Surviving Boston Bomber Death Penalty yes / no https://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-feds-seek-death-224704730.html Feds to seek death sentence for Boston bomberAugust 20, 2020, 3:47 PM PDT· WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department will seek to reinstate a death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man who was convicted of carrying out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday. In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said the Justice Department would appeal the court’s ruling last month that tossed Tsarnaev’s death sentence and ordered a trial to determine whether he should be executed for the attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Barr said the Justice Department would take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We will do whatever’s necessary,” Barr said. “We will take it up to the Supreme Court and we will continue to pursue the death penalty.” . . . . . Do YOU agree with the death penalty in this case? Yes / No and why. Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
I can't vote in this poll because my vote might invite the possible interpretation that I'm advocating 'violence' against Mr. Tsarnaev. That could be construed as a highly-offensive 'no-no' according to 'the rules'. So, I must pass....
Hopefully this court ruling can be overturned on appeal. "Describing media attention in the case as “unrivaled in American legal history,” the appeals court said U.S. District Judge George O’Toole fell short in running a jury selection process “sufficient to identify prejudice.” The 1st Circuit also found that O’Toole erred in refusing to let the defense tell jurors about evidence tying Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the killings of three people in the Boston suburb of Waltham in 2011. “If the judge had admitted the Waltham evidence — evidence that shows (like no other) that Tamerlan was predisposed to religiously-inspired brutality before the bombings and before Dzhokhar’s radicalization — the defense could have more forcefully rebutted the government’s claim that the brothers had a ‘partnership of equals,’” Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote in the ruling." The bias and prejudice would have been in finding him innocent or of a lessor charge. HE DID IT, and he did so by himself and even found a child to purposely place his bomb and then after getting himself away, on his own purposely detonated the bomb. The evidence OVERWHELMING. These rulings are legal hogwash. Are we to now have a system where you can go out and commit a heinous public crime against the massed public that will make the news around the world and know you can get off because of the publicity or avoid the death penalty?
My problem is that the evidence, in some ways, is largely circumstantial, and I am just not sure there is truly convincing enough evidence that would warrant the death penalty. The alleged confession written in blood could have also been faked.
I voted no because I don’t approve of giving the state the ability to decide that a person should be killed.
Why the hell would anyone really vote no? It is not the state deciding that it is a jury of his peers, they "state" has never decided that.
I know what you mean but the other options are; release him so he can go and murder more innocent people or spend vast sums of money on keeping him in prison which could be better spent somewhere else. We had a the court case of a terrorist here in the UK who helped murder children at a music concert. We don't have the death penalty but in cases like this I would advocate torture and then death. Paedophilia and mass murder are crimes from which there is no rehabilitation and the opportunity of a second chance should never come around.
Of course not. The alternative is life in prison. That argument doesn't hold, the death penalty actually costs more money than a prison sentence in the US. Or do you want a cheaper, more expeditive system? Then you'll make mistakes and kill innocents. I didn't say there is rehabilitation possible. There probably isnt in the cases you mention. Pedophiles will want to screw kids for the rest of their lives, jihadists will probably believe they're doing the will of God for the rest of their lives. No doubt here. But the real question, even in these cases, is simple : what does killing them accomplish? Killing a jihadist will definitely not deter other jihadists, they'll think he's gone to paradise and making a martyr will embolden the others if anything. Killing a pedophile will definitely not deter other pedophiles, it's a mental disorder after all. So what's the reason for killing them? The only explanation I can see is wanting blood for its own sake.
You make some very good points but it's just the way I feel about it. There's definitely an argument that sitting in a prison, being looked after is also not a deterrent. If you want my broad approach, I would start with education as I believe prevention is better than cure but those caught in the crossover would have to go. In my death penalty world, people wouldn't sit in a cell for 10 years before being eradicated, it would be swift and cheap.
A swift path to execution is likely to result in the deaths of innocent people. Particularly the poor, who are the least capable of mounting sufficient legal defense, would be disproportionately affected by this. If your interested on a solid argument regarding this topic I’d recommend the following: It’s a long video, but if you have the time I’d highly recommend it.
I think that the curative value of a death sentence in this case is long past. I think the pace is purposeful to ensure that folks like many who have posted above can make a credible argument that makes a death penalty likely won't deter credible. I think many liberals would put this one back in the pool to see what other mischief this one would do. Personally, I don't favor having the lone surviver killed by the state. I think perhaps he should be trotted out every once in a while, alive, to demonstrate to other would be terrorists, what happens. No virgins for this one.
Yeah, well, we are also the least violent state in the entire US, so we can get away with that. I would support the death penalty here if we had crimes that deserved it. I havnt heard of any though.
The two things are linked. Violence begets violence. Or to put it another way, if murder is wrong, don't do it. The states that have the death penalty kill innocent people, which is murder. That culture of violence is what remains of the ugly things we have done, like genocide and slavery.
When the food spoils, you don't save it in a box. You throw it away with regret. Only moreso with a person like Tsarnaev. Barring an act or evidence of contrition on his part sufficient to convince me otherwise, I say death.
Boston Marathon "bombing" was a false flag - and a poorly executed one at that. I will give them credit though, they've gotten much better at scrubbing the internet and YouTube of evidence. Can't find many of the original videos and pics. The Brassard family fraudsters were my favorites. 3 tourniquets on his leg, and no blood, then the fat mama running alongside the stretcher in perfect health, and later comes down with a case of "rebar thru the leg syndrome", lol... Sick people. The subject of false flags is very interesting, and the U.S. has used them many times. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Gladio (40 years of the U.S., UK, and Israel terrorizing Europe), sinking of the USS Maine, Israel trying to sink the USS Liberty, Sandyhook, and of course the Grand Daddy of them all - 9/11. No, that Tsarnaev kid is completely innocent. A patsy, same as Oswald.
You don't deny people their due punishment simply because you are afraid a few innocents may be harmed by it. That's just ridiculous in a society of hundreds of millions. And the only reason execution is so expensive is because of concern over being humane which is a bit weird considering you are killing the individual. Honestly just a bullet to the brain is fine, if you miss then shoot again, either way it's over in a matter of seconds. The majority of humans throughout our existence have never had a problem executing people and this has only become an issue relatively recently. It is time to get back to that.
I am going with a YES but considering that I have aspirations to become P. M. of Canada after ripping the political rug from under the foot of The People's Party of Canada national leader Mr. Maxime Bernier....... my answer is somewhat political so that I can fit in better with the PPC?! (Did I word the following statement badly)? "Note: I have completed ten of Dr. Kevin Zadai's courses through Warrior Notes School of Ministry and I consider that that man is so intelligent that his synaptic pathways have glial cells!!!!!!!" Warning....... intelligently done corrections on my grammar and vocabulary could INCREASE the danger of my actually eventually attaining high political office......... and of course...... you Sir know where that could potentially lead!!!!!!
