Human Garbage Gets Justice

[ARbound]

Why does this strike you as a more morally acceptable option? One could advance the possibility of there then being room to free him in the case that an error was committed, which argument you agree is not applicable here. With that issue aside, why do you seem to be more in favor of effectively burying him alive?

Speaking of which, one could ask a bunch of theoretical questions.

• If one could know with perfect certainty that Mr. Tsarnaev would never so much as hurt a fly again, indeed would become Father Theresa, would you be in favor of life imprisonment at a supermax prison with the description you provided?
• Would you be in favor of any incarceration at all? Why or why not?
• Is the point of imprisonment in such a prison, which many would (and do) argue is cruel and dehumanizing, simply preventive or punitive as well?
• When society resorts to punitive coercive measures, is it simply restraining the offender from further offending, is it meant to deter others, or is society adopting a moral standard and imposing it on the unhappy defendant? A bit of all of the above? How much?

Do these issues not demand deep thought and answers before expressing an opinion, even if it is such a popular one as 'abolish all killing'?

The issue is we don't know the answer to many of these questions, but the evidence for capital punishment is that it simply doesn't work. If that was the case then Texas, China and the United States would have the lowest murder rates in the world, yet, looking at our developed equals around the world it is just not the case.

Nations With Capital Punishment In Red, Green Extenuating Circumstances and Brown Unenforced ​

In some countries the maximum sentence for murder is 20/25 years because the concept of life sentence without parole is seen as cruel and unusual punishment. I have mixed feels about this, as I believe that most people are redeemable, inherently good, but make mistakes. Said mistakes I believe include murder, but I also think there is a difference between killing say an abusive spouse and setting a bomb at the finish line of a marathon.

I personally believe, like Justice Kennedy (someone who has very different worldview than that of my own as many of you know) that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. How that applies in this case is another question/debate all together, especially given the fact that there are many I am sure in the supermax who would see it as a moral duty to murder the convicted (which during this discussion I have chosen to not address by his name) during what will be a lengthy appeals process.

The decision was made long ago. it's called law. [you missed it] He was tried in a court and found guilty. Premeditated mass murder. And multiple other unnamed offenses. Acts of terror. His greatest wish is to be a martyr. We should grant that wish.
I as a tax payer do not wish to support this human trash for another 60 years.

And I empathise with that point of view, it would be easier to have him gone from existence, but that doesn't mean it is right, and more of your tax dollars are going to be spent on his appeals over the next X years than would be spent to keep him sustained in prison for his natural life.

Arbound, your opening line 'We are better than this because we are Americans' is trite and sanctimonious.
Further, your notion that Americans should offer the other cheek in a biblical sense and further, to show mercy to this fundamentalist, well intentioned though it may be, plays into the hands of those who would wish to destroy your country.
I therefore ask you, if an army of IS fundamentalists were to attack the USA directly, but failed having caused multiple deaths, would you grant them mercy?

There is a difference between fighting someone on a battlefield or how the other brother was killed during pursuit, and capturing someone/group of people and having a trial for them. If a squadron of Daesh fighters made it to NYC and went street to street killing people, and if the police/army killed them in combat I would be ok with this. If they surrendered I honestly would still defend the need of a trial. We did it in Nuremberg and International Military Tribunal for the Far East, they of course are not the same, but it is not unheard of to judge the actions of each person during a war, or people we do consider human garbage like those responsible for the Rape of Nanjing, "doctors" at concentration camps, etc. which are very similar in the platitudes of disgusting behavior as random murder in the streets of Boston.

It would be the Christian thing to do.

To some yes, to others it would be to kill them and then let God decide. I like to think religion aside it is the moral thing to do would
be handle them in accordance with past trials of war crimes, keeping in mind I do not support the death penalty even still.

ARbound If I am mistaken,please excuse me.I believe that you are Canadian and not an American (a U.S. citizen).Therefore,why do you say" as a nation and a people we...."? I might agree in general terms with what you say but please clarify this doubt for me.If you are Canadian,please answer my previous question to you.Would you like another Harper administration?

I'm both, I was born here while my mother was working here, and I just live in Canada right now for school and work (post secondary is much cheaper here). My family lives in the United States, but I honestly associate more with being American, even if some people seem to think that Canada is superior in every way to the United States.

Also, I don't remember you ever asking RE: Harper, but I will gladly answer it for you. I do not, I think he is a dangerous man who has become increasingly detached from the needs of the population. There is one quote that stands out for me, it's decades old from him, but now that he's had power for almost 10 years it's more important than ever: "You won't recognize canada when i'm through with it."

All this being said, I don't like Thomas Mulcair or Justin Trudeau either, but c'est la vie.

Why do you ask?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I think the "Christian Thing" would be to mount a Crusade and proceed to kill, rape, loot, pillage, tax and invade.

Everyone who believes in the 2000-year-old zombie is credulous, but not all of them are equally bloodthirsty: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/dylann-roof-manifesto-forgiveness/396428/

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I think the "Christian Thing" would be to mount a Crusade and proceed to kill, rape, loot, pillage, tax and invade.

Everyone who believes in the 2000-year-old zombie is credulous, but not all of them are equally bloodthirsty: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/dylann-roof-manifesto-forgiveness/396428/

 

[wineguy999]

I am certainly in favor of the death penalty in some cases - e.g. Gary Gilmore, who, ultimately, accepted execution and asked for a rapid outcome. Or in other clear cases with no shadow of doubt, quick execution vs. spending multiple (thousands of) dollars to feed, house, and clothe people whom society would be better off without. Is the death penalty a deterrent? Of course not.

The problem is the other cases, where there is doubt - even the remotest possibility of innocence. And we are seeing that happen more and more often, and, notably, former Texas Governor Rick "Hairdo" Perry is more than likely guilty of murder by indifference in one case where there is a strong likelihood of wrongful conviction. That condemned man was entitled to have the real evidence heard - and he would have, had he not been executed.

Tangled web, for sure. Points made from both sides. Just throwing out my .02.

 

[ghost]

" The issue is we don't know the answer to many of these questions, but the evidence for capital punishment is that it simply doesn't work. If that was the case then Texas, China and the United States would have the lowest murder rates in the world, yet, looking at our developed equals around the world it is just not the case."
In in this case it works perfectly. Sentence him to death. [no appeals] Execute him. He dies. Now tell me what didn't work.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

" The issue is we don't know the answer to many of these questions, but the evidence for capital punishment is that it simply doesn't work. If that was the case then Texas, China and the United States would have the lowest murder rates in the world, yet, looking at our developed equals around the world it is just not the case."
In in this case it works perfectly. Sentence him to death. [no appeals] Execute him. He dies. Now tell me what didn't work.

Of course, the death penalty works in the sense that it kills even the innocent. It might keep Tsarnaev from killing anybody else (except, presumably, in prison). You cannot eliminate his right to appeal the penalty, however.

In the meantime, we can sum up the effectiveness of the penalty in just 14 words: http://tinyurl.com/nwl422q

 

[camberiu]

Nations With Capital Punishment In Red, Green Extenuating Circumstances and Brown Unenforced ​

Brazil has capital punishment under "extenuating circumstances"? The death penalty was abolished in Brazil by the emperor Pedro II in 1876 (he viewed the practice as being completely barbaric), making Brazil the first country in the Americas and one of the first in the world to abolish capital punishment.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Brazil has capital punishment under "extenuating circumstances"? The death penalty was abolished in Brazil by the emperor Pedro II in 1876 (he viewed the practice as being completely barbaric), making Brazil the first country in the Americas and one of the first in the world to abolish capital punishment.

In the US, 19 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment, though it still exists at the federal level: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001172. It's on the way out, slowly but surely.

 

[scotttswan]

In the US, 19 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment, though it still exists at the federal level: http://deathpenalty....ourceID=001172. It's on the way out, slowly but surely.

Was there not a big hoohaa over the death penalty being banned in the 70s in the states? How is it the States won the right to kill people again and the federal government decided "oh well everyone else is doing it so should we", or did the government just ban it for states and keep it for the federal level?

 

[ghost]

Of course, the death penalty works in the sense that it kills even the innocent. It might keep Tsarnaev from killing anybody else (except, presumably, in prison). You cannot eliminate his right to appeal the penalty, however.

In the meantime, we can sum up the effectiveness of the penalty in just 14 words: http://tinyurl.com/nwl422q

In the US Cap Punishment is really not a deterrent Because it is never swift. However I am not advocating cap Punishment in general. In this specific case I am advocating rapid disposal of garbage.