POLL: Should we execute Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Bomber?

There is a difference between justice and retribution. The father's ideas are about retribution. The man in the black robe does not and ought not take his orders from the enraged family members of the victims. I sure as hell am not interested in Dad's ideas on whether we should kill this guy, and I am interested in his ideas on whther or how much we should torture or mutilate him first. I am all for letting him vent his spleen at sentencing, but frankly not much past that.

 

I am perfectly satisfied to let the jury and judge decide the sentence. Now I reserve the right to complain about it once it is handed down. Now we know he is guilty and he and his brother made innocents suffer to include deaths. I wonder if he wasn't a tag along going along with everything his brother said and did. In that case I might spare him the death penalty. The key word there is might as I feel no sympathy for him.

 

Isn't it great that having him convicted by a jury? I don't much care what happens to him, so long as he gets due process of law and trial by jury.

It costs a lot of money to imprison him for life. It costs a lot to execute him. Seems best to just drop a big lead block on his head, killing him instantly and painlessly.

 

I think you misunderstand the whole point of "sentencing someone". It is to punish them for the crimes they commit. Plain and simple. You are punished with the severity being in accordance of the crime you committed. This scum who is less then an animal should be hung from the neck until dead.

 

The management of the punishment of extreme crimes has always been a quite sensitive matter to deal with, even if it can underline curious situations: for example it is not rare to find out that who is against death penalty is in favor of abortion ...

So that, to kill because of sanitary motivations is acceptable, to kill because of justice motivations is not acceptable.

 

>No, by exterminating him, we are just as bad as him
Typical liberal logic.
I think they should execute him, right now.
There's no reason to give life to such bastards! He killed people and his life doesn't matter anything for our country, as lives of all people who suffered from bombing!

 

You're right.

However, I think that death is an easy way out for this coward. I think he should live his life boxed in a tight little cell with no human interaction.

That sounds fair to me.
[MENTION=65176]rangecontraction[/MENTION] said it best when he said his piece about this terrorist.

 

There are many conservatives completely opposed to the death penalty.

Given the nature of the crime, I wouldn't shed a tear if they executed him. This is one case where a crime HAS been confirmed and justifies death IMO.

 

But killing isn't punishment, because punishment is meant to shape future behavior and thinking. What you're talking about is retribution, revenge. It's getting back at someone. That's a primitive and barbaric attitude, and not one befitting the legal system.

 

so thou shalt not kill or thou shalt kill?

personally I voted "Solitary confinement for life is best"

 

Thus spake the mob.

 

Ummm.... No it's not. Punishment is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense."

The definition of punishment is retribution. It's not "getting back at someone. It's punishing them for a crime that committed. If that crime is terrorism and mass murder. Then you bet your arse they deserve death as punishment. It is only barbaric and primitive when the punishment out weighs the crime. As long as they are equal in accordance with eachother, there is no problem.

 

The people of advanced nations no longer surrender to the State the power to kill them.

In a few places, they still believe that "The State" should be all-powerful and can do no wrong.

The US places itself in the moral company of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq when it persists in killing its citizens in cold blood..

Relatives of murder victims are speaking out against it.

[M]ost Boston residents polled — 62 percent — said Tsarnaev should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted. Twenty-seven percent said he should receive the death penalty.

'Drop the death penalty,' say parents of Boston bombing victim

​

 

I oppose The State's ordering the termination of a zygote/embryo/fetus at any stage of pregnancy, and after gestation as well.

 

I doubt anyone in that poll would give two sh&@s if he were put down.

 

Of course not. It's not about him, it's about whether the citizen surrenders to The State the power to kill folks in cold blood.

- and the reality that states in the US that still do kill folks in cold blood never, never, never kill wealthy individuals further underscores the selective application of their power to kill.

 

Wealthy people tend to have MUCH better lawyers than a public appointed attorney. It's not the court's fault that a CONVICTED murderer can't afford a slam dunk lawyer. Maybe the murderer should have thought of that before they.....

committed murder.

 

Of course, some of the poor didn't, just some of the rich who get off did.

The inherent unfairness is built into the system.

But, some think that The State is infallible.

Personally, I would go the way of advanced nations and break company with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

 

That, and it's cheaper to keep somebody in prison for life than to go through all the rigaramole that capital punishment requires. If somebody escapes from life in prison, we should execute them, other than that, leave them in prison to rot.

 

Maybe we should just let the victims of the bombing execute him instead of the state.

Giving the state the power to kill is something that justifies wariness, but letting the victims of a killer enact justice.... that sounds fair to me.

 

The principle objective should be to permanently remove them from society, and incarcerate them in such a way that prison personnel and other prisoners are safe. If they are "contrite", they can be contrite in prison.

The State acting as a hit man or suicide assistant does not accrue to its credit.

Death comes to all, and imposing the same fate upon them as is inevitable for the best among us is not a "punishment."

- - - Updated - - -

Some oppose his being killed, and others may well prefer someone else do it.

 

I get what you are saying, but it really does not gel. The abortion question revolves are around definitional questions and interpretation questions. Those who support a woman's right to choose, sincerely do not believe that anyone is killing a person. They are not arguing that the killing is justified. If the framework behind the debate is entirely different, thee really is very little left to connect the two.

 

Perhaps the constitution is incompatible with justice then? The most severe crimes would deserve the most severe punishments, would they not? Seems to me that hanging is quite peaceful compared with crucifixion or boiling them alive in a vat of oil.

Solitary confinement for live is far worse a punishment than execution by hanging, it seems to me.

 

If you want to dodge the rational issue, you're free to do that.

Personally, being Protestant, I'm against abortion, but, following the principal of "minor damage" which should be at the base of the legislation of a lay country, I can accept a ruled and legalized abortion as extreme ration [I do prefer contraception to avoid undesired pregnancy ...].

Regarding death penalty I follow the same lay principal: to keep a subject, socially dangerous, in prison is a cost without return for the society. I can think not to execute such a criminal if he works for the society in a suitably useful way ... as soon as he works no more ... the minor damage for the society is to put him in front of a fire squad.

 

On the contrary, as I was explaining replying to a different post, I follow the lay principal of "minor damage" and, despite I'm a Protestant, I can accept ruled and legalized abortion [I'm morally against, but I won't impose my moral on others], even if, as I've just said, I prefer contraception to avoid undesired pregnancies.

About death penalty, it's the same: if a criminal deserving it finds a way to be useful for the society [working] I can think to allow him to live, otherwise, or as soon as he is no more in condition or he wants no more to work ... the firing squad is waiting for him.