Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Should He Be Executed?

Post Reply New Topic

Btw in the wild west Lawmen were Judge, Jury and Executioner. They were often criminals themselves. This was something that effectively continued some places right up to early twentieth century.

After they get sentenced to death, they should die. End of story.
Shot in the head and cremated.
It is very rare a completely innocent man/woman gets the death penalty, especially with DNA.
So I ask, why do we need to give thousands of murderers a chance to go free over the life of one innocent man, maybe none?

In answer to your question my good chap, I will direct you to a timeless principle Blackstone's formulation. This principle appears in history as early as the the Hebrew Old Testament. Then repeatedly through history is voiced by men of valor such as Moses Maimonide, Sir John Fortescue, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams.

I feel the words of John Adams best represent the ideals behind such virtues "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever"

Some good reading touching on the subject is as follows: Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, http://library.law.harvard.edu/justiceq ... m/south-4/, and http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm.

Enjoy

Oh and in regards to our dear bomber friend, I sincerely hope that he gets multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole and as an extra added bonus for all our dear terrorist friends. I hope he is confined in solitary for the duration of his life. Oh and definitely serve him lots of pork, carrion, and heck lets give him some alcohol while we are at it.

Do not get me wrong, I do not promote the desecration of his beliefs on the grounds of a hatred for such beliefs (though I do disagree with them) but simply as a form of deterrence to future terroristic acts.

It is actually DNA that more that often is acquitting people, and sometimes after decades in prison. Yet they haven't reviewed the cases of all those already sentenced to death in the past.

I have heard this argument load of times. It is not compelling.

Who said anything about letting going free? Strawman. if they are legally innocent they they should be free naturally.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a nasty piece of work. Inherently these people see themselves as victim or part of a victim community, but fail to see their victim as victims.

I think he is equally culpable as his brother, regardless who the ringleader was.

It is not Haram to eat it if they are forced. It is not really a deterrent to these terrorists. The Salafi and Wahhabi would justify pretty much anything, in fighting the enemy. They don't care about this, in fact it is a strategy of theirs to mimic the 'Kafir' to attack them.

They way you beat them is not standing for something as illiberal as they represent.

What would really suck for them is not the giving them attention. This is something that they crave. The less attention the better.

He should be blown up.

Like most members of the human race I have had visions of personally beating him to death with a tire iron. But that doesnt mean doing that is right.

And besides: expects to be given the death penalty, and wants to be given the death penalty to complete his role as a "martyr".

So the worst thing we could do to him would be to deny him the death penalty. And force him to live for fifty years among the common criminals (the homegrown murderers, child molestors, and so forth) in the general prison population. And if we did that he might eventually come to realize that he is...just a common criminal himself, and not any kind of hero for any kind of cause.

But of course if we did put him in a prison general population it would be a death sentence. They kept Geoffry Daumier segregated from general population and it didnt work. Someone snuck into the prison laundry room where he worked and knifed him to death. Tsarnaev is even more high profile and popularly unpopular than Daumier.

So the next best thing would be life in solitary confinement. So that would be the most punishing feasible way to go.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... your-mind/

I think the plethora of possible fates described here for the rest of his 60-80 years of life would be a beautiful thing.

He's been sentenced to DEATH!! !
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/15/ju ... on-bomber/

Yup, saw that on the news. Really surprised a state like MA gave the death penalty. Just shows how repulsed they are by people planting bombs in public spaces.

I don't understand the death penalty. If I committed a crime I would much rather just die than spend the rest of my life in prison. Why would anyone prefer to live the rest of their life in prison? Unless they have the false hope that maybe one day they will be released.

It was a federal trial, not a state trial. Federal law allows for capital punishment, while Massachusets law does not.

In this case, I think death by stoning would be appropriate.

Wasn't the jury made up of people from MA? They chose the death penalty. That surprised me.

they disqualified from jury duty on this case anyone who opposed the death penalty, so the jury did not represent Massachusetts well.

with this verdict, we are basically saying to ISIS, it's fair to kill people. we do.