Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

[Earl IV]

Yup, just like a rabid dog.

Bring him by my place, I'll donate a 147gr hollow point... not burying him though, tax payers can foot that bill.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

The same circumstances that make killing in self-defense acceptable (imminent threat, unpredictability, lack of time to consider all options) also make it acceptable to kill rather than subdue, if the situation demands it. It is easy to imagine why a mother protecting her baby may not be trained to subdue someone properly. None of those circumstances obtain for a person in a maximum security jail, unless they are in the process of making for an officer's gun or something.

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.

If the first part of what you say is true, then the second part is your personal opinion and I am happy to leave it at that.

 

[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.

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. {snip red herring}

Do you think Tsarnaev is innocent ?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

The same circumstances that make killing in self-defense acceptable (imminent threat, unpredictability, lack of time to consider all options) also make it acceptable to kill rather than subdue, if the situation demands it.

Yeah, the bolded part is all that matters since I specified a situation that does not demand it.

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.

If the first part of what you say is true, then the second part is your personal opinion and I am happy to leave it at that.

Yes and no. All morality is personal opinion, but that statement is not opinion but fact as is the statement that there in no inherent value to life, only what each person subjectively feels about each life. The thing about claims of objective value and objective morality is that they are all objectively false. It is also not opinion but fact that virtually every human assigns different value to different lives, which is evidenced by their actions no matter what dishonest claims they make about valuing all life equally. So we all have criteria for assigning value. The difference is that some of us are more honest that we do this, and we differ in what those criteria are, though there is strong evidence that most humans share some version of my criteria about the social contract.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.)

Wow. That is truly absurd and nonsensical. The trial is already recorded in either audio or type form. Either way, just post it online which takes 1 minute.

 

[bilby]

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. {snip red herring}

Do you think Tsarnaev is innocent ?

It seems unlikely.

Do you think his guilt is absolutely 100% certain?

Are you incapable of imagining any scenario, however bizarre and implausible, whereby he might be innocent?

If so, you lack imagination - even if you knew him well before the event, and personally saw him plant the bomb.

If you base your belief in his guilt on media reports, then you cannot really be 100% certain he even EXISTS.

Proof is for mathematics and vodka. I believe he is guilty; I am aware that there is a non-zero possibility that I am wrong.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It seems unlikely. Do you think his guilt is absolutely 100% certain? Are you incapable of imagining any scenario, however bizarre and implausible, whereby he might be innocent? If so, you lack imagination - even if you knew him well before the event, and personally saw him plant the bomb. If you base your belief in his guilt on media reports, then you cannot really be 100% certain he even EXISTS. Proof is for mathematics and vodka. I believe he is guilty; I am aware that there is a non-zero possibility that I am wrong.

Jesus. Yes he's 100 percent guilty! Too bad there isn't a hell for him to dwell in.

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you think Tsarnaev is innocent ?

It seems unlikely.

Do you think his guilt is absolutely 100% certain?

Fuck yeah.

Are you incapable of imagining any scenario, however bizarre and implausible, whereby he might be innocent?

Indeed I am. But do ask Loren. He/she has a gift of mental gymnastics that would come up with some fuckwittery that could explain it all away.

 

[credoconsolans]

Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

Yes. For several reasons

1) It shows zero tolerance for terrorists
2) he won't have any chance to recruit while he's in prison
3) it will give no one overseas the bright idea of kidnapping an innocent person and threatening to cut their heads off on video unless he's released.

Then his carcass needs to be buried in an unmarked prison cemetery lot and forgotten.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yup, just like a rabid dog.

Bring him by my place, I'll donate a 147gr hollow point... not burying him though, tax payers can foot that bill.

So macho. I sure am scurrd of your machoness.

 

[Juma]

Should the Boston Bomber receive the death penalty?

Yes. For several reasons

1) It shows zero tolerance for terrorists
2) he won't have any chance to recruit while he's in prison
3) it will give no one overseas the bright idea of kidnapping an innocent person and threatening to cut their heads off on video unless he's released.

Then his carcass needs to be buried in an unmarked prison cemetery lot and forgotten.

Actually the most sensible post in this thread. Those would be valid points to consider. And in this case: dismiss.

 

[Juma]

All morals are nothing but emotionalism..

There is a big difference between"kill him because i hate him" and "he should be killed to not induce new killings. " because killings are bad since that makes peoples lifes miserable (by fear of violence). Or "he should not be killed since that could be interpreted as revenge and that is another thing that makes peoples life miserable by fear of violence.

 

[Earl IV]

Yup, just like a rabid dog.

Bring him by my place, I'll donate a 147gr hollow point... not burying him though, tax payers can foot that bill.

So macho. I sure am scurrd of your machoness.

Nothing macho about it.

He's infected with a contagious, incurable rabies type virus and bullet to the head is the quickest/cheapest way to remove him from the gene pool.

Don't give two shits about deterrent, or vengeance.

7 billion people on this planet, the loons need to go. We have bigger problems to devote resources too than "rehabilitating" violent nut jobs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juma]

So macho. I sure am scurrd of your machoness.

Nothing macho about it.

He's infected with a contagious, incurable rabies type virus and bullet to the head is the quickest/cheapest way to remove him from the gene pool.

Don't give two shits about deterrent, or vengeance.

7 billion people on this planet, the loons need to go. We have bigger problems to devote resources too than "rehabilitating" violent nut jobs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. Not macho, not macho at all. Just plain mad.

 

[DBT]

The problem is the mentality of the perceived need to killing someone as a 'solution' for a problem. The very same mentality that drives the worst of human society, albeit dressed up in acceptably moral clothing....

 

[RavenSky]

The problem is the mentality of the perceived need to killing someone as a 'solution' for a problem. The very same mentality that drives the worst of human society, albeit dressed up in acceptably moral clothing....

^^^ That is the only rational rebuttal to my OP so far, in my opinion.