News Tsarnaev Gets Death Penalty in Boston Marathon Bombing

Yea! Celebrating death on a vegan/vegetarian message board!

tumblr_inline_myfwlt4o2a1qbdxog.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scorpius
He won't care when he's dead.

Easy way out for him. He won't have to suffer for his crimes. What he did was terrible, but killing is barbaric and just stooping to his level. He needs to be locked away for the rest of his life.
 
I would think in this case the judge / judicial system had no option but the death penalty, given the laws of the land. IF someone was to be given the death penalty, and assuming we view the death penalty as the harshest punishment there is, then Tsarnaev is high on the list of people who should receive it. So I'm not surprised at the verdict.

If there was no death penalty, maybe not even indefinite incarceration, would the public be satisfied with Tsarnaev being released after, say, 21 years?

In a country like the US with the type of sickening violent crime we see so all too often, would the public be satisfied with a judicial system that doesn't have the death penalty?
 
I was surprised that somewhere like that even had the death penalty. I read that as a state, Massachusetts ended the death penalty in 1984, but that he was tried on federal charges, meaning he was eligible for execution.o_O

I heard that a family member of one of the victims said the decision would lead to more suffering for the families as the appeals could drag on for years.
 
21 years is not enough. At 40 something, he could continue terrorist activities.

At minimum, it should be life in prison without the possibility of parole. I would take it one step further and add permanent solitary confinement to prevent him from spreading his toxic ideas to other inmates who might not be in prison for life.


Indian Summer said:
If there was no death penalty, maybe not even indefinite incarceration, would the public be satisfied with Tsarnaev being released after, say, 21 years?
Click to expand...
 
Indian Summer said:
I would think in this case the judge / judicial system had no option but the death penalty, given the laws of the land. IF someone was to be given the death penalty, and assuming we view the death penalty as the harshest punishment there is, then Tsarnaev is high on the list of people who should receive it. So I'm not surprised at the verdict.

If there was no death penalty, maybe not even indefinite incarceration, would the public be satisfied with Tsarnaev being released after, say, 21 years?

In a country like the US with the type of sickening violent crime we see so all too often, would the public be satisfied with a judicial system that doesn't have the death penalty?
Click to expand...
There is imprisonment without possibility of parole, which would be appropriate here imo. Many Americans are against the death penalty, though the polls I have seen in the past show a majority is pro capital punishment.

There is "sickening violent crime" in many places in the world that survive just fine without the death penalty. The US should join the civilised world and ban capital punishment.
 
Moll Flanders said:
I was surprised that somewhere like that even had the death penalty. I read that as a state, Massachusetts ended the death penalty in 1984, but that he was tried on federal charges, meaning he was eligible for execution.o_O
Click to expand...
States don't have much rights these days.
 
beancounter said:
I would take it one step further and add permanent solitary confinement to prevent him from spreading his toxic ideas to other inmates who might not be in prison for life.
Click to expand...
Solitary confinement is inhumane; it's psychological torture.
 
beancounter said:
21 years is not enough. At 40 something, he could continue terrorist activities.

At minimum, it should be life in prison without the possibility of parole. I would take it one step further and add permanent solitary confinement to prevent him from spreading his toxic ideas to other inmates who might not be in prison for life.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that he's really interested in being a terrorist with out his brother's influence.
 
It always makes me sad to hear that somebody is sentenced to death, even though "the general public" might be of the persuasion that it is the "right" punishment.

It's a barbaric ritual that should not have a place in modern and enlightened societies (but then, some will argue that we are talking about the US here, so it's ok).

Also consider that a person might truly change in 20 years of incarceration. If I am not mistaken, to judge this is what parole board hearings are there for.

Best regards,
Andy
 
I'm thinking the death penalty is just a symptom of serious underlying problems in a society. Part of the motivation for the death penalty is to discourage serious crime, another part is to satisfy the victims' desire for revenge. If there wasn't a high level of serious violent crime, then perhaps there wouldn't be a public demand or political will to uphold the death penalty.

So to get rid of the death penalty, something effective has to be done to reduce the level of violent crime.
 
That argument can work two ways ... it could also suggest that the level of violent crime hints that the death penalty is not a valid deterrent.
 
Andy_T said:
That argument can work two ways ... it could also suggest that the level of violent crime hints that the death penalty is not a valid deterrent.
Click to expand...
... or that the level of violent crime would be even worse without the death penalty.

... or that the death penalty isn't deterring enough! That in fact we need an even crueller, more painful and sadistic punishment, which should also be televised live for maximum preventive effect.
 
Top Bottom