Current Events > Supreme Court reinstates death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

Why do pro-death penalty arguments always eventually lead to this?

We get it. You are willing to sacrifice innocent people because pieces of shit living in a small box is too much for you to handle. It's like how people go on about how Anders Brevik gets "special" treatment, ignoring that he is not the only inmate in Norway.

You care more about vengeance than some overall improvement to the world. "Why protect innocent people and rehabilitate most inmates if it means some really bad murderers get to eat lunch in a cell for 30 years?"

I'm just curious, what if something terrible happened to the one you love the most? My grandmother was murdered. Do you think I have a logical perspective on what should happen to the perpetrator?

M0NSTER_ posted...

TBH the death penalty system should be overhauled. Should be used when...

1. 100% certainty of guilt, video proof etc. without question reserved for 1st degree murder and sexual child molesters.
2. Date of death should not be known to them, no goodbyes no special meals. Once it is their time they should be dragged out back and killed by a firing squad.
3. The appeals should be non existent.

Firing squad costs too much. Just throw them off a cliff

Cocytus posted...

I'm just curious, what if something terrible happened to the one you love the most?

Doesn't change the importance of due process

greyfox747 posted...

Doesn't change the importance of due process

And so they have it.

Cool, so we can all agree that someone's stance on the death penalty shouldn't depend on if they have a personal attachment to the case

M0NSTER_ posted...

100% certainty of guilt, video proof etc. without question reserved for 1st degree murder and sexual child molesters.

It's actually unconstitutional for any crime except murder to receive a penalty of capital punishment.

See Coker V Georgia

Even if the rape of a child is involved. See Kennedy v. Louisiana,

CyricZ posted...

I feel like the "there are two options: instant death or lifelong torture" crowd need a bit of an horizon expansion.

What would you like to see happen to the Boston Bomber? What is your most ideal outcome?

Houston posted...

What would you like to see happen to the Boston Bomber? What is your most ideal outcome?

Separation from society. Humane treatment.

BilalPowell posted...

You're not protecting innocent people if you're letting murderers be around them for 30 years

So how many Norwegian inmates has Anders Brevik killed?

Are the 108 countries with no death penalty full of prison bloodbaths?

I swear, abolishing the death penalty could miraculously cure cancer and someone would be crying about how unjust it is that a school shooter is allowed to breathe in prison.

CyricZ posted...

Separation from society. Humane treatment.

So life in prison, I'm assuming?? Would you separate him from other inmates as well given the nature of his crimes or just separate from law abiding society? If you separated him from other inmates, do you think that would still be considered humane treatment?

Currently, death row inmates are generally kept in solitary confinement, without other physical contact with other death row inmates. They can still physically see other inmates sometimes or each be put in cages outside at the same time for an hour of daily exercise, but they typically don't have the physical interaction that other lifers have privilege to.

I'd be comfortable with doing away with the death penalty if it was replaced with another severe classification. There's a difference between someone maybe going through a hard time in their life and winding up in a situation where they took someone else's life versus someone who intentionally, meticulously and deliberately intended to inflict mass death and injury.

death penalty I support if there is absolute proof that the person is guilty. i mean absolute proof. down to hundreds of witnesses. HQ video evidence from multiple angles. dna evidence. his phone was there. time, no alibi, planning, manifestos, etc. and if this guy there is absolute proof he did it, he ought to get the chair.

hockeybub89 posted...

So how many Norwegian inmates has Anders Brevik killed?

Are the 108 countries with no death penalty full of prison bloodbaths?

I swear, abolishing the death penalty could miraculously cure cancer and someone would be crying about how unjust it is that a school shooter is allowed to breathe in prison.

Sounds like you would oppose curing cancer if it means 1 terrorist has to die

Houston posted...

So life in prison, I'm assuming?? Would you separate him from other inmates as well given the nature of his crimes or just separate from law abiding society? If you separated him from other inmates, do you think that would still be considered humane treatment?

That's the extent of my conditions. Anything else can be arranged for safety.

BilalPowell posted...

There's no risk if you know they're guilty.

History is full of wrong people who "knew" they were right.

Maybe we should just not arrest anyone since they might be innocent.

BilalPowell posted...

Maybe we should just not arrest anyone since they might be innocent.

I wouldn't mind trials before arrests tbh.

*guy shooting up a mall*
"Hold on officer let's wait a year for a trial before stopping this. He might be innocent"

Should we be surprised you don't seem to know the difference between stopping a crime and a sentencing?

Compsognathus posted...

Is the reduction in evil worth

Yeah

What was the rest of that question?

BilalPowell posted...

*guy shooting up a mall*
"Hold on officer let's wait a year for a trial before stopping this. He might be innocent"

It is okay to kill active shooters. Self-defense.

It is not okay to give human beings the power to execute people already within their custody. Not self-defense.

How do you dress yourself each morning?

I dont someone on CE pays me $10 mil not to wear clothes.

It's always the hot ones

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/3/8/AAd6FvAAC_u6.jpg

Good riddance

BilalPowell posted...

I dont someone on CE pays me $10 mil not to wear clothes.

I hope your parents have another child to be proud of.

They used to but he was framed for a crime and put in prison then killed by a murderer because there was no death penalty in his state.

TheOtherMike posted...

And just like Cocytus, you aren't arguing in good faith, either. Regardless of anyone's fee-fees, there is objectively no benefit to execution. None. Notice how neither you nor anyone else has been able to reconcile the added cost (both financial and societal), nor the inability to release dead people if/when they're exonerated, nor the fact that life in prison serves the same end of protecting society. Several of you are literally trying to argue that execution is preferable to life in prison, ffs. There have been suggestions that we do away with or rush the appeals, which will only lead to sloppier work and more innocent deaths. You people are deflecting, strawmanning, and arguing exclusively from a perspective of vengeance rather than justice.

It's a strawman to ask if if you're against armed police?? How can you not see thr obvious parallel?

Not to mention, you have not given a single reason as to why it's not better to execute when we have 100% proof. Not a single reason besides 'slippery slope, governments will come for you!'

Tell me why it's not better to execute the marathon bomber. Not some other arbitrary case where a person might be innocent. This case.

"Because it costs more money!" Money that people are willing to be spent, therefore it's not wasted. 'It costs more money than the alternative' doesn't hold up if it's what is desired.

"Because it's state sanctioned murder!"
Murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Your very words are a strawman. It is not unlawful. I'm sure your terrible response will be "so it was ok for hitler to kill people by his laws??? That wasn't murder??" Because you fail to understand context.

"Because then you MUST be ok with the state killing innocent people!"
You want to talk strawman? This is the biggest one you have. You couldn't use this as an objectionable defence. "If we execute this person who I admit is 100% guilty, it must mean i am happy to kill people who are 99% guilty!!" No. Just stop.

TheOtherMike posted...

People are stupid. Big shock.

Imagine arguing morality and intelligence, only to present yourself as superior. Pathetic. Do you need pampering that much? You can't say deluded or misguided, no they have to be outright stupid.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I support the existence of a military for self defense & defense of our allies

Oh but they do on occasion kill innocent people! Therefore self defence and defence of our allies is bad!

Compsognathus posted...

Not all costs are financial and in fact the financial cost is far secondary to the cost to society that comes with wrongfully executed individuals.

Boston Bomber is not 'wrongfully convicted'. Therefore he wil not be 'wrongfully executed.'

Antifar posted...

1 in 25, according to this study.

https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Higher than I'm comfortable with. Even 1 in 100,000 would still be 1, but at least itcwould be somthing to learn from, a thing of the past and yes we do the same in other fields that involve death, before anyone replies.
Therefore reserve it only for cases such as this one we're discussing.

This guy WONT be one of the 25%.
Therefore.....what's the objection?

People don't mind the money, so that's fine
This case isn't innocent, so it's fine

People want to feel superior like they have higher morals or something. They don't really understand the absolute evil some people commit. I'm not going to go into cases, but there are some people who deserve much worse than the death penalty.

Not happy that I used the word 'evil'? An argument of "what is evil or wrong" ensues

hockeybub89 posted...

It is okay to kill active shooters. Self-defense.

Innocent people killed at times. "But only shoot if you're 100% sure they are armed and aggressively shooting first!"

.......

Brilliant.

I play enough video games to know I love vengeance, bloody vengeance.

Let us all be more mature when we make real world decisions.

Sega9599 posted...

It's a strawman to ask if if you're against armed police?? How can you not see thr obvious parallel?

The parallel doesn't exist, as has already been explained multiple times. But no, that isn't a strawman and I never said it was. It's a false equivalency.

Sega9599 posted...

Not to mention, you have not given a single reason as to why it's not better to execute when we have 100% proof. Not a single reason besides 'slippery slope, governments will come for you!'

This is a blatant lie. Numerous valid reasons have been provided by multiple users across multiple posts itt. Conversely, you haven't provided a reason we should employ capital punishment besides "people want it," which itself doesn't hold up as it's a purely emotional reaction based on vengeance and only vengeance. And it's not even accurate.

Sega9599 posted...

Tell me why it's not better to execute the marathon bomber. Not some other arbitrary case where a person might be innocent. This case.

Because it's more expensive and provides no benefit over incarceration. Because it's impossible to create a system where we only punish the people we're super duper certain are guilty. Because the necessary appeals are traumatic to the victims and their families.

Sega9599 posted...

"Because it costs more money!" Money that people are willing to be spent, therefore it's not wasted. 'It costs more money than the alternative' doesn't hold up if it's what is desired.

1. It holds up regardless of "what people want" because it's an indisputable fact.
2. Clearly it's not "what people want" if we're having this discussion.
3. The parents of one victim don't want him executed.

Sega9599 posted...

"Because it's state sanctioned murder!"
Murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Your very words are a strawman.

I didn't call execution murder. Regardless, "murder" is used to describe unjust killings, not just illegal. You even demonstrate an understanding of this concept with your moronic invocation of Godwin's law, so it's bizarre that you're splitting this hair. This is no strawman, and it sounds like you don't know what a strawman is if you think it is.

Sega9599 posted...

"Because then you MUST be ok with the state killing innocent people!"
You want to talk strawman?

Again, not a strawman. Also, it's an indisputable fact that has been explained multiple times. The death penalty necessarily cannot be implemented perfectly. Some innocent people will be executed. If you support capital punishment and are aware of these facts, you are necessarily okay with it. There is literally no other possible conclusion, and I invite you to explain otherwise.

Again:

TheOtherMike posted...

Notice how neither you nor anyone else has been able to reconcile the added cost (both financial and societal), nor the inability to release dead people if/when they're exonerated, nor the fact that life in prison serves the same end of protecting society.

Actually try responding to the argument this time, instead of erroneously calling everything you don't like a strawman.

The most obvious point to make in terms of "100% proof" is that we do have that kind of standard, essentially, with "beyond a reasonable doubt". The issue is that numerous innocent people were still convicted and sentenced to death based on the predisposition of "We have proof."

The most commonly cited factor, video footage, is increasingly unreliable as a means to correctly identify things due to video editing, tampering, deepfakes, and other effects that can be used to frame someone.

Some particularly devastating examples of misuse of the death penalty are here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

...Though more exist.

The core issue is not whether or not evil people deserve to die. The core issue is that you are trusting the justice system to never fail or miss anything. Only in this scenario could one have a real further conversation about the merits.

Other direct issues include finances; since the death penalty allows for many appeals and takes ages to enforce, it's extremely expensive. Narrowing the timeframe down makes it more likely for a premature execution to occur, further increasing the chances of an innocent person dying. The only argument against the cost of the DP is to quicken the process, which in turn makes the process less reliable and error ridden.

This is why it should not be legal. There are no direct or tangible benefits to executing someone who is already incarcerated, and the downside is you could execute people not guilty of a crime, which can snowball into more crimes occurring (see; Timothy Evans, wrongly executed, which enabled a serial killer to further operate.)

Essentially, any hard line for "true" guilt you come up with - up to and including confessions and video evidence - can be fabricated, altered, coerced, and so on - meaning ironclad cases are not so ironclad to risk the death of an innocent person when there is no benefit to executing the person.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

The core issue is not whether or not evil people deserve to die. The core issue is that you are trusting the justice system to never fail or miss anything.

I think both are valid as issues. It's just easier to argue the practical elements of the latter rather than the ideological/emotional arguments of the former.

I should also note the obvious;

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/7/AASODOAAC_xP.jpg

The states that support the death penalty and frequently carry out executions are most often Southern states that have long histories of racial discrimination. Like, of course the states that regularly engaged in lynchings and had sundown towns are going to abuse the death penalty, but maybe that should give you some serious pause on the intent of the death penalty when it's clearly linked to lynchings in a historical sense.

Unsure how I feel about this. Feels more like retribution than justice.

im against the death penalty in most cases. this terrorist certainly has earned his death, a most painful one at that. but i dont believe an exception to banning the death penalty should be made for him. that should be reserved for people like putin

Sega9599 posted...

Oh but they do on occasion kill innocent people! Therefore self defence and defence of our allies is bad!

Again, this is a problem with the way the military is employed, not a problem with the military itself for existing.

Good!

Forget the death penalty. Just put him in with other dangerous inmates with little security. Nature will take it's course.

The death penalty is a deterrent in the same way having nukes are a deterrent

Should man decide these kinds of choices? Well in a way yes >_>

The only time we are able to say no is when you factor religion, but most people arent into that so its an endless argument over flimsy morals that people dont acknowledge as any greater than the thought of ordering a plate of food

society is not a greater aspect that contains morals either, its what we live, and what we do in order to live IS protect others

law is just based on cause and effect and he so happened to cause and effect himself when the death penalty was on the table and so thats the effect he landed himself in

My question is this: if a serial rapist kept molesting children how should this be treated then?

giving him help?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I should also note the obvious;

Dude, make sure you include the legend on what your chart means.

RedLuigi posted...

The death penalty is a deterrent in the same way having nukes are a deterrent

The death penalty doesn't deter crime. In fact countries without it have less crime than ones that do.

The primary deterrent is being caught regardless of the punishment.

RedLuigi posted...

My question is this: if a serial rapist kept molesting children how should this be treated then?

giving him help?

? How are they continuously molesting children in jail?

Tyranthraxus posted...

The death penalty doesn't deter crime. In fact countries without it have less crime than ones that do.

The primary deterrent is being caught regardless of the punishment.

Ive seen some studies to support that, yeah

There arent nearly enough surveys either on how many people have thought about murdering their boss and dont do it because they fear that they may face the same end though >_>

emblem boy posted...

? How are they continuously molesting children in jail?

My question is asking if jail time is good enough and a satisfactory answer for sick crimes like molesting a child/raping women and murdering them and if that is something people here think that should be good enough for the families too

RedLuigi posted...

My question is asking if jail time is good enough and a satisfactory answer for sick crimes like molesting a child/raping women and murdering them and if that is something people here think that should be good enough for the families too

The question you're really asking is how much harm you want to commit on someone because you find them disgusting and evil and it makes you angry.

Don't try to toss to the families of their victims. This is about you and your feelings.

Ive seen some studies to support that, yeah

Feel free to post them.

RedLuigi posted...

My question is asking if jail time is good enough and a satisfactory answer for sick crimes like molesting a child/raping women and murdering them and if that is something people here think that should be good enough for the families too

And the answer is how many of your innocent, personal loved ones you okay with being mistakenly killed to ensure a monster who is guilty is also killed.

Maybe life in prison isn't "the best" answer to utter monsters, but it is the best way to ensure innocent people aren't also killed by mistake, corruption, laziness and so on.

CyricZ posted...

The question you're really asking is how much harm you want to commit on someone because you find them disgusting and evil and it makes you angry.

Don't try to toss to the families of their victims. This is about you and your feelings.

The whole conversation IS about the victims of the families lol

Its the only reason weve kept the death penalty to begin with

and no, thats not the question Im really asking

I guess since we got that out the way and we know now that I wasnt asking that particular question you can answer my question now since you say we should get rid of it

RedLuigi posted...

The whole conversation IS about the victims of the families lol

Its the only reason weve kept the death penalty to begin with

Absolutely not. This is false and a smokescreen.

If that were the case then we'd call the death penalty "the revenge penalty" and let families of victims carry it out themselves.

If you're making this claim, then you have to prove it. Prove that the death penalty is put in place for the benefit of families of victims.

Funkydog posted...

And the answer is how many of your innocent, personal loved ones you okay with being mistakenly killed to ensure a monster who is guilty is also killed.

In this case we know very well who did what - I guess youre suggesting someone other than Tsarnaev did it and I guess thats okay too

Maybe life in prison isn't "the best" answer to utter monsters, but it is the best way to ensure innocent people aren't also killed by mistake, corruption, laziness and so on.

Well what is the particular problem here then? You know very well what he did and know this isnt a mistake, corruption, and laziness of the court here

CyricZ posted...

Absolutely not. This is false and a smokescreen.

If that were the case then we'd call the death penalty "the revenge penalty" and let families of victims carry it out themselves.

Uh No? You dont really have to ask me, you can read on what the families feel

If you're making this claim, then you have to prove it. Prove that the death penalty is put in place for the benefit of families of victims.

Yes, there have been many times justices have sentenced someone to death on behalf of the families

Prove to me every single instance of a death sentence is only to save money