Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Then you're likely against a lot of other programs and policies of American government, so what does one more "expensive, politicized, and inefficient" piece of the rotting system hurt?

lol, what?

This reasoning makes very little sense. Simply putting him to sleep would be the easy way out for him, and I'm pretty sure martyrdom is what he seeks anyway. It would be better if he is forced to live the rest of his life slowly rotting away in a prison cell. Wouldn't that be a better form of revenge than simply putting him to sleep?

@thegerg: We seem to have begun spotlighting epistemological relativism; the belief that what is good according to one person might not be right and good according to another person, but they are both reliable views.

@richietickles: That was a follow through of the notion you made. That is where that leads.

I actually do not have a problem with that argument to be honest, regardless of whether I agree with it. I find it to be a very fair argument to say, "If a person kills a loved one of mine then I want them dead." I don't think it holds up to a rationale debate on the merits to do so, but it's still a fair claim.

I do however tire of the people who can't admit that this and more or less hid behind the economic argument of "It's too expensive to the taxpayer to jail them for life." When I bring up the fact that it's actually far more expensive to get a death sentence (at least to the people I know) they don't know what to say. They don't change their minds, instead the conversation just sort of ends.

Well, I for one would just want the peace of mind knowing that he's dead and it's over with so I could move on.

Have fun waiting 20+ years then. If he does get executed it won't be for a long time. By the time that comes he'll be forgotten anyway so what difference does it make?

Why do you prefer the peace of mind from the thought of the life of a killer ending by killing rather than anything else in regards to criminal justice?

Proponents of the death penalty do seem like they need some psychiatric help.

There's always the possible break out and him hunting me down, or a lawyer somehow finds some technicality or loophole that gets a guilty man off.

Was that remark really necessary?

@JustPlainLucas: Okay, so your issue is with the potential failing of the imprisonment system.

I have two responses:

1. What would you say if there were no failings of the imprisonment system (no possible escape)?
2. What would you say if, instead, a person could undergo a rehabilitation program in which he would be changed so greatly by it that the plausibility of him having an interest in hunting you, or anyone else down would be low? In addition, implementing this rehabilitation program has a history of decreasing national crime rates in other countries which utilize it, so that there would be less potential victims of crime, and it might work in your country.

Honestly, i can see that point. If someone intentionally kills your 6 yo son, I'd be pissed too. It's easy to sit on the sidelines as an observer with no investment in the case, and say it's wrong to seek the death penalty, but I can understand why some ppl would.

I dont like the death penalty, as I think we should be bigger than that, but I can begrudge someone who has actually suffered a loss for being for it. I just think we could have sent a better message by sparing this person. Let them rot in prison.

@gamerguru100: this is not about being soft on him.... This is about upholding the laws and liberties we value as a nation, and who people died for... If you can't see why it is important to uphold them in the worse scenarios then you never valued them to begin with. The guy could have killed a thousand people, that still wouldn't justify the state to violate his right to a fair trial and his right for appeals. That s is not about him.

That we as a nation can uphold what we value even when it is inconvenient.

@richietickles: satisfaction? Our justice system is not based around mob rule or trying to make people feel better. That is why the victims have absolutely no say in the cases out side of witness testimony. We would live in a real shitty country if you guys were in charge...

@rabakill: First of all I have seen no evidenced. Hence the question. Bengazi was blamed on a You Tube Video which we now know was not the cause. It seems to me you have your mind made up with no evidence. Your statement just fits your political agenda. Instead of providing any evidence to a question you attempt to discredit me which indicates to me you have no evidence.

Good. He deserved it, terrorists deserve death penalty.

1. My paranoia would be eased, but I'd still want him executed because he's still breathing whereas whoever loved one of mine wasn't.
2. No, because when someone takes a life, they don't deserve rehabilitation. This isn't like robbing a store because your lost your job, or a person being addicted to drugs. A grievous crime has been committed; an inhumane crime. I do not believe they should be allowed to continue to live.

I'm trying to empathize with someone who has had a loved one taken away from them viciously. I'm pretty sure that it would be a most traumatizing event for that person, and yes, I would understand completely their paranoia. Putting the person who killed their love one(s) down would be the only way that their minds could rest entirely.

Also, lawyers are paid to get their clients off regardless if they're guilty or not. If they can get someone off because of a flaw in the justice system, they will. If they commit the act and their lawyer bends the law to get them off so legally, they're not guilty, that doesn't change the fact they still committed the act. I mean, people caught red handed and have been let go because the arresting officer forgot to read them their Miranda rights! The only way I'd excuse someone who was charged with murder is if it was shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that he didn't do it, not because a lawyer exploited a crack in the legal system.

I'm saying it doesn't mean shit because were one to clean up a pile of shit in an arena full of shitpiles, what's been gained? The arena is still full of shit.

We already live in a shitty country, dipshit.

Waste of time and money. Let him rot in jail the rest of his life.

@HoolaHoopMan: Executing this guy is not only going to hurt the country more. But he is going to get more public attention because of it. To believe some assholes have put this guys fucking face on the cover of magazines.

@richietickles: perhaps you should move to China or Saudia Arabia, I hear they have the kind of "justice" you support.

He deserves it. But then this...

This is all so unnecessary, a bullet to the head is cheap and fast. One might say even humane.

Maybe place him in a room with some loaded pressure cookers, you live by the bomb you die by the bomb?

You see, there's more piles of shit that need to be cleaned up first, so why the death penalty needs to be done away with before many other issues that have more of a financial impact on the nation? I look at it realistically that it's never going to be perfect and capital punishment is such a small toll on the resources of the nation that it's far from being a significant waste.

If we want to start reducing government waste to make a meaningful difference, there's other places to begin and most of those changes are so fundamentally ingrained that it's nigh impossible they'll ever be corrected and thus, makes the entire argument kinda pointless.

Capitol punishment isn't going anywhere, it's not a substantial toll on resources, technology makes the argument of the possibility of an innocent person being wrongly executed more irrelevant with every passing year, and deep down, there are some people who do things that no longer warrant being allowed to live another day.

Alternatively, you could also move to England or Sweeden where they'll let any mass murderer go Scot free if they serve enough time in a comfy prison.

@richietickles: yet those countries have far lower rates of violent crime, far lower incarceration rates, and less chance of repeat offenders....

Man, there are some real retrogrades in this thread...

I'm against the death penalty in general but I find it really hard for me to care in this instance. He deserves worse than death. With that said, I agree with most of the arguments people are making regarding cost, ethics, etc against it. I dunno, conflicted I guess heh.

Yeah, lets get that Gub'ment out of our lives!!! Except when it comes to deciding whether or not they can execute our citizens in a hasty fashion!!! Limited government at its finest.

First, the bomber had a reason for doing this act, second, that song about Russia is bad ass, Russia could kick our asses in any day.

So you support terrorism?

I don't support the death penalty. I wish they had listened to the parents of that kid who was killed in the bombing. They didn't want the death penalty either because they're going to have to re-live the trauma every time this guy has a legal proceeding. It could take decades before he runs out of legal options.

I see. In the first situation, you are saying that killing someone is okay if said someone killed someone you loved. In other words, vengeance is justice. In the second situation, rehabilitation is not deserved because murder is so bad of an act that it nullifies the humanity of an individual. You are saying that a murderer is no longer human.

What is the quantifiable physical difference between a murderer and, as an example, a jaywalker which makes a murderer no longer homo-sapien?

Nebraska Lawmakers Vote to Abolish Death Penalty

(LINCOLN, Neb.) — Nebraska lawmakers gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill abolishing the death penalty with enough votes to override a promised veto from Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts.

The vote was 32 to 15 in Nebraska’s unicameral Legislature.

If that vote holds in a veto override, Nebraska would become the first conservative state to repeal the death penalty since North Dakota in 1973.

The Nebraska vote is notable in the national debate over capital punishment because it was bolstered by conservatives who oppose the death penalty for religious reasons and say it is a waste of taxpayer money.

Nebraska hasn’t executed a prisoner since 1997, and some lawmakers have argued that constant legal challenges will prevent the state from doing so again.

Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts, a death penalty supporter, has vowed to veto the bill. Ricketts announced last week that the state has bought new lethal injection drugs to resume executions.

Ricketts, who is serving his first year in office, argued in his weekly column Tuesday that the state’s inability to carry out executions was a “management problem” that he is committed to fixing.

Maryland was the last state to end capital punishment, in 2013. Three other moderate to liberal states have done so in recent years: New Mexico in 2009, Illinois in 2011, Connecticut in 2012. The death penalty is legal in 32 states, including Nebraska.

Independent Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who sponsored the Nebraska legislation, has fought for four decades to end capital punishment in the state.

Nebraska lawmakers passed a death-penalty repeal bill once before, in 1979, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

Capital punishment has been going anyway in multiple states, in recent years.

@BranKetra:

Multiple liberal states sure. Nebraska has always been borderline left going back to the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.

ABSOLUTELY! Get dem gooverment out the way so the people can execute murderers in lynch mobs and kangaroo courts! Abolish that Goovernment, we don't need no stinkin' police, all we need is an armed citizenry to protect demselves. Amazing Aristotelian logic you showed boy!

Okay, I just have to comment on the hole "loophole" thing. You talk as if a murderer getting released because of some "loophole" is a bad thing. As if everyone knows that he's guilty as shit, but he still gets off for some technicality such as the police finding evidence during a search, but it being a "technically" ILLEGAL search since they had no warrant and had no legal grounds to search the guy's home in the first place.

That is not a bad thing.

The potential for anyone to get off on these "technicalities" or "loopholes" actually PROTECTS SOCIETY. For all the shit that police have been getting in the media recently, this should make perfect sense. These sorts of rules and procedures are (at least theoretically) the exact same rules that prevent the cops from busting into your home and tearing all of your shit apart until they find SOMETHING illegal to arrest you for. You talk of technicalities and loopholes, but those are really just "the rules". And yes...the people arresting people and prosecuting people and judging people and sentencing people need to fucking follow the rules and be held accountable for it. That's the responsibility that comes with having the legal power to fucking destroy someone's life. Once we start getting loose with 'the rules" just because we "know" in our hearts that the guy is guilty, then the rules don't mean shit and then we've given a free pass for widespread corruption.

Those technicalities and loopholes are GOOD. That's the kind of stuff that (in theory) forces police and lawyers and juries and judges to do their fucking jobs.

You take offence that someone suggests that you may need psychological help, but then openly admit you have paranoia? The legal system is about justice, not revenge.

Are you suggesting he wouldn't have appealed (and been in court) his life sentence?

I have absolutely no sympathy. Some people just don't deserve to exist after the crimes they've committed.