CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is true, except when their cases and executions are heavily publicized and politicized. In the case of Tsarnaev where dying for the cause of radical Islam is a form of martyrdom subsequently used for PR and recruitment one might easily expect that a life sentence would be of less utility to extremists than an execution.
Actually could have the opposite effect. He'll probably be making headlines in 40 years time for marrying a 20-something-year-old like Charles Manson if he just gets locked up.
I was acting under the assumption that he will get multiple appeals trials and be in the headlines multiple times for those. Charles Manson does get some coverage, but it is pretty small. Manson is a good example, but he hardly generates headlines.
He is young. Do you want to be responsible for housing, feeding, clothing and guarding him for the next 50+ years? I say execute him, burn the body and scatter the ashes. If you want to make sure he doesn't get to his Heaven, pack his carcass with pig entrails first and don't tell anyone where the ashes were thrown.
Whichever costs less to the taxpayer. Currently, it costs much more to execute someone than to keep them alive. If they use him as manual labor, he could even contribute to society.
The could hold a lottery and see how many people would pay to be the one to kill him. Justice should be swift, a bullet to the forehead and straight to the crematory and into the wind.
The very basic argument against your proposal is that it represents a gross miscarriage of justice under the cruel and unusual punishment clause in accordance with considerable judicial precedent dictating the acceptable forms of execution where it remains legal. Further, unless you are suggesting that all convicts facing the death penalty have their sentence carried out in this fashion then you are introducing unequal application of the law which undermines the legitimacy of the legal system (rather accomplishing the very end result terrorism is intended to accomplish).
And all of that aside, the winner of that bid would hardly be likely to carry out justice swiftly and much more likely to take their time and make him suffer. Your statements thus stand in contradiction to themselves.
The type of execution would have to be agreed upon by the court before the lottery. If we kept it simple and made it for serial killers and terrorists, it might work. Are you suggesting our system is just now? Rich people get away with everything, including murder. Poor people, especially Blacks, get YEARS in jail for piddling things, and women get lesser sentences than men most of the time. It doesn't seem all that fair and just to me.
I recognize that the system is highly dysfunctional in many respects, but that is hardly a reason to throw the whole thing out the window for some potential immediate emotional gratification.
I think he should get a life sentence because two wrongs don't make a right. If we kill him for killing others were just as bad as him. If we kill him we should die ourselves. If we do this it's not doing anything but making us bad people. I say locking him up for life, alone, and away from the outside world would do us justice.
So what your saying is that if we kill him, we are just as bad as the guy who MURDERED children and adults. Why should he get the right to live he didn't give those who died at the Boston marathon bombing that option.
look at all the other arguments in this debate then compare them to the one you made. As you can see everyone else has made an arguments that can be debated where as your argument can't.
I would say there is. First of all you are denying the families of the victims' right to getting justice for them. Also the fact that the majority of people against it would soon change their mind if it were there loved one who got murdered and want justice for them.
Also the fact that the majority of people against it would soon change their mind if it were there loved one who got murdered and want justice for them.
First, that is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Second, that is revenge, not justice. Third, that is why the families of victims are not the ones that decide punishments within most penal codes. A justice system is not meant to be a retribution system.
It is logical as it shows that a lot of people who oppose the death penalty are hypocrites.
First off, it is not an established fact, it is a claim that you are making. Second, the legal system is not meant to appeal to emotional vengeance. Retribution serves no productive purpose.
It is a claim that seems very likely. Be honest, if one of your loved ones died do you think you wouldn't wish death upon them? Retribution does serve a productive purpose as it is fair and it delivers gratification to the victim's loved ones.
Be honest, if one of your loved ones died do you think you wouldn't wish death upon them?
Yes, and I would kill them myself. I would then plead guilty to murder because what I did would be wrong and I would deserve to go to prison for it.
Retribution does serve a productive purpose as it is fair and it delivers gratification to the victim's loved ones.
Fair is very subjective in this situation. I don't think any outcome would be "fair" to the family of the victims, so I hardly think that killing the accused would achieve a fair outcome. It would simply bring about revenge, which, even if it is gratifying to the loved ones, is not itself productive, nor is it, in my opinion, something the government should be doing.
What if you couldn't and they were arrested before you could? You would want the government to put them to execution. You would feel anger that bleeding-heart left-wing people like yourself where either preventing that or trying to.
What if you couldn't and they were arrested before you could? You would want the government to put them to execution.
Of course I would want them to, but that does not mean that they should. There are plenty of things that people may want on a primal level that should not be orchestrated by the government.
A Democratic Socialist is an ideological term. I do believe in a Democratic system, but not a democratic society, if you get what I mean. I believe in publicly electing individuals, but only within a Republican society, where the elected officials are the ones running the government. In that sense, I strongly oppose places like California, where public referendums are common place. I do believe in democratic principles in certain aspects of life that are non-governmental, however, which is one factor of Democratic Socialism.
Even still, why do you think the government should ignore what the people want on this particular issue? Ultimately is the world going to be any worse of a place if this guys is executed? I daresay it would make it a lot better.
For this particular individual, I doubt the world would be a worse place. I doubt it would be better if he was executed, it would probably just be a neutral outcome. I do think the world is a worse place for employing the death penalty in general, however. As tempting as it is to point to this example as a means of supporting the death penalty, there are countless others one can point to in order to contest the legitimacy of it, not to mention the systemic issues of the application of the death penalty in many countries such as the United States. As tantalizing as it is to keep the death penalty around for situations such as this, simply keeping it a legal option allows it to be used in a wide variety of harmful ways. The positive effects simply do not outweigh the negatives.
Because people have the right to live. Because it is hypocritical for the government to condemn killing while killing. Because of the disproportionate rate of false convictions, and last but not least: because of inhumane methods of killing.
1) People have a right to live - Totally agreed! People do have a right to live. Monsters and terrorists don't.
2) Hypocritical government - But then providing a terrorist with all basic necessities - necessities that those who are not guilty of any crime (people who lost their jobs, those that live on streets, those that live in 3rd world countries) can't have, is just unjust. In this case, we'd rather have a hypocritical government than a government that is unfair and feeds and takes care of a terrorist.
3) Disproportionate rate of false convictions - I don't think we need to worry about that in this case.
4) Inhumane methods of killing - You know what else is inhumane? Building bombs using pressure cookers and killing kids before they even have a chance to properly live in this world, and taking the legs of a marathon runner.
2) Hypocritical government - But then providing a terrorist with all basic necessities - necessities that those who are not guilty of any crime (people who lost their jobs, those that live on streets, those that live in 3rd world countries) can't have, is just unjust. In this case, we'd rather have a hypocritical government than a government that is unfair and feeds and takes care of a terrorist.
This is a sad thought that we feed criminals, but not citizens. :(
He didn't let others live, and if you want to talk about inhuman methods well how about what he did? Are you saying that what he did to the people at the Boston marathon was okay?
1. People have the right to live. 2. It is hypocritical for a government that condemns killing to turn around and kill someone. 3. You will not change my mind on the death penalty.
He didn't respect that right, so why should he be entitled to it? Also can you even call such a monster a person?
It is hypocritical for a government that condemns killing to turn around and kill someone
It wouldn't be condemning killing in general, it would be condemning lawless killing of innocent people. As the government would be lawfully executing guilty people it would not meet the criteria of the condemnation, therefore not be hypocritical.
Fact: It is hypocritical for the government to condemn killing whilew handing out the death penalty. Fact: You will not change my mind on people having the right to live.
Well if you're going to just repeat the same exact points without even trying to refute the criticisms of them that I made then there is no point in carrying on.
I will repeat the facts until you either believe them or stop pushing your beliefs on me. Fact: It is hypocritical for the government to kill people while they condemn killing. You will not change my mind.
False. You will continue repeating your "facts" long after someone tries to push theirs. Fact: theEccentric did not try pushing beliefs on you and you still repeated facts.
My eyes are bothering me today. I will try my best to consider what you are saying. Let me know if I get anything wrong. I of course consider victims of rape, murder, and torture. I was raped 3 times, so I agree that criminals shouyld be punished. Life in prison should be the norm, not killing. It is hypocritical for a government that condemns killing to use the death penalty.
and like i said before to your point of everyone has the right to live, this low life did not consider the poor innocent peoples right to live, so why should anyone respect his right to live?
I've debated you and all you have come back with is people have the right to live, and I have said people do have the right to live but when they take away someone else's right to live then they themselves should lose there's!
is that all you have?? answer this did he respect the rights to live of all the victims of the bombing?? and especially the little 8 year old boy he placed the bomb behind??
actually NEITHER! he was used, a patsy by the govt. its obvious when you study the all the evidence. his trial was a joke. everything the msm said is a lie and a contradiction. truly,americans are the dumbest people on the planet. so easliy hoodwinked.
Death penalty just doesn't make sense to me. Someone does a terrible crime so we kill them and they never have to repent or feel remorse? No, if someone does something unspeakable, like mass murder or the boston bombing, throw them in the cell and throw away the key, proverbially. Have them live with the choices they made for the rest of their lives.
If that were the case, then life imprisonment is a good punishment for him. But unfortunately that's not how it works. He has to be fed regularly and with proper dietary requirements. He should be able to keep himself clean, so basic bathroom facilities. He should be allowed to freaking pray! If he has health troubles, then he should be tended to. Although he doesn't get a first class treatment, he gets the basic human care and he still has his fucking rights!
People who find themselves jobless and on the streets (they committed no petty crimes, let alone terrorism) can't afford most of those facilities.
So no, giving him LIFE, under the current system, just won't do justice.
Just because maximum security prisoners get to eat and take a dump doesn't mean they have any rights or live a comfortable life. They live a lot of their lives in solitude and the food they eat is miserably poor quality.
People who find themselves jobless and on the streets (they committed no petty crimes, let alone terrorism) can't afford most of those facilities.
Homelessness is a completely different debate. That being said, there are homeless shelters out there. I don't know the quality of them, but they exist. Not to mention the notion that some homeless people do commit petty crime (whether intention or not) and wind up getting the care they need in minimum security prisons.
So have them in jail at the tax payers expense, living life regardless of where they are there still living and breathing unlike his victims, let alone the ones who survived who have had their lives changed for ever! what's the point in putting him in a cell and throwing away the key, that's a waste of a cell, kill him!! one less extremist the more we take a stronger stance towards these kind of people the better chance we have of putting some of them off planning anything like this again!!
It costs more to put someone to death than to put them in prison for the rest of their life.
one less extremist the more we take a stronger stance towards these kind of people the better chance we have of putting some of them off planning anything like this again
The death penalty has not been proven to serve as a deterrent.
I doubt that very much that it cost more to kill them! one bullet and one willing shooter now that cant cost much??
and its impossible to prove that the death penalty deters people because if they don't commit the crime because of that reason we wont ever know?? but I know from myself and speaking with other people, it would make me think twice before taking that extreme action knowing the potential outcome if caught! so there's more of a chance with this method than going to jail and having a nice cell, three square meals a day, outdoor time, TV time, it might not sound much but its a dam site more than any of his victims will ever have!
You're making jail sound like a resort! It's definitely nothing like that at all. Here's an example of jail food. Not to mention, prisons don't even care if you have dietary restrictions. A teen in Washington once died because he had a dairy allergy. He asked a guard if his oatmeal had any dairy products in it and wasn't given a clear answer and thus died shortly thereafter from anaphylaxis. source
Three square meals, my ass.
A nice cell, my ass.
Outdoor time? You know who else gets "outdoor time"? Animals. Livestock. Not people.
It's prison for a reason. Living there is not meant to be a good thing.
Since when is having to eat ghastly food a good enough punishment for murderer? He treated the people who were killed in the bombing worse than animals, so he should be treated worse.
Actually it kind of is. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter if you kill a guilty life or an innocent life. So, yes, he killed a lot of people. Who gets to "pull the trigger"? What gives them the ability to take a life? If they take his life, then aren't they, in turn, a murderer?
Having him rot in jail is far worse punishment than a painless execution.
So if killing someone is always the same thing then by that principal if a woman were to kill a man who was trying to rape her in self-defence would also be considered a horrific act.
Definition of murder
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
As it would be a lawful execution it wouldn't make him a murderer. It would make him a deliverer of justice.
Who said anything about painless? I would like him to get hanged which would be a very unpleasant experience, or perhaps even burnt to death.
by that principal if a woman were to kill a man who was trying to rape her in self-defence would also be considered a horrific act.
Going to go ahead and just remind you that I never claimed the initial point, so that comparison doesn't work.
Definition of murder
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Indeed, which is why the death penalty is not murder. Never said it was.
As it would be a lawful execution it wouldn't make him a murderer. It would make him a deliverer of justice.
It would make him the deliverer of a punishment, but I hardly see how it is justice. It rights no wrongs, it provides no good, it is simply basic, animalistic retributionism.
I would like him to get hanged which would be a very unpleasant experience, or perhaps even burnt to death.
And that's why you start heading down the direction of those you decry.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Premeditated
Killing an attacker in self-defense isn't premeditated. False analogy, end of story.
Who said anything about painless? I would like him to get hanged which would be a very unpleasant experience, or perhaps even burnt to death.
Unfortunately for you, those forms of corporal punishment and the death penalty aren't legal in the US, so it's not going to happen. People who are put to death are killed quietly and painlessly now.
Killing an attacker in self-defense isn't premeditated. False analogy, end of story.
Well it is still strange that you consider killing a horrible person is equal to killing an innocent person. And people tell me I view things too "black and white".
Unfortunately for you, those forms of corporal punishment and the death penalty aren't legal in the US, so it's not going to happen. People who are put to death are killed quietly and painlessly now.
The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?
The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?
Because society should strive to be better than those we punish and decry.
Killing unprovoked is not morally equal to killing someone as a punishment for killing.
The one good thing about America is that it hasn't been overrun by yogurt-knitters like you to the point it has abolished the death penalty. It is because of your kind that I weep for British justice.
The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?
I would agree with that if I thought anyone should be put to death. But also, who's going to do the killing? You can't have a death penalty without putting the blood on somebody's hands.
The other user stated that prisoners get all of these amenities, including "three square meals". All I was pointing out there is that the food they receive isn't a luxury and it's healthy. It's part of the complete package of being in prison.
Well what ever they have in jail food, cell etc... like I said before is a dam site more than their victims so in those terms its a holiday resort! and far more than they deserve!
and im speaking about British jails and what I know and I've experienced in jail, its not hard time its just wasting time, nothing hard about it!
Of course. Plus you knew you'd get out eventually. This is a life sentence we're talking about for him. No promise of leaving one day. Maximum security, minimal human contact, until he dies. Better punishment for the crime than a painless injection that puts him to sleep before it kills him.
better punishment in your view, but not in my view, he still gets to breath air and see sunlight far more than he deserves! regardless of the environment he's detained in.
I mean at the end of the day, if you committed a terrible crime, would you prefer a quick and painless death or spending the rest of your life in confinement? I think the majority of people would agree that a quick and painless death is preferred. I know I would choose that.
I understand where your coming from, but who's to say maximum security will bother him that much?? will he suffer enough in that time? you never no he may find it easy? of course we would choose the quick way out but this isn't his choice?
but you don't know how he will respond to this? like I said he may find it easy, and if he does then is the punishment enough? your assuming you know how he will respond but you don't!
and its impossible to prove that the death penalty deters people because if they don't commit the crime because of that reason we wont ever know?? but I know from myself and speaking with other people, it would make me think twice before taking that extreme action knowing the potential outcome if caught!
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. When one is in the process of committing the crime, it is done so with the belief that they are not going to be caught. A bunch of people who aren't committing crimes talking about what they may or may not hypothetically think about doesn't prove anything.
so there's more of a chance with this method than going to jail and having a nice cell, three square meals a day, outdoor time, TV time, it might not sound much but its a dam site more than any of his victims will ever have!
What you have described is a minimum security prison. In other words, NOT what a murderer goes to, much less a terrorist.
"A recent study commissioned by the Nevada legislature found that the average death penalty case costs a half million dollars more than a case in which the death penalty is not sought." (source)
And if we're talking about wasting jail cells, then we should relax the ridiculous war on drugs by legalizing recreational use of marijuana. In 2013, there were 1.5 million arrested for nonviolent drug charges. Seems like that's wasting a hell of a lot more jail cells than the ones being used for murderers.
well at the point of conviction if it is beyond doubt that they committed the crime and the sentenced is passed as death than there should be no long drawn out appeal process, get it right at the first attempt and prevent this accumulative cost,
and the drug issues is a much bigger problem, and I agree there needs to be reform on the punishment for these offences and the rehabilitation process.
well at the point of conviction if it is beyond doubt that they committed the crime and the sentenced is passed as death than there should be no long drawn out appeal process, get it right at the first attempt and prevent this accumulative cost,
So long as the United States Constitution exists, then they can appeal on the grounds of the nature of the penalty, whether you think that should be the case or not.
Im not familiar with US law, but that sounds stupid and opens yourself up to this long drawn out legal process??? it undermines the conviction in the first place, mistakes can be made in the first attempt and that's where the efforts should be made to prevent potential appeals.
Im not familiar with US law, but that sounds stupid and opens yourself up to this long drawn out legal process??
How is it stupid to try to prevent innocent people from being put to death? That is the entire point of it. That does not undermine the conviction, it is accepting fallibility.
mistakes can be made in the first attempt and that's where the efforts should be made to prevent potential appeals.
If mistakes can be made, that is why you should ENSURE potential appeals.
Your missing my point, do your job properly in the first place! so the case is beyond doubt, then when a decision is made its made appropriately, if there is doubt then a decision cant be made, its not rocket science!! and your process as you say stops innocent people from getting convicted, funny enough it help guilty people get off aswell, so it undermines!
do your job properly in the first place! so the case is beyond doubt
The number of instances in which there is absolutely no doubt are so infinitesimally small. No justice system is infallible, and that alone is the reason appeals exist.
and your process as you say stops innocent people from getting convicted, funny enough it help guilty people get off aswell, so it undermines!
How do you believe that the appeals process gets guilty people off death row after they have already been convicted?
For the first part, yes. For the second part, you still have that pesky Constitution, and so long as the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution exists, then there will always be grounds for an appeal based on the nature of the punishment. On the other hand, if he was in prison for life without parole, there would be little to no grounds for appeal unless some (clearly nonexistent) evidence came out exonerating him or calling into serious doubt his guilt.
That's ridiculous. The 8th amendment does not say that you can appeal forever. Nothing about the 8th amendment makes it ok for this long drawn out appeal process. Something doesn't become uncruel and usual simply because you took time to decide on doing it.
The 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a common foundation for appeals done during Death Penalty cases. I'm not saying it is justified, simply that it is what happens.
I am confused as to the "they" you are questioning. Appeals are heard if there is any sort of legitimate issue at hand, or new evidence presented. With death penalty cases, whether or not the penalty is acceptable still remains very much at issue in this country, which means that referring to the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a constitutional foundation to make that argument, dramatically increasing the likelihood of an appeal being heard.
I am confused as to the "they" you are questioning.
You are the only person I have ever heard who claimed the 8th amendment is the reason for appeals. Can you link to anyone else who says that?
Appeals are heard if there is any sort of legitimate issue at hand, or new evidence presented.
That is not true. Appeals occur even if there is no legitimate issue.
With death penalty cases, whether or not the penalty is acceptable still remains very much at issue in this country
That is quite illogical. That's like saying since there is anyone around who opposes gay marriage it is ok to deny it even with the gay marriage law being passed.
which means that referring to the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a constitutional foundation to make that argument
No, the punishment doesn't change. Those arguments are weak.
"Eighth Amendment analysis requires that courts consider the evolving standards of decency to determine if a particular punishment constitutes a cruel or unusual punishment. When considering evolving standards of decency, courts both look for objective factors to show a change in community standards and also make independent evaluations about whether the statute in question is reasonable."
That should be a pretty good example.
That is not true. Appeals occur even if there is no legitimate issue.
That is true, I should have clarified. Much discretion is allowed within the system, but appeals are essentially required to be heard if there is a legitimate issue at hand or new evidence presented. Beyond that, discretion is key.
That is quite illogical. That's like saying since there is anyone around who opposes gay marriage it is ok to deny it even with the gay marriage law being passed.
I am confused by the comparison. Could you please clarify?
No, the punishment doesn't change. Those arguments are weak.
You may find them weak, but they have served as a sufficient basis for countless appeals.
But, that's not what appeals are doing. Appeals are solely determining if the conviction is correct, it doesn't reconsider the unusual punishment.
Much discretion is allowed within the system
Translation: doesn't have to be legitimate. Remember, you are using circular reasoning (although, not your fault). Sometimes, it is only legitimate because they decided it was ok to have the appeal, which is what makes it legitimate. There does not have to be any new evidence.
I am confused by the comparison. Could you please clarify?
Law says that it is ok to execute someone. Law says that it is ok to reevaluate if the execution is cruel and unusual. Law does not say that if some people believe that it should be reevaluated that we ignore first law. It would be like marriage licenses not being given out since there is an opposition to the law. I just picked something that I know has a lot of opposition.
You may find them weak, but they have served as a sufficient basis for countless appeals.
That doesn't make it stronger. Isn't that the ad populum fallacy?
Cool. I don't trust anything on there but the Texas numbers, though. For instance, if you look at California they include all of the costs associated with all of the BS appeals that the liberals added. They then use that to justify why it is too expensive to execute people.
BUT, Texas has more expensive executions, and they actually execute people, so you know they are doing it the cheapest they can get away with.
I fully agree with you. Nothing worse than driving under the influence (well except for texting and driving, but I won't get into that). The numbers are staggering though. In 2010, out of over 13 million arrests nation-wide, over 750,000 were for "marijuana possession". Were some of these perpetrators driving under the influence? Most likely yes, but I hardly believe a large number of them were.
"For illicit drugs, abuse of cannabis with or without alcohol is a major concern for the EU. In fact, three million Europeans use cannabis daily and 80% of them drive after use. A number of French studies since 1999 have underlined the high prevalence of cannabis found in the blood of injured or killed drivers."
That is what happens with legalized marijuana. Any substance that impairs mental state should be heavily regulated to reduce chances for DUIs. This includes alcohol which only regulates DUIs after the fact.
Except that marijuana is only legal in the Netherlands in Europe. If you want DUIs to decrease, use education about the dangers of driving under the influence, not prohibition of the underlying cause. Marijuana is currently illegal, but people still smoke it. At least with alcohol, there are TV ads and classes in high school that aim to teach people not to drive drunk. I have yet to see an ad about driving high, probably because of its illegality.
Also, how does the DUI incidence of European countries tie into incarceration rates for possession in America? Same drug, but different cultures and different overall issues.
Except that marijuana is only legal in the Netherlands in Europe.
In many European countries, it is no longer a criminal offense but a civilian infraction like a parking ticket.
If you want DUIs to decrease, use education about the dangers of driving under the influence, not prohibition of the underlying cause.
Of course there are better ways to reduce DUIs than prohibition and severe punishments. In a similar debate, I responded to you with a suggestion to regulate all psychoactive substances, including alcohol. The problem comes from regulation of alcohol or cigarettes. Both have giant lobbies. The marijuana lobby does not exist yet.
Also, how does the DUI incidence of European countries tie into incarceration rates for possession in America?
(I am guessing you were referencing the failed War on Drugs and the racial elements involved. Leave that for another debate.)
I was citing the 80% of DUIs being marijuana related. The general sentiment is that alcohol = impaired, marijuana = not as bad (= buzzed). The amount of deaths needed to incite the public into action near the level of the don't drink and drive movement will be pretty high (barely had an effect). By then, it will be legalized in all 50 states and there will be a marijuana lobby.
Right, and tying back into this debate, I think that once pot is legalized in America, we will deal with the issues of education and regulation. But more importantly to this debate, those would-be criminals will no longer be a strain on the prison system, freeing up room for more serious offenders like Tsarnaev.
(Obviously a drug offender and the Boston bomber wouldn't be locked up at the same facility)
I am an optimist and have blind faith in the social sciences (coughs). I believe in redemption, even for mass murderers.
Redemption is not the main reason any person should be spared from the death penalty. It is just more economical to put the criminals into labor camps.
If you want to punish a terrorist who wanted to tear down American society, have him put up American infrastructure with his hands.
Okay correct me if Im wrong but isnt he muslim and dont muslims believe in a great afterlife if you "serve" Alah Im not saying I believe in that shit or anything but why let him live his last days in peace in "knowing" he will be in a better place why not make every day a living hell forever for him everyday he gets beaten the crap out of from somebody who is related in some way to someone whowas hurt or killed on this earth from this evil piece of shit that even dogs wont eat. If he gets raped by the biggest and "biggest" guy ever and is bullied by everyone and maybe 20 years from now he has a painful death then you can call the American justice system a success...`murica
Of course we do. We as a society have agreed upon a legal and social code, one that be broke when he intentionally and knowingly harmed and killed innocent individuals. By breaking said codes and acting in the way he did, he loses his rights to self determination, and we as a society, through our legal system, judge the extent of his crimes and the adequate penalty for them.
I first said that I'm not sure that we have the moral authority to judge this butthead.
Then I said that if we break the laws that we are judging him by aren't we kind of buttheads ourselves?
I share my POV because although I'm a veteran and a citizen of the USA I don't see us as a moral actor when it comes to terrorism. I believe that our nation was born in terror and has used terror throughout our history whether during peace or war.
As a nation we've murdered pretty much without compunction.
So given that this guy came over here (yes I know he was a citizen and lived here) and killed some of us in an apparent retaliation for civilian deaths overseas, I can see killing him because he's a enemy combatant but not really because we have moral authority in law to do so.
BTW we are at war with terror. If this has some legal meaning d-bag up there should be held and treated as an enemy combatant. Which would make us guilty of a war crime if we killed his sorry ass.
I'm just saying. I personally would like to squash him with a steam roller... killing babies really gets under my skin. But we are in sort of an ambiguous position on the subject ourselves.
Then I said that if we break the laws that we are judging him by aren't we kind of buttheads ourselves?
How have we as a society broken the laws that we are judging him by?
I share my POV because although I'm a veteran and a citizen of the USA I don't see us as a moral actor when it comes to terrorism. I believe that our nation was born in terror and has used terror throughout our history whether during peace or war.
I am in complete agreement.
So given that this guy came over here (yes I know he was a citizen and lived here) and killed some of us in an apparent retaliation for civilian deaths overseas, I can see killing him because he's a enemy combatant but not really because we have moral authority in law to do so.
We can certainly judge him and sentence him without employing the death penalty. I advocate for that.
Well there are the Indians... Whom we murdered for land. That's against our law. If someone were to break into my home and kill me in order to take possession, it would be considered illegal.
It doesn't matter whether Indians themselves possessed property, we have a saying... Possession is nine tenths of the law. Under our philosophy we had no valid reason for murdering Indians and taking their land. That this was an act of many separate genocides simply strengthens my assertion that we lack moral authority when it comes to prosecuting terrorists. Much of what we did as individual settlers and groups of US citizens would very definitely be held as terrorist actions if they were committed against us.
One sided justice isn't.
I'm not at all certain that Obama's executive panel on drone targeting is legal process. Seems to put something that should be in the purview of the judicial branch within the power of the executive branch.
Not only that but the drone program constitutes terrorism under our own definition. Double taps and signature strikes have a reasonable certainty of killing civilians and are as morally reprehensible as the actions of D-hoser Tarnished and his brother during the Boston marathon. Even more so if you judge these things by scale.
I also wonder whether the actions of the authorities to completely shut down Boston and do questionable searches was legal.
Then you could consider the Iraq war. Where one of the principles, Dick Cheney, was responsible for lying to public in order to gain support for the war. This guy, the vice president ended up developing 34 billion dollars in revenue for his companies. The result of that war, some 200,000 deaths -- mostly civilians.
Do we really think, "Oops! Mistake! My bad!" covers something like that?
Well there are the Indians... Whom we murdered for land. That's against our law. If someone were to break into my home and kill me in order to take possession, it would be considered illegal.
It doesn't matter whether Indians themselves possessed property, we have a saying... Possession is nine tenths of the law. Under our philosophy we had no valid reason for murdering Indians and taking their land. That this was an act of many separate genocides simply strengthens my assertion that we lack moral authority when it comes to prosecuting terrorists. Much of what we did as individual settlers and groups of US citizens would very definitely be held as terrorist actions if they were committed against us.
While I am not in disagreement with you in any way pertaining to our country's history with the Native Americans, I fail to see how that pertains to the issue with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and modern America.
I'm not at all certain that Obama's executive panel on drone targeting is legal process. Seems to put something that should be in the purview of the judicial branch within the power of the executive branch.
Yet again, I am in agreement.
Not only that but the drone program constitutes terrorism under our own definition. Double taps and signature strikes have a reasonable certainty of killing civilians are as such are as morally reprehensible as the actions of D-hoser Tarnished during the Boston marathon. Even more so if you judge these things by scale.
I disagree that they constitute terrorism, as the intent is not to strike fear into the civilian population. I do think the amount of "collateral damage" constitutes war crimes, however.
Then you could consider the Iraq war. Where one of the principle responsible for lying to public in order to gain support for the war ended up developing 34 billion dollars in revenue for his companies. The result of that war, some 200,000 deaths -- mostly civilians.
Should be illegal, but isn't. Sadly, the Military Industrial Complex (We miss you Ike) is alive and well, and sees very few legal hurdles.
Rendition.
Torture.
More and more agreement, but my issue still is how it pertains to this particular issue. Indeed our country has done many, many bad things in our history, but I fail to see how that prevents us from having the moral authority to imprison murderers.
If you will recall my first statement concerned whether we have moral authority.
We as a society judge people based on their history. For example, if someone commits a sex offense we not only put them in prison for awhile, we require them to put their names on a list of sex offenders as a means to keep track of them.
If a person commits a crime and then having been imprisoned and then released offends yet again, we will use the first crime to help determine the penalty for the second.
Now why should it be any different for nations? I think it is a morally fatal mistake to consider that we hold no responsibility for the past. Especially when you consider that we end up committing the same kind of atrocities over and over again. I'd argue because we never really take responsibility for the crimes we've committed as a nation. Instead we see our ancestors as being morally imperfect without ever acknowledging that we are as well.
Concerning drone strikes. It should not strike you as odd that I see these strikes as terrorism. Because they quite obviously have a political component. To support this I'd ask you to consider how the USA views Muslims, especially Arab Muslims? They are an obvious political enemy of the USA in exactly the same way the Indians were back in the day. Even a lot of the same language and propaganda is being used to support our actions against Muslims who could as easily be described as "freedom fighters" as "terrorists. The whole thing is a political game to destabilize the regions as a means to control resources and the resulting strategic geography.
Then you might consider that this so called war on terrorism can not possibly even be a war. Because terrorists are individuals or criminal groups that exist within nations. A nation cannot declare war on criminals anymore than they can declare war on Starbucks, they can only prosecute them. So collateral damage which is a term used properly in this context during wartime can not come into play if a state of war does not exist.
His life was failing at a very crucial stage of his existence. He always had an option out of this but, he took the wrong one this time. He was very stressed, at times like these you might have a mental disorder when you think you have no other option so, you do what you brain thinks and don't listen to anything else. He should go to jail for 10 years and in that time, he should go to a therapist to get his life back on track.
The death penalty is the easy way out for cowards like him. Of course what he did was wrong and inexcusable, however he'll be thrilled with the death penalty. He wouldn't care he's dying, he did his job. Instead you let the man rot away in prison for the rest of his life, that's called justice. He took innocent lives away, so his life should be taken away too, slowly and painfully.
I don't think the man deserves death. Yeah he killed a few people but every Us President of the last century are sociopathic killers and murdered thousands but yet we still celebrate them.
Big mistake in giving him the death sentence. Whilst on the one hand he would be deprived of his life just as he deprived his victims of theirs the fundamental difference is that his victims wanted to LIVE at the time they were murdered. Tsarnaev wanted to DIE (pretty sure he tried to take his own life in the run up to being captured anyway). These terrorists are not your average criminal (who would possibly want to stay alive), they commit these crimes with the objective of becoming martyrs so the death penalty to them is more like a prize of honour rather than a punishment. He should be kept alive and made to live with what he's done and with no chance of parole because that would be far more torturous to him than being killed. On the occasion, the death penalty is not just, it's freedom.
To be clear, then, you favor an increasingly outmoded form of retributive justice and also think that laws ought to be determined by their economic impact rather than by their justness or objective impact on society. Nice; that will end well for everyone I am sure.
What do you think a sentence for a murderer should accomplish? Because that really determines justice. Do you really believe the death penalty accomplishes something that a life sentence does not and is more valuable than the money saved? I'm not just considering the economic impact. Please tell me how a life sentence is worse for society than the death penalty. Then maybe your argument will carry some weight.
Actually, I am generally opposed to the death penalty and never stated otherwise. My rebuttal was not targeting opposition to the death penalty, but rather your arguments in defense of it. Your original comments exclusively considered only the most retributive form of punishment ("death penalty is too good for him") and the economic cost ("it's cheaper to keep him locked up"). I introduced the concept of broader social implications as a counter to those statements, but nice try acting like that was your idea. You have effectively conceded my counterpoint that there are other valid considerations while simultaneously failing to defend the variables you chose to focus upon, rendering my work here done.
Nice job completely avoiding my argument! You'll see that I did not address the social implications because I felt as though they should not weigh as heavily on the decision as the economic cost simply because I do not think the positive social implication of the death penalty comes close to the benefit of money saved by life in prison. But feel free to continue to be petty and believe your argument accomplished something.
Your argument was (and still is) premised upon a fallacious assumption of my stance on this issue. You asked me to prove that the death penalty accomplishes a social good greater than that of a life sentence; I did not do so because I think the opposite is true contrary to your false presumptions. My critique has never been about the conclusion but that you falsely separated empirically integrated systems from one another by neglecting to address the matter of objective social impact. Given that you have subsequently attempted to advance a more nuanced statement than your original remark, I can quite safely say that my argument did accomplish something.
Take the final word if you like; I am disinclined to continue this exchange.
I think the best solution is talk to him about why he has done and try to change his ways of life. Throwing him in prison as a sign of revenge is reasonable but it is better to try to change his ways of life. People wouldn't do that because they are so fixed on getting revenge that is actually not healthy for society. Revenge creates a cycle of hate and that will continue forever until one side stops.
If the only two options is prison or death sentence, then obviously it is life sentence. If i was a revengeful person and i am a revengeful person, life sentence is better because death is an easy escape.
He's a Muslim. He's devoted to the teaching of Muhammed no matter what you try to "reteach him". He's obligated to follow the commands of a child rapist and is brainwashed as such.
I don't think that the court should sentence him to death. If he is killed, it will make him a martyr to the people in America that are being recruited by terrorists. If he is locked up, then it won't be as big of a deal.
Firstly, the filth should have his hair shaven off, and then incarcerated for the rest of his useless life. If the dirtball Muslim was to be executed his breed would take revenge and he would become a martyr. Hard labour, breaking rocks in the hot sun with a daily ham sandwich and just enough water to keep him alive would be a reasonable punishment.
Well then we can just execute those who try and take revenge and use espionage to find out which of the radicals are so we can arrest them before they do anything.
As much as I despise him as a person, shaving off those gorgeous locks would be a crime in itself ;)
Death penalties are unfair. Recently, two of Australia's (my hometown) citizens were executed in Indonesia. This caused international outrage across the world. Even though Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's wrongdoings caused such a fuss, a life sentence is a humane and fair punishment. SWAGGGGG
a life sentence costs the state less money and it also is a harsher punishment you must wake up everyday in a box where people hate you. looking over your shoulder everyday is far worse then the death penalty.
He should get a life sentence and a swift one. They should hang him by his heels and gut him like the pig he is. Boo Hoo, he had a bad childhood. So did most of the rest of us. That is no excuse to behave with such cold, calculated indifference. He only showed pity for himself. He should die, the quicker, the better. Don't drag the process out and cost the state and national a lot of additional money.
The whole point of the appeals process is to prevent innocent people from being killed. If you remove the appeals process for him, you risk the chance of removing the appeals process for legitimately innocent people down the road.
I don't think there should be an appeals process for people who freely admit to their crimes, especially when there is video and eyewitness testimony. I believe that anyone convicted of multiple murders such as terrorists and serial killers, shouldn't have an appeals process. It's a waste of time and money.
I don't think there should be an appeals process for people who freely admit to their crimes,
What if they are pressured into admission, which happens quite often?
especially when there is video and eyewitness testimony.
What if the video isn't clear? And eyewitness testimony has been wrong plenty of times before.
I believe that anyone convicted of multiple murders such as terrorists and serial killers, shouldn't have an appeals process. It's a waste of time and money.
There have been multiple individuals who were convicted of multiple murders then later found to have been wrongfully convicted. People like you would have put them, innocent individuals, to death.
The appeals process should be kept by people who have a reasonable doubt to their crime. This guy was seen, videod and admitted in court that he was involved in the murders and mutilation of many people and injury to over 260 people. He needs to die. He is a useless human being. To make a point as to what will happen to the ones in the future who try this sort of thing, he should be stuffed with pig entrails, wrapped in a pig's skin and cremated and thrown out where no one knows.
The appeals process should be kept by people who have a reasonable doubt to their crime
Who determines what standard of reasonable is used?
This guy was seen, videod and admitted in court that he was involved in the murders and mutilation of many people and injury to over 260 people.
You are repeating something I have already addressed. Video evidence has been wrong in the past, due to grainy footage or bad angles. Eye witnesses are wrong quite often. Admissions can be (and have been) coerced out of innocent individuals by the police. I am not claiming that he is innocent, because I really, truly do not believe he is. But our legal system is meant to protect the innocent first and foremost.
He needs to die. He is a useless human being.
He does not need to die. Killing him will do no good. I agree that he is useless, but putting him in a maximum security prison will save money (whether you believe it should or not is beside the point), keep him from committing any more crimes and remove him from the populace, all without setting a precedent that could harm innocent people.
To make a point as to what will happen to the ones in the future who try this sort of thing,
The death penalty has never been proven to act as a deterrent.
he should be stuffed with pig entrails, wrapped in a pig's skin and cremated and thrown out where no one knows.
That is just pathetic. You want to lower our justice system down so far that it would remove all semblance of legitimacy. You would have us act as petty children acting out revenge fantasies concocted by anti-Muslim bigots.
String him up high! If he thought it apt to take others lives then why is his so precious? Tit for tat I say. Let it be a warning to all Muslims who try and make an enemy of the civillized World.
Tsarnaev's life isn't precious. He gave up that when he MURDERED innocent people and injured over 200 who will have to live with what he did the rest of their lives.
Then you are insinuating that lives are not equal. If he didn't do it, but only planned to, would you judge him the same way? Do all lives start precious? How do we agree on who's life is more precious than someone else's? Is it right to view people's lives in that manner?
You honestly think executing him is going to be a "warning" that deters radical Muslims? More likely his death will be treated as a PR boon by extremists to radicalize more disillusioned people.
There is no such thing as islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of Islam is rational. Typical left-wing Yogurt-Knitter. Hates religion apart from if the religion is almost entirely comprised of ethnic minorities.
You know very well what I meant by the term "Islamaphobia" (targeted discrimination), but nice attempt at avoidance. Even if you think Islam is scary, discrimination against Muslims is hardly to going to make its adherents less prevalent or extreme.
For the record I am categorically opposed to religion regardless of its ethnic demographics, but violently attacking religion or engaging in discriminatory practices has rarely created fewer adherents which was my original point.
It's not the religion it's self that there afraid of but more the common actions made by the people because of the religion, Muslims haven't exactly given us a good reason to not be afraid. I mean I don't really think you see jews , and Christians flying airplanes into buildings and bombing a marathon to please a god do you?
Literally every religion of note has had radical extremists who have perpetrated acts of violence and/or terrorism against others, including both Judaism and Christianity. The simple fact that we distinguish these extremists as radicals underscores the reality that they are not representative of an average adherent.
With respect to radical Christians: The KKK is Christian-centric organization recognized as a domestic terrorist organization and is responsible for countless documented acts of violence. The Army of God is a formally recognized Christian terrorist organization operating within the United States since the 1980s and is responsible for multiple terrorist attacks. Countless other individuals engaged in acts of violence and terrorism in the U.S. have done so in the name of the Christian faith (e.g. Scott Roeder, James Kopp, etc.). Anders Breivik killed 77 people in the name of Christianity and Islamaphobia in 2011 in Norway. The Lords Resistance Army responsible for multiple massacres and other acts of terrorism and violence is heavily influenced by Christianity as well. I could go on, but I suspect my point is clear.
With respect to radical Judaism: The Jewish Defense League, Jewish Defenders, and Jewish Direct Action are three recognized terrorist organizations operating since the 1970s within the United States responsible for multiple bombings and religiously motivated terrorism. Where there are larger Jewish populations there is more notable Jewish extremism. For instance, Israel is/has been home to Gush Emunim Underground, Bat Ayin, Brit HaKanaim, and numerous other violent, extremist Judaic groups. I could go on, but again I suspect my point is clear.
People are not afraid of Islam because it is predominantly violent and extreme. People are afraid of Islam because they are ignorant and too lazy to do some very basic research, preferring to swallow the alarmist nonsense of whatever mainstream media they are beholden to.
If we do as you propose and begin to eradicate the founding principles of this nation (i.e. innocent until proven guilty), then radical Islamic terrorism will have succeeded in its larger objective. People like you have become so angry and afraid of terrorism that you are willing to throw away the legal system which secures our rights and liberties for an illusion of greater safety.
No I do not he isn't an American citizen doesn't get that right and he isn't innocent we all know it so why are we wasting tax payers money on this coward's trail.
He should have an appeal because it is permitted to others within our legal justice system, and to introduce subjective variation into who can appeal and who cannot undermines the legitimacy of that system.
I do not know what they are appealing but it is hardly surprising that they are doing so. It is unlikely that he will win upon appeal, but his attorneys are ethically required to exhaust all means at their disposal to provide the best possible defense to their client. This is how an adversarial system works, and while it does lead to some blatant inefficiency sometimes it is also what keeps prosecution accountable overall.
The death penalty seems to suit his crime. If you don't use it in this case, you might as well abolish it. Unfortunately either way the jury goes, Tsarnaev will spend the next 10-20 years appealing their decision, must likely at taxpayer expense. But finally he will end.
An eye for an eye is what I say! so death is what he has earned himself, and if I had my way he would die a very slow lonely death, no food or water alone in a sound proof cell, wasting away with only the thoughts of why did I do this!! anyone who chooses and plans to take another persons life has to pay the ultimate price for their actions, because not only do they take the persons life they effect anyone close to that person for the rest of their life, I know this because im having to suffer this myself!
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Why should we lower ourselves to his level? If we decry these people for their atrocities, why commit atrocities in revenge?
Lowering ourselves has nothing to do with it! and taking his life is not an atrocity its justification for his action, in life there needs to be consequence for your action!! otherwise why have law?? To deal with extremist takes extreme measures, we all only have on life to live and to take someone's away with them is the worst thing you can do, so why should you not have yours taken away! it makes no sense to lock these people up for the rest of their lives!
explain?? because if we enforce the law are we lowering ourselves to criminal?? same thing isn't it??
and taking his life is not an atrocity its justification for his action
Killing someone slowly and with deliberate malicious intent is most certainly an atrocity.
my point of view is extreme, but justified to me personally and not what he will receive!
in life there needs to be consequence for your action!
The death penalty is not the only possible consequence.
No nut its the most appropriate for his actions!
To deal with extremist takes extreme measures
Why? That simply makes us extremists as well.
yes it does but the old saying is you need to fight fire with fire sometimes, were seen as soft targets because of our soft stance and approach, extremist are beyond reason and convincing there brainwashed and prepared to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent lives, you try stopping that with a conversation?
it makes no sense to lock these people up for the rest of their lives!
It makes perfect sense if you want to be better than those you are decrying.
I don't care about being better than them, im already there! im not the one going round planning on killing innocent people!
explain?? because if we enforce the law are we lowering ourselves to criminal?? same thing isn't it??
Slowly and deliberately killing him would actually be unconstitutional and therefore the exact opposite of enforcing the law.
and taking his life is not an atrocity its justification for his action
Again, deliberately killing someone slowly in a way intended to cause suffering with malicious intent is an atrocity.
No nut its the most appropriate for his actions!
In your opinion. It is quite clear that I disagree. This is not an objective issue.
es it does but the old saying is you need to fight fire with fire sometimes
Which simply makes the fire bigger. A silly saying.
were seen as soft targets because of our soft stance and approach
What do you mean by "soft targets" and where is your evidence that we are often seen as such?
extremist are beyond reason and convincing there brainwashed and prepared to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent lives, you try stopping that with a conversation?
When did I say I wanted to try to stop it with a conversation?
I don't care about being better than them, im already there!
Not if you are in the process of slowly killing someone for no reason other than to satisfy your own desire for revenge. Well, maybe somewhat better than him, but not by as much as you think.
so what's your form of justice then??
I don't think legitimate justice can be obtained in these types of situations, even if you were to kill him or torture him to death. I think at that point all you can do is lock him up for life without parole in a maximum or super maximum (probably not necessary for him) prison and try to prevent future attacks.
You keep referring to my method of killing him, that's not what awaits him? that's just my personal opinion, but I support them executing him how they choose to.
If fighting fire with fire makes the fire bigger than shall we disband the British and US army's then??
I served in the armed forces and the term soft target is the public, they can target our public with ease due to the infiltration they have, unlike a white man in Iraq who stands out like a sore thumb.
You didn't say anything about stopping them with a conversation, but that's all you left with without force?
Killing him for no reason there's one big reason?? and to satisfy me, it will satisfy far more than just me!!
Justice can never be fully obtained because you cant bring the deceased back, but in my view you can send the perpetrator to where they belong 6ft under.
You keep referring to my method of killing him, that's not what awaits him? that's just my personal opinion
And my responses were in regards to your personal opinion.
If fighting fire with fire makes the fire bigger than shall we disband the British and US army's then??
While the inner tree-hugging peacenik wants to sing kumbaya and laud that suggestion, of course not. We should, however, work on avoiding "fighting fire with fire" sorts of military tactics, which both military's tend to do already.
I served in the armed forces and the term soft target is the public, they can target our public with ease due to the infiltration they have, unlike a white man in Iraq who stands out like a sore thumb.
Then wouldn't the entirety of the Western world be a soft target?
You didn't say anything about stopping them with a conversation, but that's all you left with without force?
I never said we could not use any force, I simply took umbrage with the death penalty. That is not the only use of force out there.
Justice can never be fully obtained because you cant bring the deceased back, but in my view you can send the perpetrator to where they belong 6ft under.
But that doesn't bring justice. That doesn't make anything right. That is pure retributionism, and in my opinion, is counterproductive.
The reason we have army's is to fight fire with fire because that action is what it takes sometimes, and yes the whole western world is a soft target mixed with hard targets which are government and military buildings.
So your view is Counterproductive, this is my point about army's and fighting fire with fire, if its counterproductive then why have them??? going into Afghanistan was retribution do you disagree with that?
The reason we have army's is to fight fire with fire
We almost never combat an enemy's tactics with the same tactics, which would be fighting fire with fire. That's just not sound military strategy.
this is my point about army's and fighting fire with fire, if its counterproductive then why have them??? going into Afghanistan was retribution do you disagree with that?
Because there are very real and productive reasons to have armed forces. I agree that going into Afghanistan was more based on retribution than the stated justification (preemptive self defense), and it was also a very bad idea.
We have special forces who fight wars we don't here about, and there tactics are purely fighting fire with fire, clandestine is the term as most of there action are deniable and secretive.
so you agree we need to fight fire with fire sometimes??
How so? They are specifically targeting enemy combatants, something that most of the targets of special forces do not do. Now if the military was employing terrorism in order to combat terrorism, I would agree with you.
your knowledge of special forces is clearly limited, and you don't employ a terrorist to fight a terrorist, you fight fire with fire, force with force, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight,
and you don't employ a terrorist to fight a terrorist
That would be fighting fire with fire.
you fight fire with fire, force with force,
This conversation really is pointless. You are simply repeating the same antiquated phrase over and over without any sort of specific explanation that could lend any sort of tangible meaning to the disagreement.
im having to repeat myself because its a simple point which doesn't require an in depth and detailed response, so ill say it one more time, we have army's, navy and air force, to fight fire with fire because that's what it take to resolved a situation sometimes, we humans have always been violent and will always be violent!
Again, you keep saying "fight fire with fire" without explaining what you mean by that. It is essentially meaningless with how vague it is being employed.
WOW! how are you not getting this! fire with fire is the same as fighting force with force, guns against guns, knife against knife fist against fist, meeting violence with violence, if you want an example, riot police using batons and water guns to stop rioters throwing petrol bombs or stones at police, police using a Taser gun to stop a sword wilding maniac, a sniper taking out a suicide bomber in a car! how much do you need to understand this perspective???
its very difficult to argue with stupidity!! and your a prime example! and if you think that's vague then wow your not worth debating with as you will never understand!
How is "force with force" and "violence with violence" not vague? You claimed that a sniper shooting a suicide bomber is fighting fire with fire, which is nonsense. Fighting a sniper with a sniper would be fighting fire with fire, or a suicide bomber with a suicide bomber would be fighting fire with fire.
But go ahead, employ personal insults. That will elevate your argument.
you are a plank your quite right, and yes your point has remained the same regardless of my attempts, and for you to come to the same conclusion at the end confirms your a plank :p
In case you missed it, that joke was because you were "bored" of the conversation. And yes, my point has indeed remained the same, as has yours. So what?
I didn't miss it hence my response, I wouldn't of replied at all otherwise, I haven't changed my stance and I know you haven't, but im sure we will both sleep well tonight!
Killing someone slowly and with deliberate malicious intent is most certainly an atrocity.
It is not if they deserve it.
The death penalty is not the only possible consequence.
Death is the only consequence equal to his crime.
Why? That simply makes us extremists as well.
Killing a monster is not an extremity like killing innocent people.
It makes perfect sense if you want to be better than those you are decrying.
You would still be morally better than him because you would have killed a monster, while he would have killed innocent people. Can you not see how they are different?
Killing a monster is not an extremity like killing innocent people.
Slowly and deliberately killing someone is extreme.
You would still be morally better than him because you would have killed a monster, while he would have killed innocent people. Can you not see how they are different?
I never claimed they were exactly the same. I said that we would be becoming LIKE him, not that we would be coming him.
You can't compare killing someone simply for having a different religion to you to killing someone who actually hurt innocent people. That is the kind of ridiculous comparison I would expect from a bleeding-heart liberal (you say you're not but you seem like one to me).
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
It doesn't. Most people don't do (properly) bad things so would not receive punishments. It would only be the bad people who are the minority who would be blind. Gandhi was quite frankly, a bit too knit-your-own-natural-yogurt for my liking.
I said that we would be becoming LIKE him
It would be nothing like him at all. You can't even compare the two.
Again, I only compared them because he wanted to essentially torture the man to death. I even went on an clarified that I simply think he isn't as far ahead of him as he thinks, not that they are particularly alike.
bit too knit-your-own-natural-yogurt
I started a drinking game when reading your comments. Every time I see one of your over done catchphrases I take a shot.
It would be nothing like him at all. You can't even compare the two.
Just because you disagree with the comparison does not prevent the comparison from occurring. I admit I may be a bit over zealous on this issue due to my overwhelmingly strong moral issue with the death penalty and the justifications people use for it, however.
I really don't understand your soft response to this mindless killer??? your not far of defending him!! if all of us in the western world thought like you we wouldn't last very long against these extremist, perhaps we should put an arm around him, give him a hug tell him he's been a very naughty boy!! I hope he gets a nice warm blanket and a soft pillow and the guards tuck him in before lights out! night night sleep tight Mr terrorist!
Even if you are not, you can't deny many of your views are congruent.
Babe you seem to have a serious problem, I suggest you start to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings, instead of trying to palm the blame of your problem drinking off onto some kid who you don't like who you know from some internet forum.
Congratulations on finding another excuse for being a lush. It's always easier to blame other people, isn't it hun? Problem drinking is the typical kind of moral degeneracy I would expect from a lefty.
To be fair, I mostly do not use insults, I just use them if I get frustrated when the person I am debating with acts like a mong. I have never had a debate with someone which has comprised entirely (or even mostly) of insults. Unlike you I feel no need to putting up a false front of being all calm and civilized.
To be fair, I mostly do not use insults, I just use them if I get frustrated when the person I am debating with acts like a mong.
That's the point, you often seem to think that if someone espouses an opinion you disagree with, they are acting "like a mong", and then you insult them.
Unlike you I feel no need to putting up a false front of being all calm and civilized.
Project if you wish, but this is no false front. I just don't see the point in insulting people on a debate forum.
Comparing wanting a mass murderer to get the death penalty to what Isis does is acting like a mong. I don't think you're a mong though, I think that mummy and daddy where hippies and that's rubbed off on you.
How can you say that killing someone who is a murdering terrorist and indisputably a monster on the same level as killing random, innocent people, one of whom was a little boy? He deserves to die, they didn't.
I agree with you. He shouldn't get an appeal and should be killed quickly and buried in an unmarked grave. Because he claimed he did it for his religion, he should be wrapped in pig skin before being buried. Let everyone know why and how, but not where.
This is tough because it is obviously an emotional topic. I so seldom support the death penalty that I'm not altogether comfortable saying this, but if anyone deserves the death penalty it's this asshole. I would be ok with someone shoving a ham sandwich into his mouth right before he's put to death.
I think he needs to be made an example of. I think we need to show terrorists that they are not going to get away with these attacks and if they do, they will pay the ultimate price. Death to Dzhokhar then, well maybe not. I also think there is no greater punishment than to let someone rot in jail. So, Maybe that isn't a bad option.
Welcome to America! The land where you are guilty until proven innocent! How is it you just swallow what the government/msm tell you and never question?
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The statement was, in fact, made before he was found guilty, which would make ConLibFraud's statement have fitting context. Andy making the topic sound so certain before he was found guilty would actually further support ConLibFraud's statement that he was being considered guilty before proven innocent.
Of course the conspiracy theory nonsense is...well..nonsense.
Now that's just the cruelest thing you could have said!
Truth is, I tend to ignore "celebrity trials", which led to me mixing up the date of his sentencing with the date of him being found guilty. This is what I get for posting on the specifics of a topic I did not sufficiently stay up to date on.
That's the stupidest video I have seen in a long time. I stopped after the naked guy part. The naked guy that was found is still alive now and is proof that the authorities were trying to keep the bombers alive, not kill them. Otherwise, they would have shot the naked guy that looked like one of them. And, khaki pants aren't a uniform. Those guys could have been a contractor team or Jake from State Farm.
I thought this was a respectable debate site. Guess I was wrong. Why are you on this site if you are not willing to see evidence outside of your field of view? Did I intrude on your views of life? Did I somehow insult you? The only thing you are doing is proving your ignorance.
let's see. The guys leg, no blood is coming from it. The fake blood, real blood is darker and does not reflect light like that does. The backpacks didn't match. History of false flag attacks. “Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.” - David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. The fact the court case was a complete fraud. And he was an FBI informant.
I honestly do not know how you could say that if you looked at the websites. You even said you stopped the video because it was intruding on your belief the government wouldn't lie to you. I mean the evidence was flimsy.
So, because it didn't match your limited point of view you just stopped watching and reading? Do you understand the world we would live in if that is how everyone thought? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU IF I ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING! Let's take a step back, actually read what you just said there ok? If someone said that to you, you would call them a close minded idiot. Anyway. What evidence makes him guilty? The backpacks didn't match he was running away from the blast site WITH HIS BAG ON. And they said he fled yet videos released from stores proving he did not flee and he was going about his everyday life. All I asked was to look at the facts I provided you, what is the worse that can happen? I'm going to brain wash you through your computer? You claim my evidence is false yet you haven't looked at it.
So, because it didn't match your limited point of view you just stopped watching and reading?
No, I stopped when it was shown to be opposite of reality.
Do you understand the world we would live in if that is how everyone thought?
Less time wasted on crack pots like you.
WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU IF I ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING!
That's how you are acting.
Let's take a step back, actually read what you just said there ok?
I am still waiting for you to read what I wrote and not reading what you think I wrote.
If someone said that to you, you would call them a close minded idiot.
No, I would evaluate their evidence.
What evidence makes him guilty?
Well, unfortunately, I have not been given ask the evidence from the trial. But, he confessed, so that's a big negative. He also searched for how to make bombs.
All I asked was to look at the facts I provided you
For the 4th time I did. You provided non facts as well, how do I know what is fact and what is fiction?
You claim my evidence is false yet you haven't looked at it.
Crackpot? (See my profile image). Do you not see the evidence that hes not guilty? You obviously didn't look at the websites and if you did they you are too far gone for me to convince. What is fact and fiction? Jesus IDK it pretty easy to tell the guy with no legs was staged(No blood dripping??). It is pretty easy to tell that is fake blood and all of those are legitimate photos taken by your beloved media. How am I acting like I know everything? All I am is using resources to support my claim. He didn't confess either he was drugged before the trail and his defense attorneys were crooked. Tell me THIS is a coincidence: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/04/boston-bombing-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-trial-another-drugged-patsy-being-framed-5-minute-video-3136300.html HE didn't confess to anything. And Searching "How to make a bomb" is nothing. People can be curious from TV and movies. Or if one was ever to be near them they could reverse engineer and disarm the bomb, since they knew how to make it. Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R_4NJXYkts
Yes, but you started it by calling my a close minded idiot.
You obviously didn't look at the websites and if you did they you are too far gone for me to convince.
You are asking me to believe that the government is good enough to pull this off. They can't even agree top keep themselves running.
What is fact and fiction?
Fact: the dead brother was never taken into custody alive, then pronounced dead later. Fiction: the naked person captured alive was the terror suspect they were looking for.
Jesus IDK it pretty easy to tell the guy with no legs was staged(No blood dripping??).
I am unfamiliar with how much blood would be seen if he was blown up, and so was your website. That's why their supporting picture was a hockey player with a completely different injury. There was more problems the website had, like that his right knee was missing in the early picture, and it appeared in the wheelchair picture, but it is just plain wrong. The right knee in the wheelchair picture is the guy helping him, not his. His knee is missing in the wheelchair. Plus, they are complaining that doctors amputated his left knee. What is he supposed to do with a useless left knee. Of course the doctors cut off his useless knee to even everything out.
How am I acting like I know everything?
You have all the information about it being a conspiracy.
All I am is using resources to support my claim.
You guys use random pictures that could mean anything.
Actually I did not call you a close minded idiot. Anyone can write a note. Did he SAY IT? These photos are proof. And there would be ALOT more blood. ZERO BLOOD. NONE. Every nurse, doctor, student I have talked to says that image is impossible. The injury involving the hockey player was when he sliced her curated artery and he would have died in minutes. This mans lets were blown OFF BOTH OF THEM, his femoral arteries would be spurting blood everywhere and he would have died in MINUTES. How can you not see this? The evidence is here so the government was obviously smart enough to pull this off. This is not congress who can't stop fighting bloods vr crips(I mean demos vs repibs). This isn't congress who is doing these it is probably CIA. Like David Steele said “Every Single Terrorist Attack In US Was A False Flag Attack”. What do you not understand about this quote? You failed to comment, why? I am sure this 20 year intelligence veteran is nothing but another crack pot right? Yeah, for sure. Actually anyone who believes these are crack pots no matter their stance or position right? I have something for you to chew on, if you can be fooled by a card trick what do you think psychological warfare can do?
Ever thought about the fact that conspiracy theories often involve doctored photos? Maybe the "impossible photo" is just that: impossible (and of course fake).
He did not give a confession while on drugs. Therefore, your argument that he confessed while on drugs is false.
And there would be ALOT more blood. ZERO BLOOD. NONE
I see blood.
Every nurse, doctor, student I have talked to says that image is impossible.
I don't doubt that, I doubt the pictures are a good representation.
The injury involving the hockey player was when he sliced her curated artery and he would have died in minutes. This mans lets were blown OFF BOTH OF THEM, his femoral arteries would be spurting blood everywhere and he would have died in MINUTES.
Exactly, two completely different types of injuries. I can't compare the 2. How can you not see that?
The evidence is here so the government was obviously smart enough to pull this off.
Circular reasoning.
Like David Steele said “Every Single Terrorist Attack In US Was A False Flag Attack”. What do you not understand about this quote?
He works for the government that you don't trust. Why is he a reliable source?
am sure this 20 year intelligence veteran is nothing but another crack pot right?
You are claiming that there has never been a real terrorist attack in America and he is the only guy who had first hand knowledge and will admit it. How is that not incredibly hard for you to believe? They leave tons of clues putting these terror attacks in place and still don't have anyone else who is disgusted enough to come forward?
Nope. No real terrorist attacks in the united states. NONE. Why do you think your government would not lie to you about this? They lie to you everyday. I don't see the logic, it is like playing hide and seek with someone who cheats after awhile do you want to play? Nope, yet you still trust the government for some reason. By blood I mean there is NONE dripping from his leg whilst he is in the wheel chair. All you did was nit pick the bad things you could not understand in the article. Blood would be EVERYWHERE, spurting all over the place. I trust David because he cares enough about the average person. I trust him because I KNOW these terror attacks are scripted like a play and performed(Not everyone is involved, that is real terror some feel. not thousands of people in on it). And he's not the only guy I chose him because 20 years intelligence work for the marine corps sounds pretty good to the average person. You are playing the denial game and it is very annoying. How about this stop nit picking at things you don't understand and try to figure them out. Ask yourself this, how is this man alive? No tourniquets no medical aid for 7 minutes while he was on the wheelchair and post blast. Why is that blood to lightly colored? As you saw from the hockey player that is not real blood and the other photos of injuries also aid my claim. Ask any doctor ask any EMT and they will say that his injuries were impossible to survive and the fact there is no blood dripping from his leg onto the ground yet, supposedly his legs are blown off. What is considered a good representation? I think everything I present will be marked off as not good enough. And did you see the video I linked to make me think he was on drugs or did you just ignore it? HE DIDN'T SAY HE DID IT. There is no video of him even in the court room! Just drawings! Every other court case there is... why? Why no footage? All these "coincidences" and absolutely NO proof he did anything and you still believe this isn't a false flag attack?
No real terrorist attacks in the united states. NONE. Why do you think your government would not lie to you about this?
I don't think that the government is smart enough to pull this off. You want me to believe that they have been incredibly good at covering up every single terrorist attack that has ever happened, but can't cover anything else up.
I don't see the logic, it is like playing hide and seek with someone who cheats after awhile do you want to play?
The game that you are playing is playing hide and seek with someone who cheats at hide and seek, but you also believe they are excellent at chess.
Nope, yet you still trust the government for some reason.
No, it is you who trusts the government. You have put massive amounts of faith into believing the government can pull off every single terrorist attack.
All you did was nit pick the bad things you could not understand in the article.
All you have done is nit pick random pictures that could tell 100 different stories.
Blood would be EVERYWHERE, spurting all over the place.
You don't actually know that. You know what happens when the arteries get cut, not blown up.
I trust David because he cares enough about the average person.
But, you are trusting in the government by doing that.
I trust him because I KNOW these terror attacks are scripted like a play and performed(Not everyone is involved, that is real terror some feel. not thousands of people in on it).
You know the terror attacks are fake before looking at any evidence. Why are you better than me?
You are playing the denial game and it is very annoying.
How do you think I feel? Your whole argument is the denial game.
How about this stop nit picking at things you don't understand and try to figure them out.
No, you guys didn't figure it out. I pointed out how your evidence doesn't support you at all.
Ask yourself this, how is this man alive? No tourniquets no medical aid for 7 minutes while he was on the wheelchair and post blast.
You don't know anything about the extent of his wounds. You have no medical degree, and you have never treated anyone who was blown up. You don't know what it looks like to treat an explosion survivor.
Why is that blood to lightly colored?
It's a picture. Any weird lighting problems will cause the blood to look the wrong color.
As you saw from the hockey player that is not real blood and the other photos of injuries also aid my claim.
The hockey player is playing indoors with completely different lighting and no dirt. There are so many factors that are different that it is ridiculous to compare the 2.
Ask any doctor ask any EMT and they will say that his injuries were impossible to survive and the fact there is no blood dripping from his leg onto the ground yet, supposedly his legs are blown off.
Not every doctor or EMT has dealt with an explosion.
And did you see the video I linked to make me think he was on drugs or did you just ignore it?
He was on drugs. He didn't make a confession while on drugs.
HE DIDN'T SAY HE DID IT.
I know, he wrote that he did it.
There is no video of him even in the court room!
A lot of the time there is no video for courtrooms. It is the best way to protect the jurors. I don't know why some trials have video and some don't, but I know many places don't allow video.
Every other court case there is... why?
False. You are just plain wrong. Sorry.
All these "coincidences" and absolutely NO proof he did anything and you still believe this isn't a false flag attack?
Confessions are proof. At least you learned something.
So he did not physically say he did it. But he wrote it on a note? ok dude someone does not realize anyone can write something. Anyway, too far gone for me to persuade, bye
Executing Tsarnaev is not going to function as a deterrent. More likely his execution will be used to radicalize more disillusioned persons into acts extremism. The promise of martyrdom may actually be more enticing than dissuading, and certainly more attractive than life in prison.
LIFE will only be appropriate if we can make sure that he spends every moment of it being unhappy, feeling guilty and wishes every second that he were dead. But if we take actions that makes him feel that way, then people will start talking human rights! (Why people don't understand that human rights are for 'HUMANS', not monsters, is beyond me!) And this will only result in more time, money and other resources spent on this son of a bitch!
What happened to the original purpose of prisons? Rehabilitation?
Prisons have never been solely for rehabilitation. Prisons have been for punishment since before they were called prisons. Prisons are also for simple incarceration. The notion of rehabilitation is new.
I was referring to the modern purpose of incarceration. The United States has practiced rehabilitation for almost two centuries. Have we given up? Is punishment the ultimate purpose of justice?
There is a wide spectrum of criminal behavior to be considered.
A teenager who gets drunk, hops in his car and has an accident in which another innocent person is killed, could quite possibly be successfully rehabilitated.
Another teenager who sets a bomb next to an innocent little boy, then walks away, is not equivalent. Justice is in fact relative.
A teenager who gets drunk, hops in his car and has an accident in which another innocent person is killed, could quite possibly be successfully rehabilitated.
Another teenager who sets a bomb next to an innocent little boy, then walks away, is not equivalent. Justice is in fact relative.
Refer to my comment about rehabilitation of terrorists to another of your comments below.
The blog was a news report written by a journalist at the Washington Post. It just consolidated information from other news articles about the subject of rehabilitation. It gives a general idea and provides several links to further information.
"An opinion piece". This is the International Criminal Justice Review. That would be like saying a review article in Nature has no validity because it does not provide original research and only analyzes data/conclusions from other articles.
Yes you're right. The more severe the crime the more extensive the need for rehabilitation. It may take many more years or may ultimately prove impossible.
You say that the purpose of prison in the USA is punishment as if it is the only way it could be by definition of it being a prison. This is not so. In Spain the primary purpose of the criminal justice system, as stated in the constitution, is rehabilitation. It has been argued for example that indeterminate or whole life sentences are unconstitutional.
The US code also notes how imprisonment is not a means to rehabilitation. This was recognized almost 150 years ago. Although there is no explicit clause for rehabilitation, rehabilitation has been practiced in the US for 200 years.
Did he let others live in Boston. He killed many and hurt many more. He should absolutely die, he is a waste ,a coward and shouldn't get the luxury of life.
Yes. These terrorists behead, bomb, etc. those they have in captivity and those free from their grasp in an attempt to terrify the world. Since this the case one can reasonably assume that they are not completely void of a fear of death, because this is what they believe is the worst one can do to people. If one pretends life is not precious and applies the same terror tactics, then you have taken the sting and shock value out of terrorism.
"Show me someone innocent, I'll show you there's no proof." (Stone Sour)
More importantly, killing one person does not bring anyone back from the dead nor does it erase the emotional grief of the loss of those that person killed. At the very best it might mitigate some of that grief, but even that is questionable. I find retributive vengeance to be a rather outdated and naive form of justice, frankly.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed and maimed people, he should be put to death for this. If we do not punish him with death, then we will be perceived as weak by other nations. Terrorists especially. If he gets a life sentence, more attacks will follow because people will be like 'meh it's just a life sentence, let's just send old people who are close to dying,' do we really want that?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed and maimed people, he should be put to death for this.
Retribution is a shallow appeal to immediate emotional gratification with little objective consideration for the long term consequences of the action.
If we do not punish him with death, then we will be perceived as weak by other nations.
There are roughly 200 nations in the world, of which over 100 have abolished the death penalty and the trend is towards abolition rather than sanction (source 1, source 2). The reality is that most nations, including many of our important allies, are more likely to see the U.S. an immoral and unjust due to our use of execution than they are to see us as weak. With respect to hostile nations, I would suggest that they are well aware of the differentiation between our handling of domestics and our handling of international affairs. With respect to terrorists, they will spin whatever we do into their favor - we are either pedaled as weak or we are creating martyrs. Much more importantly, when we allow our domestic affairs to be dictated by our fear of terrorism we have become weaker in actuality and given terrorists exactly what they wanted.
If he gets a life sentence, more attacks will follow because people will be like 'meh it's just a life sentence, let's just send old people who are close to dying,' do we really want that?
Acts of terrorism are perpetrated by radicals who do not care if they live or die for their cause. Execution is not an effective deterrent in any case, but this is especially true in the instance of terrorism.
You should probably read over the court proceedings again.
He was not an informant. His defense claims his brother was approached by the FBI to inform on the Chechen and Muslim community. They cite this as an instigator for his brother's paranoia and subsequent actions.
Although he did a horrible thing, he still is getting a punishment. Having to spend the rest of his life in a prison is enough. He won't be able to connect to the outside world like before. He can't explore. Remember he is still young, he hasn't seen the world yet. I know he did a horrible thing but killing him is the same as killing anyone else. The only difference is you have a motive.
Why are you posting this on the wrong side of the debate?
Furthermore killing him is completely different to killing anyone else. Killing a malicious, psychopathic terrorist is not comparable to killing innocent people.
That symbol you are using for your ID has a history of representing unrealistic Utopian ideals about peace and love, that simply don't work with terrorists.