Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
dg93

Jury Sentences Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to Death by Lethal Inject

Recommended Posts

the_miano said:
I guess the jury didn't buy into his plea of "my brother brainwashed me into doing it."

Huh, I wonder why.

Share this post


Link to post
Clonehunter said:

Hitler was brainwashed into ordering the Jews to death.


Share this post


Link to post

Cue the long and expensive appeals process. It's usually a lot more expensive to put someone to death in the US than it is to give them a life imprisonment. Killing a 20 year old shit for his crimes is not exactly worth it, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
TheCupboard said:

Cue the long and expensive appeals process. It's usually a lot more expensive to put someone to death in the US than it is to give them a life imprisonment. Killing a 20 year old shit for his crimes is not exactly worth it, IMHO.


I agree, it's too expensive and sometimes not everyone sentenced to death was actually guilty of committing the crime
http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Share this post


Link to post

If they gave him a life sentence and left him with the general prison population they could get a death sentence without all the bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post

BOOM

of course, the worst thing about urine in your food is when there isn't urine in your food. Because, for one brief meal, you remember that not all food tastes like salt and someone else's kidneys.

Share this post


Link to post
TheCupboard said:

Cue the long and expensive appeals process. It's usually a lot more expensive to put someone to death in the US than it is to give them a life imprisonment. Killing a 20 year old shit for his crimes is not exactly worth it, IMHO.

Maybe. The death penalty for Mcveigh took 5 years from sentencing to execution, including a failed appeal. I cannot say if that cost more than hypothetically keeping him alive for the rest of his life though, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post

Brainwashed huh? Couldn't he have said if I didn't he threatened to kill our mother or my girlfriend? Saving one life to kill hundreds of others.

There are still people on other forums that I troll claiming he *and his brother* were former government agents set up and its all a hoax. Oh Alex Jones, you can't believe some of the stuff you're saying, but you've got time to fill. There are even videos on Youtube that "prove" its a hoax, but editing anything can skew a vision that you want.

Share this post


Link to post
SYS said:

If they gave him a suicide vest and left him with the lifers they could get several death sentences without all the bullshit.

FTFY ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

The death penalty for Mcveigh took 5 years from sentencing to execution, including a failed appeal.

Interestingly, the jury gave McVeigh's accomplice, Terry Nichols, a life imprisonment sentence without possibility of parole. He was a fully grown man who helped commit a crime a whole magnitude worse than the Boston Marathon bombing (161 counts of murder and hundreds more injured in the case of Oklahoma City). Arguably, the Boston bomb could have been a hell of a lot worse, but their technological prowess and discipline was probably less honed than McVeigh and Nichols. Tsarnaev is still a kid no matter what he did. It kind of says something about the atmosphere of the country when we're handing out death penalties to domestic-grown terrorists and doing basically nothing about the "terrorists" shooting up our schools, month after month. Easy to put a Chechen kid to death, not so easy to do anything about our own children bringing guns into schools

Share this post


Link to post

I'm against killing him because we don't deserve to live in a society where the government has a legal means of killing people. He's obviously guilty, but innocent people get sent to death row in the USA far too often to justify such a system. Want prison costs lowered? Let the non-violent guys out.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

I'm against killing him because we don't deserve to live in a society where the government has a legal means of killing people. [...] Want prison costs lowered? Let the non-violent guys out.

QFT

I'm not completely certain on the details, but aren't the insanely high prison numbers in the US related to them being privately owned businesses wherein more prisoners = greater profits? I'm not sure exactly how that works but I've read from multiple sources that it's one of the main reasons so many innocent people are arrested over there. The percentages are staggering to say the least..

I'm honestly glad the dude is going to be wiped out, but like most others in this thread, I don't think it should be legal as there's so much room for it to be abused.

Share this post


Link to post

Glad he's going to die. He put such an atmosphere of fear over New England that will take a long time to dissipate, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like the argument that death penalty shouldn't be used because innocent people might get killed. The correct argument IMO is that people shouldn't kill other people period.

Share this post


Link to post

Well honestly I think most people will agree with that, but we know it's going to happen, there's always going to be criminals until humans as a whole change at our core and society is reworked in a more utopian way, but that's a whole other (worthwhile) discussion.

Institutionalized killing just seems wrong on so many levels, other than in circumstances like this where just about everyone wants the asshole dead, but then that opens up a window for it to be abused. Like with everything, its a double edged sword with positive and negative aspects to consider.

Share this post


Link to post

It's far too easy to sit here and debate the death penalty in situations like this because our lives where not directly effected. It should be left up to the victims do decide someones fate. Because they are the ones who have to deal with the consequence of someone else's actions. Also, it isn't right for anyone to push what they view is right onto anyone else. Epically as an outsider.

If they can find forgiveness in their heart and spare someone like Tsarnaev, he should get life behind bars. If they feel he should pay the ultimate price for what he did, he should be put to death.

Share this post


Link to post

The big bad gub'mint hasn't sentenced him to death (yet), I think that is ultimately up to the judge who is going to take some more time listening to victim testimony before making the final decision. The JURY recommended the death penalty - despite them being from a liberal state, a state that has no death penalty (so they're ideologically more likely to be personally against it), and it was even reported that several were against the death penalty during selection interviews.

I can't know their personal reasons for recommending the death penalty, maybe it was Tsarnaev's desire to inflict agonizing pain and injury (by adding the pellets) and the way he placed the bomb near children, or perhaps it was his lack of emotion during the trial (which was a reported reason, and a stupid one to sentence someone to death for, but whatever), or maybe it was the execution of police, or maybe the reasons were more political like fear of Tsarnaev being pardoned by a powerful politician down the line, or establishing a precedent for how to deal with muslims on jihad in western society. Or maybe the jurors were idiots and led to their decision by a zealous prosecutor or the other jurors.

Anyway, my point is that we can't know the juror's minds, but under the circumstances it is amazing they unanimously came to this sentence recommendation.

Share this post


Link to post
Vorpal said:

The JURY recommended the death penalty - despite them being from a liberal state, a state that has no death penalty (so they're ideologically more likely to be personally against it),

No, you've got that backwards. The jury was carefully selected from a large pool over a process of weeks, and potential jurors who expressed ideological opposition to the death penalty were barred from serving on it. Arguably this could introduce a selection bias for a particular kind of juror - people who are in favour of the death penalty tend to be more right wing / conservative leaning.

Share this post


Link to post

Huh, what's backwards? We seem to be in agreement

I don't know what was in the juror's heads in their decision, and whether or not they were truthful about their ideologies in the jury selection interviews (and the defense interviews them too AFAIK). I was just saying that Massachusetts culturally leans away from the death penalty. And the subtext of the way I phrased "and it was even reported" was that the media tends towards feeding us bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post

The juror selection process tends to weed out anyone with strong opinions either way -- for or against the death penalty, for example. A jury that is not against the death penalty is inevitable, and they are far more likely to sentence someone to death than a jury against the death penalty, of course.

That it's a "liberal state" has nothing to do with this.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe if he gets raped in jail, he can just die from AIDS. Seems like a more fitting death for this piece of shit; certainly not the honorable martyr death he was looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Maybe if he gets raped in jail, he can just die from AIDS. Seems like a more fitting death for this piece of shit; certainly not the honorable martyr death he was looking for.


i just realised that i can't find a "report post" button anywhere on this page

Share this post


Link to post
yakfak said:

i just realised that i can't find a "report post" button anywhere on this page


Excuse me for saying something terrible about a mass murderer. Who will you report it to; the thought police? Besides, you don't think that actually happens in prisons? That's reality.

These are the wonderful prison conditions that we have in this country. Perhaps you should be a little more mature about your perspective, instead of silencing people you are "offended" by.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/other/correctional.html

Share this post


Link to post
Vorpal said:

Huh, what's backwards? We seem to be in agreement

I don't know what was in the juror's heads in their decision, and whether or not they were truthful about their ideologies in the jury selection interviews (and the defense interviews them too AFAIK). I was just saying that Massachusetts culturally leans away from the death penalty. And the subtext of the way I phrased "and it was even reported" was that the media tends towards feeding us bullshit.

You said that because they were from Mass. they were "ideologically more likely to be personally against" the death penalty. But the long and careful jury selection process deliberately weeded out anyone who would be ideologically against it, so in fact the opposite is true. Mass. culture leans away from the death penalty, sure, but the whole point is that a jury was intentionally selected that was not representative of Mass. culture, at least in that particular dimension.

That's not to say that I think he was given an unfair trial, I just think you haven't properly considered what you're saying.

But I do question the wisdom of it being conducted as a federal trial, considering that all of the crimes took place within a single state.

Share this post


Link to post
Fulgrim said:

It's far too easy to sit here and debate the death penalty in situations like this because our lives where not directly effected. It should be left up to the victims do decide someones fate. Because they are the ones who have to deal with the consequence of someone else's actions. Also, it isn't right for anyone to push what they view is right onto anyone else. Epically as an outsider.

If they can find forgiveness in their heart and spare someone like Tsarnaev, he should get life behind bars. If they feel he should pay the ultimate price for what he did, he should be put to death.


Victims should never have any say in sentencing. Revenge isn't a valid form of closure and emotional people make bad decisions. Besides, like I said, the USA convicts enough people wrongfully that victims looking for "justice" in the death penalty are going to feel awful all over again if it turns out they got the wrong guy killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Fulgrim said:

It should be left up to the victims do decide someones fate.

I strongly disagree. Just because someone is a victim in one particular instance doesn't mean they can't also be a cruel, fucked up person. (Basically, what Aliotroph said.)

Mr. Freeze said:

He put such an atmosphere of fear over New England that will take a long time to dissipate, if ever.

Responding to Fulgrim's other point about it being easy to debate as outsiders, this quote shows plainly that outsiders were also the victims, in a very real sense. Just because you weren't directly involved with something doesn't mean you shouldn't share an opinion on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×