he different because he had an army uniform on?
This seems to get to the one point . The guy who was found guilty apparently made a note alluding to the fact that america was killing muslims and that when they stopped doing that, they too would stop.
I think he has a point because it appears that some lives a more valuable than others and it's difficult to accept that that view will be accepted around the world.

 

[RavenSky]

You asked for any example and I gave you an example.

Ok. But do you think that because examples exist where terrorists have asked for prisoners to be exchanged for hostages, that it is therefore might be a good reason to execute prisoners where there is a slim chance that they will be asked to be exchanged for hostages?

I think it is a good reason why the thought occurred to me while watching the news reports

 

[ronburgundy]

No, according to the sole source of all value for life, subjective human feeling.

OK. It did sound like you were making a statement based on something more.

Your statements and dismissal of others "emotionalism" imply that you think your basis for valuing life is something more than your own purely subjective emotions. It isn't. I am just being honest and not deluding myself that my subjective values are derived by some "higher" or more valid source.

The idea that life has inherent value is the kind of irrational absurd idea that can only be based in the Bible or other blind faith. To say that life has value is like saying that ice cream has "good taste". IT doesn't. It isn't an objective property of the thing itself, but rather a statement about how we feel about things and about people. Lives only have value if we feel that they do, and making that value conditional upon actions does nothing to undermine it and in fact gives it a principled basis that allows for coherent laws and ethical systems.
To the vast majority of humanity, lives have value depending upon whether they respect the social contract to value the lives of others. That is why most decent humans would save the life of an innocent person over Hitler, because they place less value on Hitler's life due to his violating the social contract. If you want to grant life unconditional value, that is your perogitive, but you are in the minority and I bet you don't actually do that

I didn't say i did. sorry if I gave that impression

Most of your comments appear to be condemning those who think that murderous actions violate the conditions that grant life value. What conditions of valuing life do you have if not that people not people don't take life from other that have done them no wrong and pose no threat to them?

and that your values and actions show that you do not, because to do so is rather unnatural (and not at all more moral), and requires a very steadfast religious like commitment to that ideal. My social-contract conditional for life having value is at least as legit and moral, and it is what I apply

We all do that sort of thing. Hence your appeal to "decent" people.

But I do not pretend that "decent" is a property of the person. Its my moral assessment of them. It is shared by the vast majority of humanity, but still a quality of the mind of the person doing the valuing and not the thing valued.

So would you have thought Chris Kyle should have been punished too. Or was he different because he had an army uniform on?

I don't know the Chris Kyle case and am avoiding learning about it until I see the movie (no, seriously don't spoil it for me)
But in general, I don't give moral passes to soldiers "following orders". The context matters because it matters as a reflection of the thought process, ethics, and thus danger the person poses. Belief is not an excuse for harming others, unless that belief is reasonable given the information one had access to. The person that kills a child in an sincere belief in exorcism is as immoral and dangerous as the one that does it just for the fun of it, because that belief is the result of effortful self delusion for selfish purposes at the expense of others well being.

This seems to get to the one point . The guy who was found guilty apparently made a note alluding to the fact that america was killing muslims and that when they stopped doing that, they too would stop.
I think he has a point because it appears that some lives a more valuable than others and it's difficult to accept that that view will be accepted around the world.

I have no problem accepting that all people hold some lives to be more valuable than others and that people differ in the criteria they use. But I advocate for criteria that the value should be based upon the specific actions of the each specific person and that group membership has zero bearing on it or on anything else that should impact ethics or political policy. That is a major source of conflict I have with leftist just like their right wing racist counterparts who are only concerned with people as members of racial or gender groups and think it acceptable to determine their treatment by their group membership. He intentionally murdered people who had not personally had done him or Muslims any fatal wrong and devalued their life solely because they happened to be physically on the land governed by state that killed Muslims. That is an unacceptable basis for determining the value of individual lives in my book, thus he doesn't respect the social contract that I think determines whose lives has value, thus the contract does not apply to him, and his life loses all value.
Everyone's ethics is as self-centered as this. It is only a matter of having the honesty not to hide behind claims of moral objectivism.

 

[bilby]

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.

Tsarnaev will still be guilty today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year etc. The boy is guilty and he should be executed. The sooner the better. In my opinion.

Yup. This guy confessed his guilt, and he placed a bomb in a crowded public place, killing three people and wounding dozens. Everyone knows he is guilty. Just like everyone knew that the Guildford Four were guilty of a very similar crime - they set off a bomb in a crowded public house in 1974, killing five people, and at their trial, the presiding judge, Justice Donaldson, expressed regret that the Four had not been charged with treason, which then still had a mandatory death penalty.

The Guildford Four confessed their crime to the police, were charged with murder and several other crimes (not including treason, to the regret of Donaldson J.) and were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

If only they had been executed, it would have saved the police a great deal of embarrassment when it turned out that they didn't do it; They were released from prison after serving 15 years of their life sentences.

 

[tupac chopra]

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.

So I take it you didn't look at the court transcripts?
You Could Buy the Tsarnaev Trial Transcript. Or You Could Buy a Range Rover.

Patrisso offered a “rough estimate” of the cost to obtain the transcript, based on the estimated length of the trial. Her estimate is based on the fastest transcript turnaround.

• Estimated 68 days

• Roughly 5.5 hours per day

• Approximately 225 transcript pages per day

• That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,300 pages.

• Total projected cost: $92,565

(If you need a visual, 15,300 pages of printer paper would stand approximately 4 feet 9 inches tall.)