# Good job, Boston Jury



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

As the verdicts come through, it looks like they are calling guilty on all of them... 1-18 so far.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 8, 2015)

I'd like to pull the trigger myself.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

His lawyers openly stated they know he's guilty, it's going to be about life in prison or death penalty.

(I don't think we should have the death penalty at all, so we know where I fall on that).


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> His lawyers openly stated they know he's guilty, it's going to be about life in prison or death penalty.
> 
> (I don't think we should have the death penalty at all, so we know where I fall on that).



I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Apr 8, 2015)

I forgot about all this stuff 

Took em long enough.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 8, 2015)

Well if he believes his ultimate reward is in heaven, give him life. 
And remind him everyday that he killed his own brother. 

If he wants life in prison then I have no issues with the death penalty. 

I think the death penalty is in order to show his parents what abysmal failures they were to society. 
Let his mother live everyday with a hatred , anger and a sense of knowing that WE the people made your family pay the ultimate price for killing innocent people. Hopefully she will die consumed with the death of her sons and know that her life was a waste. 
Hopefully his father and mother will get a front row seats to watch his death. 
I hope she lets out a guttural primal scream that only the most broken hearted know.

I hope that his body is burned and that he is scattered in various places so his family cannot make a shrine or even have a place to mourn. :

But hey, this is just my opinion.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Jesus dude.

That's not justice. That's revenge, pure and simple.

ed: yeah, I know that's your opinion and you're 100% allowed to hold that position.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

What benefit is there to keeping him alive though? He won't be reformed, he won't ever be released, and it's costing money to keep someone who serves no societal purpose alive for what reason exactly? He's a waste of space that we don't even really have to begin with.

I don't think the death penalty should ever be taken lightly, but if there's anyone who currently earned it, it's this guy.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 8, 2015)

michblanch said:


> Well if he believes his ultimate reward is in heaven, give him life.
> And remind him everyday that he killed his own brother.
> 
> If he wants life in prison then I have no issues with the death penalty.
> ...



Thanks for the input, Texas


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

It costs as least as much to keep him on death row (I think it's actually quite a lot more), and there's a good chance he could still be there for decades at least.

Also that we don't need blood on the state's hands, too. Killing him does nothing except make us feel better - it's revenge. It won't do anything to bring the victims back.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> It costs as least as much to keep him on death row (I think it's actually quite a lot more), and there's a good chance he could still be there for decades at least.
> 
> Also that we don't need blood on the state's hands, too. Killing him does nothing except make us feel better - it's revenge. It won't do anything to bring the victims back.



What's the difference between revenge and punishment? I think some would view life in prison as revenge as well. I'm curious what your logic is in this regard and I'm not attacking you in any way. Just curious.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> Jesus dude.
> 
> That's not justice. That's revenge, pure and simple.
> 
> ed: yeah, I know that's your opinion and you're 100% allowed to hold that position.




Justice and revenge are what the parents and the families that were hurt will get. 
It's also what the people of Boston will get for having their city turned into marshall law. 

Did we give Osama Justice or serve him revenge? 
I think we served 2 causes. Even though they should not go hand in hand, sometimes you serve both masters by doling out the other.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 8, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Thanks for the input, Texas




Not sure what Texas has to do with this??? 
I'm not from Texas so what's your point? 
Ohhhhh you were trying to insinuate something about me personally because of where I live. That's extremely original. 

I'll guess it's safe to assume because your from D.C that you smoke crack , murder people are corrupt and self serving. 
But then again that's a stereotype, so I wont.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

michblanch said:


> Justice and revenge are what the parents and the families that were hurt will get.
> It's also what the people of Boston will get for having their city turned into marshall law.
> 
> Did we give Osama Justice or serve him revenge?
> I think we served 2 causes. Even though they should not go hand in hand, sometimes you serve both masters by doling out the other.



He's already tried, been found guilty, and will never be a free man again. Why do we also need to spill his blood?



ArtDecade said:


> What's the difference between revenge and punishment? I think some would view life in prison as revenge as well. I'm curious what your logic is in this regard and I'm not attacking you in any way. Just curious.



Revenge looks to explicitly inflict suffering in turn for suffering experienced, or to take from another what one has had taken. It demands causing harm.


----------



## vilk (Apr 8, 2015)

If they don't put the guy in some kind of special prison he's gonna get killed anyway.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Apr 8, 2015)

Prison is already over-crowded. And as someone pointed out, he won't be free among the incarcerated masses because he would be killed by other inmates, so a specialty facility for him (count the $$$). 

Don't fill another cell with this guy. The federal death penalty exists for this very reason: mass murder.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

vilk said:


> If they don't put the guy in some kind of special prison he's gonna get killed anyway.



Which speaks to the horrible, horrible state of our prison system, not the validity of the death penalty.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> he won't be free among the incarcerated masses



Bwuh?

Are you talking about free to move around in the confines of the prison?


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Apr 8, 2015)

They oughta duct tape his ankles and wrists together, pull his pants down and toss him in with the rapists.


----------



## Sumsar (Apr 8, 2015)

Good evening Murica, who / what is this thread about? The Boston maraton thingy?


----------



## vilk (Apr 8, 2015)

With our system as it is, putting him into a supermax gen pop would be the best solution. Death penalty is expensive long process with mandatory appeals etc., life in prison is stupid because this guy is a waste of space, really the most practical way that our gov't can kill this dude would be to put him in with a bunch of killers to do our dirty work for us. I am pretty sure they used to do this to get rid of kiddy diddlers all the time didn't they? I don't see why they can't do it for boston bomber


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> Good evening Murica, who / what is this thread about? The Boston maraton thingy?



If someone set off a series of homemade bombs in your city leaving dozens dead or wounded, would I be as disrespectful as you and call it a thingy? No.
Don't be so smug when you are dealing with a tragedy.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> He's already tried, been found guilty, and will never be a free man again. Why do we also need to spill his blood?
> 
> 
> 
> Revenge looks to explicitly inflict suffering in turn for suffering experienced, or to take from another what one has had taken. It demands causing harm.



What is gained by keeping him alive though? We already have like zero space for prisoners. He will rot away for pretty much ever, and quite frankly it seems more cruel to be kept alive for what will be an asinine length of time.

He currently serves no purpose. He will not be reformed. He will not rejoin society. He will serve no purpose other than to be another body to look after in a clogged system. (Albeit he'll be there for a while if he goes to death row.)

What does one more death actually add? Who does it actually effect if his blood is spilled? He doesn't care, and he's already essentially a martyr for his cause already. Considering he basically didn't contest the charges, he should hop to the front of the execution list as there are no questions left to ask. He's admittedly guilty, unlike lots of people who may or may not be falsely accused. (Or who maintain their innocence.) If room can be made, it should be made. (And this goes well beyond just the death penalty, but it's the subject at hand here.) He's dead to society anyway. There are practical reasons for icing him, there are no practical reasons for letting him take up space.


----------



## Sumsar (Apr 8, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> If someone set off a series of homemade bombs in your city leaving dozens dead or wounded, would I be as disrespectful as you and call it a thingy? No.
> Don't be so smug when you are dealing with a tragedy.



No offence meant, I simply wondered cause the thread didn't state anywhere what it was about except something in Boston, but it is not on my local news (I'm from Denmark)

I assume from your reply however that we are talking about the Boston maraton bombings.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> Are you talking about free to move around in the confines of the prison?



Mountains out of anthills bruh does not a good argument make


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> No offence meant, I simply wondered cause the thread didn't state anywhere what it was about except something in Boston, but it is not on my local news (I'm from Denmark)
> 
> I assume from your reply however that we are talking about the Boston maraton bombings.



Yes, it's about the surviving bomber. The verdict came in and was announced today, and he was found guilty of all 30 charges, 17 of which include the possibility of the death penalty. At this point the jurors have to decide if he gets death, or life in prison which as I understand it should begin next week.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

"I have mixed feelings/don't support death penalty, because like, morally, it's wrong." But paying for their room and board until the end of their pathetic life and having more sympathy and compassion for them than they did their victim... well golly sarge.

And I support George Carlin on this, especially "sanitizing" the area for lethal injection. Apparently souls can't go to hell/heaven/wormcity without being disinfected. And they gotta be comfortable too. Can't be too "inhumane". 

He should be killed because we don't need him making money off the rights to books, films, etc. over his criminal bull..... And perhaps there is a law that prohibits him from doing it that I don't know of, but there probably isn't one that prohibits him telling his mom and her selling the rights to such bull.....

Frankly, this ....head should be in a reality show version of Saw.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Apr 8, 2015)

I shy away from the death penalty solely because I dont want to see innocent people die. I have no problem with the scum of the earth being wiped clean, I just dont trust our government enough to get all scum all the time.

But when it comes to this dude, where there it is stupendously obvious he did it, then yeah, lets hang him.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I shy away from the death penalty solely because I dont want to see innocent people die. I have no problem with the scum of the earth being wiped clean, I just dont trust our government enough to get all scum all the time.
> 
> But when it comes to this dude, where there it is stupendously obvious he did it, then yeah, lets hang him.



I have zero faith that even setting a standard of "stupendously obvious" cannot be abused in our system, therefore it cannot be an option.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "I have mixed feelings/don't support death penalty, because like, morally, it's wrong." But paying for their room and board until the end of their pathetic life and having more sympathy and compassion for them than they did their victim... well golly sarge.
> 
> And I support George Carlin on this, especially "sanitizing" the area for lethal injection. Apparently souls can't go to hell/heaven/wormcity without being disinfected. And they gotta be comfortable too. Can't be too "inhumane".



1) Life WithOut Parole is cheaper than inmates on Death Row.

2) Inmates on Death Row can die there of old age because appeals and such can drag on for *literally decades*. So now we're at a more expensive version of LWOP.

3) Given how kittening terrible some of the more recent lethal injections have been, it's basically torturing them for a good hour or two before they finally actually die.

Any arguments to the "practicality" of the death penalty fall over with #2. Why not take everyone off DR and use all that money saved towards some of these facility and overcrowding issues...?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

Asher, not going to get into this with you. It'll result in a ban and I don't care enough to argue with you.


EDIT: Btw, where'd you get your talking points from? Snopes?


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Asher, not going to get into this with you. It'll result in a ban and I don't care enough to argue with you.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Btw, where'd you get your talking points from? Snopes?



If you're going to stick around after all, find me numbers about execution being cheaper than life without parole. You're paying room and board at least until he dies either way.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> If you're going to stick around after all, find me numbers about execution being cheaper than life without parole. You're paying room and board at least until he dies either way.



How is 50 years life w/o parole cheaper than even 20 and getting the death penalty?

Death Row must be one expensive roach motel...


----------



## crg123 (Apr 8, 2015)

I'm not sure what to think. I'm normally not a supporter of the Death Penalty because it seems weird for the state to kill someone. I also believe that when your dead your dead (Ex-Roman Catholic turned Atheist haha). No more suffering, your gone. In my mind life in prison and rotting away in a meaningless existence is worse. At the same time I know a lot of people would just like to know this guy has been wiped off this Earth, and I totally get that. I just don't want him to die a Martyr for extremists.

Note my location. I was a few blocks away when this happened and was terrified during the aftermath until they caught this guy. I'd love some sort of retribution but not sure where I stand on this. I'm just glad the SOB was found and tried as guilty without any setbacks.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "I have mixed feelings/don't support death penalty, because like, morally, it's wrong.".



I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but its not that simple. I think this guy deserves to die because he is guilty of terrible crimes and has zero remorse. But the mixed feelings comes from using it without absolute certainty that they have the right person. In this case, we know we have the bad guy. As long as there is any chance that you may have the wrong guy, I don't want that blood on my hands.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but its not that simple. I think this guy deserves to die because he is guilty of terrible crimes and has zero remorse. But the mixed feelings comes from using it without absolute certainty that they have the right person. In this case, we know we have the bad guy. As long as there is any chance that you may have the wrong guy, I don't want that blood on my hands.



Ah, the overzealous politician/DA/judge getting a conviction regardless of evidence to get reelected rouse. Okay, yeah. I agree 110% there.


----------



## Demiurge (Apr 8, 2015)

Without getting into the economic debate over cost of keeping someone in prison for natural life vs death row (with, yes, legal fees, etc.), I'd prefer to see life in prison. 

If we really want him to be punished- deprive him of the satisfaction of being a martyr. Let that f*cker live a long life so that every day he aches for freedom he may understand that the thing he wants more than anything in those moments is that he which robbed from innocent people. That's how I want him to suffer.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> How is 50 years life w/o parole cheaper than even 20 and getting the death penalty?
> 
> Death Row must be one expensive roach motel...



To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

And like...



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Ah, the overzealous politician/DA/judge getting a conviction regardless of evidence to get reelected rouse. Okay, yeah. I agree 110% there.



What is an acceptable rate of false executions or death sentences?

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/29/566489...of-death-sentences-false-convictions-innocent


----------



## vilk (Apr 8, 2015)

I wish there were a good wasteland where we could exile people to. Like, it's tantamount to killing them, but we're not doing it. It's tantamount to prison, but we're not paying for it. People could survive and eek out the rest of their lives if they have it in them. Otherwise they'll die of exposure or starvation. They could form communities and maybe even find some solace or reform with peers. It might turn into like a warring feudal realm of lords and subjects, but then again that's not altogether different from prison.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2015)

vilk said:


> I wish there were a good wasteland where we could exile people to. Like, it's tantamount to killing them, but we're not doing it. It's tantamount to prison, but we're not paying for it. People could survive and eek out the rest of their lives if they have it in them. Otherwise they'll die of exposure or starvation.



You've just described Detroit.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> 1) Life WithOut Parole is cheaper than inmates on Death Row.
> 
> 2) Inmates on Death Row can die there of old age because appeals and such can drag on for *literally decades*. So now we're at a more expensive version of LWOP.
> 
> ...




Point two would make more sense if the guy wasn't just 21, and he'll be alive and well decades from now. Also, some folks get the fast track. John Allen Muhammad only spent seven years in the can before buying the farm at the hands of lethal injection. 

I generally agree and my thoughts on the death penalty usually side with "what if it really wasn't them," but there are cases like this when there are no questions as to guilt. He's guilty, and has said it himself. There should be no appeals and legal tape to saw through. Perhaps I'm biased though. This was real close to home, and I personally know people who were there. It's likely a good thing that our court system would have prevented me from serving on the jury as my mind was made up far too long ago.

.... the world though. There's honestly no sure fire simple answer, and I understand that. It eats at me that some kid never got to have a ninth birthday while this ....er will live to have 50 more on our dollar. Killing my child's murderer would certainly help me sleep easier at night.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 8, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> You've just described Detroit.



Wish I could give this comment more than one like!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

vilk said:


> I wish there were a good wasteland where we could exile people to. Like, it's tantamount to killing them, but we're not doing it. It's tantamount to prison, but we're not paying for it. People could survive and eek out the rest of their lives if they have it in them. Otherwise they'll die of exposure or starvation. They could form communities and maybe even find some solace or reform with peers. It might turn into like a warring feudal realm of lords and subjects, but then again that's not altogether different from prison.



I think George Carlin's idea for the 4 most reprehensible ....bags the US has to offer would be better, plus it'd be a great use of resources.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> It eats at me that some kid never got to have a ninth birthday while this ....er will live to have 50 more on our dollar.



You can thank the asher's of the world for that one.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 8, 2015)

No, you can thank the appeals process. Either way it's on our dime. As for the death penalty, I have rather mixed judgement on it. In cases like this I have zero problem with it, but he'll still be alive for a long while and still be costing the state money so that point is moot when deciding who deserves the death penalty. The death penalty is by no means cheaper just because he won't live out his whole life.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

So going by the "ten times more expensive for death row than life" figure in the article I linked, those only seven fast tracked seven years for Muhammad are the same as, well, seventy in prison without parole.

Same value on your dime.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> 1) Life WithOut Parole is cheaper than inmates on Death Row.
> 
> 2) Inmates on Death Row can die there of old age because appeals and such can drag on for *literally decades*. So now we're at a more expensive version of LWOP.
> 
> ...



Devil's advocate:

To paraphrase something you said earlier in this thread, those indicate a problem with the capital punishment process, not with capital punishment itself.


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

This is true - just as killing one person is not going to solve systemic prison overpopulation. It does, basically, become a moral question, but these other issues have all been raised as reasons to kill him. They're just specious.

Are you okay with state sanctioned homicide as revenge?

I am not. Ever. Even for the most horrible of people.

I can understand how people would be, don't get me wrong, and maybe several years ago I might even have agreed; but it should be acknowledged as such.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> This is true - just as killing one person is not going to solve systemic prison overpopulation.



what do you suggest to combat overpopulated prison complexes?


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Change some really draconian sentencing laws and mandated punishments from the War On Some People Who Use Drugs, get rid of stuff like California's Three Strikes laws, shift towards a model of rehabilitation where possible (probably not in this country).

But seriously, there's a lot of research out there about our crazy high incarceration rates compared to pretty much the rest of the world.

You can also look at economic factors: income inequality, poverty levels, real job availability, etc, but that's a bit outside the question.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 8, 2015)

I imagine releasing nonviolent drug offenders would go a long way to reduce gen pop sizes. That doesn't account for the higher security prisons though, as I imagine not many low end drug offenders end up there.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> Are you okay with state sanctioned homicide as revenge?
> 
> I am not. Ever. Even for the most horrible of people.
> 
> I can understand how people would be, don't get me wrong, and maybe several years ago I might even have agreed; but it should be acknowledged as such.



I am fine with revenge when it deserves to be served. 
After WW2 german members of the SS were killed by US soldiers. 
They could have gone to a court and been tried. 
But lining them up and killing them for what they did was deserved. 

Had he not killed himself maybe you would have been fine with a person like Adolf Hitler serving his life in prison for war crimes. I'm not. 

There are instances in history where revenge and Justice go hand in hand. 
It's just that the person issuing the revenge has a black robe on. You can candy coat it and call it justice if you want. When judges sit on the bench and tell condemned people that they are horrible and that they will rot in jail, it's revenge. 

7 gang member here in Houston raped (2) 15 year old girls and then chocked them to death with their own shoe strings. 
These guys got the death penalty. That was societies revenge for what they did. 

You can say revenge is wrong until it's your family on the receiving end of some barbaric deed.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> This is true - just as killing one person is not going to solve systemic prison overpopulation. It does, basically, become a moral question, but these other issues have all been raised as reasons to kill him. They're just specious.
> 
> Are you okay with state sanctioned homicide as revenge?
> 
> ...



Killing one might not, but killing all might dent it. I am in fact in favor of culling the worthless. Nobody wants to live in my world where repeat drunken drivers and kiddy diddlers get the axe swiftly. 

I am also not foolish and I understand that my way of thinking is flawed. You're pretty much correct, Asher. There needs to be a huge overhaul of the penal system. Execution is likely overstepping bounds, regardless of how deserving I feel someone is. 

An example, and why I'm quick to change my mind, is rape. People always wish rape on rapists, and as a victim I can't bring myself to wish that on anyone else, regardless of how ....ed they are. Why should killing be any different. My judgement is easily compromised though. The thought of being on a jury myself terrifies me as I value human life very little. Dealing with the public as my job and personal experiences makes me believe the worst case scenario whenever someone is accused. 

I am not a good juror. Fortunately, I can occasionally agree against my personal views if I'm forced to critically think about it for long enough.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Apr 8, 2015)

michblanch said:


> I am fine with revenge when it deserves to be served.
> After WW2 german members of the SS were killed by US soldiers.
> They could have gone to a court and been tried.
> But lining them up and killing them for what they did was deserved.
> ...


Seeing justice brought to criminals who we can prove without a doubt are guilty wasn't Asher's problem with your comment. It was the whole revenge aspect and making a spectacle out of it that rubbed him the wrong way. Creating a spectacle out of justice makes guys like Bin Laden and Tsarnaev martyrs for their causes and that not good for society in the long term.



> You can say revenge is wrong until it's your family on the receiving end of some barbaric deed.


 "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 8, 2015)

asher said:


> Change some really draconian sentencing laws and mandated punishments from the War On Some People Who Use Drugs, get rid of stuff like California's Three Strikes laws, shift towards a model of rehabilitation where possible (probably not in this country).
> 
> But seriously, there's a lot of research out there about our crazy high incarceration rates compared to pretty much the rest of the world.
> 
> You can also look at economic factors: income inequality, poverty levels, real job availability, etc, but that's a bit outside the question.



How would you go about curbing recidivism? Stricter sentencing? Rehabilitation [like I think you were referring to]?


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 8, 2015)

This thread should be framed and used as an example of why we can't have any system, under any circumstances that will work 100%.

Not saying that I have any grievance with anyone or anything said, but it's a good example of how different opinions are. Thus, with so many opinions, it's tough to come to a consensus as how things should be handled. 

I think the guy is despicable, and is beyond punishment. It has nothing to do with the terror being against the US. It's just that he's the epitome of a ....ed up bastard.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 8, 2015)

gotta love how most of the complaints in this thread about the death penalty are solely about the appeals process



Chokey Chicken said:


> I am also not foolish and I understand that my way of thinking is flawed.



if you realize that your way of thinking is flawed and you do nothing to change it, then yes, you are still foolish


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> if you realize that your way of thinking is flawed and you do nothing to change it, then yes, you are still foolish



It's essentially an emotional reaction.

Emotional reactions are not things to be strong-armed.

You instead, as Chokey does, recognize it for what it is, and don't necessarily act on it.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 8, 2015)

I'm gonna be honest with you asher, I didn't understand a word of that after "emotional reactions"


----------



## asher (Apr 8, 2015)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I'm gonna be honest with you asher, I didn't understand a word of that after "emotional reactions"





So you said if you know your line of thinking is foolish, and don't change it, you're still a fool?

Basically, it's not the rational kind of thinking that you CAN change; you're just aware that's what you're doing when that thought pops up, and then consciously don't act on it.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 8, 2015)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> gotta love how most of the complaints in this thread about the death penalty are solely about the appeals process
> 
> 
> 
> if you realize that your way of thinking is flawed and you do nothing to change it, then yes, you are still foolish



I am trying. Hence my flip flopping. I want the piece of .... to die, but I'm no longer 100% convinced that's the just outcome. 

I'm still really hazy on the whole ordeal, and I won't feel terrible if they execute him. It still seems a bit selfish to demand an eye for an eye.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 8, 2015)

Alright, makes sense. Well, other than that and the appeals thing, I have no other stance on this subject

_back to your regularly scheduled moral ....storm _


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 8, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I imagine releasing nonviolent drug offenders would go a long way to reduce gen pop sizes. That doesn't account for the higher security prisons though, as I imagine not many low end drug offenders end up there.



Actually, given how those who commit non-violent crimes and basic drug infractions are treated in the system and especially once they've gone through the system, even though they supposedly paid for thier crimes, there's a trickle down affect. 

Our current system is great at turning non-violent, rather harmless offenders into hardened career criminals.

As for already violent offenders, since so little is spent on rehabilitation they only get worse. 

I realize there are plenty who cannot be rehabilitated, but I feel that's the minority.


----------



## AndrewFTMfan (Apr 8, 2015)

Punishment for this decrepit piece of excrement is tough. How do you punish someone for such a heinous crime without creating a martyr (we all know he has some backers) but make everyone satisfied that want some form of justice whether it is death or imprisonment. No one is going to be happy with whatever outcome occurs. 

Personally though, I believe the ultimate punishment for this individual is to give him the exact opposite of what he wants. In broad terms, If he wants death, give him life. If he wants life, give him death because either way, it will be hell for him in the end.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 9, 2015)

A lot of people in this thread seem to think that we should base the functioning of our legal institutions on dialogue from The Punisher.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## michblanch (Apr 9, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> A lot of people in this thread seem to think that we should base the functioning of our legal institutions on dialogue from The Punisher.




I don't think those of us who disagree with you or others think that at all. 
That's an assumption on your part. 

Asher is really good about voicing his opinion and expressing what his convictions are. I agree with him on some and on some I dont. He is able to convey his thoughts and have a banter with those who disagree. 

Then there are those like yourself who make one line comments that add NOTHING to the conversation. You and several others make short inflaming comments that actually turn people away.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 9, 2015)

Well, given the comic page above, it doesn't seem they're wrong. It's pretty much why I want them dead if you consider the fact that it's cheaper to keep them alive, and they're just as removed from society as if they were dead. Given your initial response, it seems to fit you like a glove too.

It really does feel like flawed thinking, and it's worth critically thinking about.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Well, given the comic page above, it doesn't seem they're wrong. It's pretty much why I want them dead if you consider the fact that it's cheaper to keep them alive, and they're just as removed from society as if they were dead. Given your initial response, it seems to fit you like a glove too.
> 
> It really does feel like flawed thinking, and it's worth critically thinking about.



Because I want his mother and father to be broken hearted I'm wrong? 
His parents got on TV and said they were proud of what their sons did. 
Which in turn shows me that they are part of the issue with the brothers. 

Because I want his parents to witness what they created and sanction I'm wrong? 

I didn't wish his parents dead what I wished upon him is the opposite of what he wants and for his parents to be broken hearted. 
I think that's fair based upon the situation.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 9, 2015)

You do realize they won't be broken hearted right? It'll make a martyr of him, and they expect the "evil US government" to kill their "righteous" son.

Still, you're wishing for it, just like I am, out of hate and not for the actual betterment of society in any way. The world won't be any more or less worse off if he rots in prison or dies. Even if the family does get broken hearted, it'd just reaffirm their hatred.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> You do realize they won't be broken hearted right? It'll make a martyr of him, and they expect the "evil US government" to kill their "righteous" son.



He won't be a martyr - just another dead terrorist. And an example to other terrorists that you will die if you attempt this crap in our country again. His parents shouldn't have moved to the US if they thought that the government and its people are evil. There are a lot of happy and successful Muslims living throughout this great country that haven't decided to kill their neighbors like this ungrateful and remorseless putz. The biggest mistake being made is that we don't screen people better at the border, but that comes from having faith in the people that want to be a part of what we represent - freedom and liberty.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 9, 2015)

He'll be a martyr to them. Also, it won't set an example to terrorists because death is what terrorists expect, more times than not bringing it upon themselves.

No message will be sent. This is the .... that they (more barbarricly) do to us to instill fear in us. It doesn't work on them because it's part of the job description. 

I could explain a bit more, and might later, but typing on a phone sucks eggs.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> He'll be a martyr to them. Also, it won't set an example to terrorists because death is what terrorists expect, more times than not bringing it upon themselves.
> 
> No message will be sent. This is the .... that they (more barbarricly) do to us to instill fear in us. It doesn't work on them because it's part of the job description.
> 
> I could explain a bit more, and might later, but typing on a phone sucks eggs.



Dude, that is a great job of typing on an phone. I don't type that well on a PC or ipad.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> He'll be a martyr to them. Also, it won't set an example to terrorists because death is what terrorists expect, more times than not bringing it upon themselves.



The day that this country fears making a martyr in defense of its own citizens is a sad one indeed. 
In defense of people watching a sporting event. 
In defense of people out for a day with their families. 
In defense of athletes doing what they love. 
In defense of an 8 year old that will never have a chance to be the change that they wanted to see in this world. 






I'm interested in protecting Americans on American soil. Maniacs will see Tsarnaev as martyr or a celebrity either way - live or dead. But when this happens on our soil, we need to make a point of it that its not acceptable and that you will pay the ultimate price. Leaving him alive doesn't mean that it will create one less terrorist any more than the killing him will create one more. Madness follows madness no matter what the punishment. We should never be scared to administer punishment based on what could happen - its has to be based upon what has happened.


----------



## WarMachine (Apr 9, 2015)

Like the saying goes, if we get rid of one asshole, another, much worse asshole rises from the ashes. It's history, it's always been this way, always will be. But, by this jerkoff doing what he did, living or dead, he's still going to be looked at as a martyr. So in that sense, the people of Boston deserve their justice, they deserve to know that this piece of garbage will pay for his crimes that ruined countless lives and understand that this kind of action doesn't go unpunished. On the flip side of the same token, what would it show to the rest of the world if the US "has a heart" and lets the trash live? To me, that just shows a huge scab that the rest of the world would be dying to pick off, knowing that if the US lets this .... to continue going on, unanswered, gives them open game to start more .... like this at home for all of us.


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

I still don't understand how life in our ....ty prison system equates to "this kind of action [going] unpunished"


----------



## vilk (Apr 9, 2015)

Yeah, but killing the dude doesn't defend anyone any better than does keeping him locked up. If we kill this guy we make him a martyr, and it literally makes no change in the protection of anyone else.

It also doesn't bring that kid back from the dead. Just sayin.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

asher said:


> I still don't understand how life in our ....ty prison system equates to "this kind of action [going] unpunished"



Because a lot of folks don't really have experience with the American prison system, and even if they do, thanks to the way it's been privatized there is very little consistency across the board as far as what life in prison is really like. 

There are probably a couple dozen documentaries that have come out in the last few years alone and you'd think they were from different decades or countries compared to each other. Prison X may allow TVs and Radios, while Prison Y focuses on job-work, and Prison Z is an absolute hellhole. 

Not to mention there have been many notable cases of some of the worst of the worst using their "fame" to launch books and screenplays and all kinds of stuff like that. While they might still be in prison they're getting their 15 minutes and people _hate_ that, understandably. 

I also think it's easier for folks to just accept that he's dead. What if after 20 years in the hole he winds up repenting or actually becomes a decent human being? It's happened before. It's hard to see someone you have so much hate for and don't see as an actual person become an actual person. That's one of the reasons that the US hates rehabilitating inmates in general. It's just complicated.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> The day that this country fears making a martyr in defense of its own citizens is a sad one indeed.
> In defense of people watching a sporting event.
> In defense of people out for a day with their families.
> In defense of athletes doing what they love.
> ...



You're interested in protecting Americans on American soil? How will killing him do that exactly? 

Look, I'm not even entirely arguing against killing him. I just seem to be the only one willing to admit that it's for my own personal gratification, which is not a reason to do something like that. Some people will sleep easier, some will not, regardless of what option is chosen. I just think it's laughable that anybody is pretending it's anything more than it is. You want him dead because it'll make you feel better, not to send a message. (That it won't even send.) 10 years from now, dead or alive, the country will be no different. 

People will still be dead, family's still in mourning, this guy will not be contributing to society.

It could also be argued that living in confines is more of a punishment than swift death.

Edit: also interesting that you post a picture of a kid holding a sign saying "no hurting people" and then advocate trying to hurt people.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

vilk said:


> Yeah, but killing the dude doesn't defend anyone any better than does keeping him locked up. If we kill this guy we make him a martyr, and it literally makes no change in the protection of anyone else.
> 
> It also doesn't bring that kid back from the dead. Just sayin.



He dies and becomes a martyr. What did all those people that died at his hands become... other than dead? You are more scared about a what if than you are outraged by what happened.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> You're interested in protecting Americans on American soil? How will killing him do that exactly?
> 
> Look, I'm not even entirely arguing against killing him. I just seem to be the only one willing to admit that it's for my own personal gratification, which is not a reason to do something like that. Some people will sleep easier, some will not, regardless of what option is chosen. I just think it's laughable that anybody is pretending it's anything more than it is. You want him dead because it'll make you feel better, not to send a message. (That it won't even send.) 10 years from now, dead or alive, the country will be no different.
> 
> ...



I don't go to Singapore and try to smuggle drugs - because they will kill you if you get caught. That's the point. They have a rep of zero tolerance.

And about your edited note: He's a better man than me. I want to send a clear message that this child's death was unacceptable - maybe he would disagree, but we will never know because his voice has already been snuffed out at 8 years of age.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't go to Singapore and try to smuggle drugs - because they will kill you if you get caught. That's the point. They have a rep of zero tolerance.



If the death penalty isn't a deterrent to common criminals, I do not see how it would be for terrorists


----------



## vilk (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> He dies and becomes a martyr. What did all those people that died at his hands become... other than dead? You are more scared about a what if than you are outraged by what happened.



I literally do not understand how that defends your stance. What if ...what? What if he becomes a martyr? He will. And it's not like there's a payoff. He becomes a martyr... but we can bring everyone back from the dead! If that were the case I'd say sure kill the guy. But obviously killing him and making him a martyr only furthers his cause and literally does not do a single thing to prevent further terrorist attacks or fix the damage he's already done.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

That's the thing, most terrorists and mass murderers don't fear death. You think folks who do that kind of thing think they're going to "win" and ride off into the sunset? Only the most delusional believe that and at that point they probably wouldn't be able to be convinced to not go through with it.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't go to Singapore and try to smuggle drugs - because they will kill you if you get caught. That's the point. They have a rep of zero tolerance.
> 
> And about your edited note: He's a better man than me. I want to send a clear message that this child's death was unacceptable - maybe he would disagree, but we will never know because his voice has already been snuffed out at 8 years of age.



And you smuggle drugs into other countries where they won't kill you? I don't smuggle drugs because it's a ....ty thing to do. (And to a lesser extent because it involves connections, time, money, and lots of effort.) That aside, a lengthy prison sentence would be a good reason to avoid smuggling drugs to begin with.


----------



## Cloudy (Apr 9, 2015)

vilk said:


> If they don't put the guy in some kind of special prison he's gonna get killed anyway.



This

Hes a dead man either way. Death row just means he isnt going to get shivved by a bunch of skinhead patriots in prison. Oh sweet prison justice.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the thing, most terrorists and mass murderers don't fear death. You think folks who do that kind of thing think they're going to "win" and ride off into the sunset? Only the most delusional believe that and at that point they probably wouldn't be able to be convinced to not go through with it.



Yeah, this is the fundamental, be-all-end-all argument against the efficacy of the death penalty in purely utilitarian terms. It's not like terrorists are sitting there with their explosives strapped to their chest going, "Hmmm, I might wind up in prison because of the deterrent effect of the death penalty! Nvm!" They're going to kill people no matter what.

The question, then, is whether the death penalty is useful (a) for victims' rights and (b) economically. It fails (b), as most research indicates, and (a) is a very personal and debatable point. But that has nothing to do with what I was making fun of, which is tough-guy "WE SHALL HAVE VENGEANCE" nonsense, which is totally irrelevant. The justice system in most rich countries is about rehabilitation, not deterrence by making punishment so godawful that criminals are afraid to do things- which is one reason the U.S. locks so many people up and has such high rates of recidivism. If you really want a justice system that operates on the basis of fear of byzantine and disproportionate punishment, feel free to vacation in Tehran or China. That is a fundamentally inhumane and undemocratic way of treating crime.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> And you smuggle drugs into other countries where they won't kill you? I don't smuggle drugs because it's a ....ty thing to do. (And to a lesser extent because it involves connections, time, money, and lots of effort.)



I don't smuggle drugs at all. I was using it as an example as why most criminals avoid that place like the plague.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't smuggle drugs at all, you nitwit. I was using it as an example as why most criminals avoid that place like the plague.



They avoid it because most criminals aren't mass murdering terrorists. Drug smugglers are terrible people, but they are going for money, not death and violence. 

Also, this is your last warning regarding name calling.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 9, 2015)

On a fundamental level we respond rather negatively, in the long-term, to punishment as an incentive. This goes all the way back to childhood. There have been studies done that proved punishment is only a short-term solution, as the moment the threat is gone (or the perpetrator feels he can safely get away with it) they will commit the act again. Whereas if you can successfully convince the individual to change their POV the threat isn't even necessary. Your average person doesn't rob the liquor store not because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and from most individual perspectives against ones personal values. Frankly, punishment doesn't even usually enter the picture and if it did you'd commit the act the moment you felt you could get away with it. I could even use speeding as an example. People who believe speeding is acceptable speed when an officer is not present whereas obviously you wouldn't if you genuinely felt speeding was a wrongful act. It's all about consistency in values and we humans love it.

What happens to criminals only puts a temporary hold on their behavior, it doesn't stop it. If someone has a death wish it is definitely not going to stop them as they've already accepted the ultimate consequence.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

flint757 said:


> On a fundamental level we respond rather negatively, in the long-term, to punishment as an incentive. This goes all the way back to childhood. There have been studies done that proved punishment is only a short-term solution, as the moment the threat is gone (or the perpetrator feels he can safely get away with it) they will commit the act again. Whereas if you can successfully convince the individual to change their POV the threat isn't even necessary. Your average person doesn't rob the liquor store not because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and from most individual perspectives against ones personal values. Frankly, punishment doesn't even usually enter the picture and if it did you'd commit the act the moment you felt you could get away with it. I could even use speeding as an example. People who believe speeding is acceptable speed when an officer is not present whereas obviously you wouldn't if you genuinely felt speeding was a wrongful act. It's all about consistency in values and we humans love it.
> 
> What happens to criminals only puts a temporary hold on their behavior, it doesn't stop it. If someone has a death wish it is definitely not going to stop them as they've already accepted the ultimate consequence.



So... we expect to rehab him in prison?


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

No, because this is America, dammit!


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

Asher, I am being serious. Do we have the capacity to rehabilitate him?


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> Asher, I am being serious. Do we have the capacity to rehabilitate him?



Under the snark, I am too.

In this country? I doubt it. Our system isn't remotely built for rehabilitation, it's built for punishment (and fun and profit!).

If we were Norway or something, it's much more likely. How likely it is I have no idea, I'm not a psychologist. and he's obviously got a lot of... baggage.

Though even they don't ever think Breivik will change. But that's why he's never going to get out of prison there either.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 9, 2015)

It all depends on the criminals motivation. A sociopath or psychopath who's taken that step towards crime cannot be rehabilitated. A person committing a crime for need, profit or out of passion however totally could. I can't say whether the Boston Bombers qualify as psychopaths, but it would certainly seem to be the case. That being said, I doubt all people who commit acts of terror are sociopaths/psychopaths so it isn't necessarily the case either. In fact, most do it out of some form of passion, whether that's grief, anger, patriotism, unity, etc., so technically if you can break someone away from that mentality and they were of sound mind they totally could be rehabilitated as well. The problem really comes down to the fact that anyone who could be rehabilitated is put into a system that does the exact opposite. Then when they get out society makes rehabilitation even more unlikely by making their reintegration near impossible.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

asher said:


> Though even they don't ever think Breivik will change. But that's why he's never going to get out of prison there either.



I thought he was given the MAX sentence in Norway... which is 21 years, I think. If they don't feel that he is changed, do you think they should release him anyway? Otherwise, they would have to change their sentencing system.


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

flint757 said:


> It all depends on the criminals motivation. A sociopath or psychopath who's taken that step towards crime cannot be rehabilitated. A person committing a crime for need, profit or out of passion however totally could. I can't say whether the Boston Bombers qualify as psychopaths, but it would certainly seem to be the case. That being said, I doubt all people who commit acts of terror are sociopaths/psychopaths so it isn't necessarily the case either. In fact, most do it out of some form of passion, whether that's grief, anger, patriotism, unity, etc., so technically if you can break someone away from that mentality and they were of sound mind they totally could be rehabilitated as well. The problem really comes down to the fact that anyone who could be rehabilitated is put into a system that does the exact opposite. Then when they get out society makes rehabilitation even more unlikely by making their reintegration near impossible.



I guess the question becomes what to do with psychopaths... Since resources are limited, we should use the the vast majority of them to help those that can be helped. What should we do with those people that commit the most heinous crimes with no remorse?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I thought he was given the MAX sentence in Norway... which is 21 years, I think. If they don't feel that he is changed, do you think they should release him anyway? Otherwise, they would have to change their sentencing system.



Norway has something called "containment" which allows for indefinite (life) imprisonment. It's part of their federal/military legal system and reserved for the worst offenders. 

Breivik is one of those, along with something like 60 or so others.


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I thought he was given the MAX sentence in Norway... which is 21 years, I think. If they don't feel that he is changed, do you think they should release him anyway? Otherwise, they would have to change their sentencing system.



The max sentence handed down is 21 (well, 30 now, for crimes against humanity) years, but depending on the form of sentence, the sentence can be extended in five year increments if they feel the prisoner is not suitable to be released. I do not see Breivik ever being released.

Life imprisonment in Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, more generally, this is a really interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/m...norways-halden-prison.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

asher said:


> Also, more generally, this is a really interesting read:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/m...norways-halden-prison.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2



This was a very good read. Thanks for bringing it up. I even shared it with a co-worker.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 9, 2015)

asher said:


> I still don't understand how life in our ....ty prison system equates to "this kind of action [going] unpunished"



Prison is like being grounded. Not much of a punishment which is why people do horrible .... knowing the most that's going to happen is they'll get a "scary" kind of grounded where they'll find people of similar beliefs and/or affiliations and they will basically keep them somewhat safe in a "security in numbers" sorta way. 

The only people scared of prison are nonviolent offenders and people who probably got the shaft and ended up someone's patsy. 

But then again that's just like... My opinion man.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Prison is like being grounded. Not much of a punishment which is why people do horrible .... knowing the most that's going to happen is they'll get a "scary" kind of grounded where they'll find people of similar beliefs and/or affiliations and they will basically keep them somewhat safe in a "security in numbers" sorta way.



In 2001/2002 nearly 6000 inmates in the US died from either homicide, suicide, or staff negligence. That doesn't cover the amount of assaults, sexual or otherwise. 

Prison is some scary ..... Also my opinion.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> In 2001/2002 nearly 6000 inmates in the US died from either homicide, suicide, or staff negligence. That doesn't cover the amount of assaults, sexual or otherwise.
> 
> Prison is some scary ..... Also my opinion.



But we're also sane. And I dunno about you, but I also don't really have much of a "criminal" side. I might have stolen a candy bar and a tech deck once or twice when I was in middle school but that's about it. 

And this rather tiny number reminds me of a bit George Carlin did in regards to food poisoning killing only like 5000 a year or something and now everyone's afraid of germs, you gotta wash your hands, overtook every thing, if it fell on the floor don't eat it, etc. His point at the end of it was live a little and who gives a .... anyways? It's nature getting rid of the unfit.


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

Uh. what the hell does us being sane have to do with it?

That'd make us much easier pickings if we wound up inside, if anything.

Or are you trying to paint every single person inside prison as being an insane, violent, rapey pyschopath?


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 9, 2015)

Most people in prison are there because they made someone else miserable. That could be as extreme as death or at the very least they stole. Drug dealers get no sympathy from me. You knew the risks to make dat "mad monay" so now you do your time.

Don't ask how I know, but 99.9% of people in prison deserve to be there. And there are plenty of people running their "empires" from prison.

Back to the topic, the guy is dirt. I have no sympathy for him in any way.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Most people in prison are there because they made someone else miserable. That could be as extreme as death or at the very least they stole. Drug dealers get no sympathy from me. You knew the risks to make dat "mad monay" so now you do your time.
> 
> Don't ask how I know, but 99.9% of people in prison deserve to be there. And there are plenty of people running their "empires" from prison.
> 
> Back to the topic, the guy is dirt. I have no sympathy for him in any way.



So some kid who gets busted for having a small amount of pot or some of mommy and daddy's pills should have thier lives ruined? 

That's unfortunately something that happens way more than 0.01% of the time. 

Do you believe that non-violent offenders should be treated like violent ones? 

Also  at all drug dealers being the Wu-Tang Clan.


----------



## vilk (Apr 9, 2015)

^You think that people deserve to be in prison for soft drug possession? You do know that people are in prison right now just having marijuana on them, or even in a shared common space of their home, right?

I think you're just flappin you don't even really mean what you say.

edit: d


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2015)

62 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot - at least 32 percent of the time.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So some kid who gets busted for having a small amount of pot or some of mommy and daddy's pills should have thier lives ruined?
> 
> That's unfortunately something that happens way more than 0.01% of the time.
> 
> ...



They'll probably get jail time not prison time unless there is intent to sell.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> 62 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot - at least 32 percent of the time.



Here's some sources for my last two posts:

Incarcerated Felon Population by Type of Crime Committed, 1974-2012 - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...uyzMVKq6D4OjAvfaw&sig2=HRpJmctpSENIRryzc0eq4g
Over 3,200 US prisoners serving life sentences for non-violent offenses including shoplifting ? report ? RT USA
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...69njhDNIbSgCvNRhA&sig2=mH-_sDhsQ-12fvl0zP7r0A


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> They'll probably get jail time not prison time unless there is intent to sell.



In a perfect world, maybe, but thanks to mandatory sentence regulations and the judicial gray area used to determine if the accused was going to sell makes it so we have tons of non-violent, drug convictions who more than likely were not going to sell serving some pretty ridiculous sentences. 

Check those links above, some have the breakdown between those who went to jail vs. prison.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 9, 2015)

What grey area? Baggies and digital scale as well as having more than an ounce makes it pretty obvious what intent they had.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What grey area? Baggies and digital scale as well as having more than an ounce makes it pretty obvious what intent they had.



Those are obvious cases, but there are plenty that don't fit in those guidelines. Did you read the reuters article?

Depending on where you're arrested you could have as little as 1/2 an ounce, and as little as $50 in cash and be charged with felony intent to sell. To add to that there have been numerous cases where the cops have "rounded up" the amount they find in order to jump from a misdemeanor to a felony.

But all of that is a moot point, as selling a bit of pot isn't a crime worth destroying lives over. Even jail time in this country can mean decades of financial and social recovery. If we want to get pragmatic about it, I as a tax payer don't want to pay for that person spending time in jail or prison when they could much more easily and affordable be rehabilitated, certainly easier than say a murderer, and I also don't want to deal with the likelihood that that person will be forced to be a career criminal as society rejects those who have put in their time.


----------



## asher (Apr 9, 2015)

Tldr this page:

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying dataeyes?"

push, I sure am going to ask you how you know.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

Check the recidivism rates: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism

Is that because these folks are just evil criminals, or because options once leaving custody are so bleak they're forced to keep committing crimes just to get by?

I read a really good article on it, and I'm trying to find it. Will edit it in when I do.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Check the recidivism rates: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism
> 
> Is that because these folks are just evil criminals, or because options once leaving custody are so bleak they're forced to keep committing crimes just to get by?
> 
> I read a really good article on it, and I'm trying to find it. Will edit it in when I do.



A lot of it is small-time drug offenders emerging from prison as hardened criminals.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 9, 2015)

Since this topic has turned to prison and felons I'll chime in. 

Previous job before starting new business: 

I won't say where my previous employment was. 

As COO of a $120 Million a year company where I managed 450 employees. 
I had an ex felon that worked for me as a division manager. He was accused and sent to jail for battery of an officer. 
When I promoted him people thought I was out of my mind. I answered to only one person in our corporation, the CEO. And I sat in a meeting and justified why I chose him over all of the candidates. 
It came down to honesty, loyalty, work ethic and being extremely smart. 

He was the best manager of any division in the company. His turn over rate was lower than anyone else's. 
His division expenses were lower than any other division. 
His profit margins ran around 51% every month. 

When we had trouble or needed to expand into new emerging markets , he supplied the manpower and know how. 

I believe in my heart that there are good people in prison that are there by mistake. 
I believe there are people in prison who have incredible potential when given opportunities to grow. 

He has changed his life and his families lives for the better. 
He was the first manager in the company to hire a person with Cerebral Palsy. 
That person now works for me because I stole him away for a new project. 

When people leave prison there are very few opportunities given to them. This puts these people in a position of getting in minor trouble again only to now he parole violators, which puts them right back in jail. 

Our prison system is broken. They are publicly traded on the NYSE and the only way to drive the value of their stocks is to incarcerate more and offer fewer programs to people wanting to change inside. 

The average cost of a prisoner is now $57K per year. 
The average income for a family is just under that number. 
People are now a greater value in prison than outside of it. There is something inherently wrong with this. 

To reflect back to the Boston bomber. I hope he gets the death penalty. I hope his parents grieve for the rest of their lives. 
As far as becoming a martyr. He is already a martyr to some. 

We should never refuse Justice because we are afraid of creating further problems. 
We should never refuse Justice because it will offend people who already hate us.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So some kid who gets busted for having a small amount of pot or some of mommy and daddy's pills should have thier lives ruined?
> 
> That's unfortunately something that happens way more than 0.01% of the time.
> 
> ...



Can't argue with that kind of illogical thoughts. First off I never said any of that. Second, drug *dealers* are hardened criminals almost every time. They carry guns, they operate illegally, they don't pay taxes. Please do not confuse that with the poor guy who got caught with a crack pipe.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Can't argue with that kind of illogical thoughts. First off I never said any of that. Second, drug *dealers* are hardened criminals almost every time. They carry guns, they operate illegally, they don't pay taxes. Please do not confuse that with the poor guy who got caught with a crack pipe.



The point is that poor guy with the crack pipe is often classified the same as a more hardend, violent drug dealer. 

Also, there's no statute, in the US anyway, that says a drug dealer needs to be all those things to be classified as such. 

That's kind of the whole point here. Non-violent drug offenders are being classified as your interpretation of what a real drug dealer is and the affect in the long term is turning that poor guy with half an ounce or a crack pipe into a gun toting, violent dealer. 

Either way I've posted reliable sources citing the amount of non-violent drug offenders in the system is as high as 50% (but realistically closer to 30%), worlds away from the amount you pulled from the sky earlier.

But to break down you post:



pushpull7 said:


> Most people in prison are there because they made someone else miserable.



Actually, most are in there because of non-violent drug offenses. Not sure how that makes someone miserable directly. I'd think the person buying the drugs has made their own choice. 



> That could be as extreme as death or at the very least they stole.



Not really, those are two other categories outside of drug offenses. Only 17% are in prison for violent crime and only about 9% for robbery. 



> Drug dealers get no sympathy from me.



That's cool, that's a personal opinion. 



> You knew the risks to make dat "mad monay" so now you do your time.



Once again, that's opinion, but doesn't take into consideration those forced into the drug trade through various means. 



> Don't ask how I know, but 99.9% of people in prison deserve to be there.



Sorry, gotta ask. How?



> And there are plenty of people running their "empires" from prison.



You watch way too much TV.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 9, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The point is that poor guy with the crack pipe is often classified the same as a more hardend, violent drug dealer.
> 
> Also, there's no statute, in the US anyway, that says a drug dealer needs to be all those things to be classified as such.
> 
> ...



Half an ounce of what? Cuz some drugs are treated a lot more strictly than say marijuana. Also, there is the aspect of priors [and the possibility of probation/warrants] you have yet to bring up at all in your hypothetical scenarios.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 9, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Half an ounce of what? Cuz some drugs are treated a lot more strictly than say marijuana. Also, there is the aspect of priors [and the possibility of probation/warrants] you have yet to bring up at all in your hypothetical scenarios.



A half ounce of pot. 

I actually covered a lot of that when I brought up Recidivism and more so previously in both the Reuters article I linked and one of the DOJ links I posted touched on it a bit. 

Even the part of how someone moves through the system mentioned even earlier.

At the end of the day, 51% of the US prison population is there due to purely drug related charges ranging from simple possession (not with intent to sell) up through sale and trafficking. It is believed that close to 90% of those 51% had no weapon involved. Only 13% of all prisoners were involved in a violent crime. 

Here's the link again: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf


----------



## TheStig1214 (Apr 9, 2015)

asher said:


> I still don't understand how life in our ....ty prison system equates to "this kind of action [going] unpunished"



The kid's 21, and I'll give him until 75 to live before he dies of natural causes. That is 54 years of staring at a grey wall 23 and a half hours a day. I'd call that a fate worse than death 

EDIT: I just realized I quoted this pretty late. Sorry.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 10, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sorry, gotta ask. How?
> 
> 
> 
> You watch way too much TV.



I'm not going into every aspect of my personal life, but I know 

Here's the bottom line: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The watching too much TV part is a myth btw, in fact, I generally try to avoid such shows/news.


----------



## asher (Apr 10, 2015)

Sorry, I get that and all, but in this kind of discussion that doesn't count for squat when the actual data says otherwise.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 10, 2015)

What actual data? Wiki?

Don't get me wrong, I hate our justice system. I've witnessed first hand how corrupt and meaningless it is. But never kid yourself, the vast majority of people in prison or even jail deserve to be there.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 10, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> What actual data? Wiki?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I hate our justice system. I've witnessed first hand how corrupt and meaningless it is. But never kid yourself, the vast majority of people in prison or even jail deserve to be there.



None of what I've linked is from a Wiki, it's all from either federal agencies, watchdogs, independent research firms, or internationally recognized news sources, all with proper sources either linked directly or listed.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 10, 2015)

It's like this, this guy thinks he did the right thing. There are a ....load of criminals that think they did nothing wrong. 

I'ma leave it right there. This guy is the epitome of what I hate about the human race. The rest of this is a side track.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 10, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> It's like this, this guy thinks he did the right thing. There are a ....load of criminals that think they did nothing wrong.
> 
> I'ma leave it right there. This guy is the epitome of what I hate about the human race. The rest of this is a side track.



I agree.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Apr 10, 2015)

Back on track with this. 

Clarification on why the death penalty is expensive. Mandatory appeals. 

They are necessary, but some court systems are far slower than others (California) and the money spent on trials, lawyers etc. adds up quickly (the legal system is a money grubbing prostitute, let's be real) 

This is necessary to keep innocent people from being offed; however its a double-edge sword. 

That being said there is a way to skip past all the appeals and go straight for the jugular so-to-speak; however it involves the consent of Tsarnaev. 

If anyone remembers timothy mcveigh, you'll recall he was put to death 2 years after his conviction. It's because he voluntarily waved his mandatory appeals after the first one, which fun fact he used as a (failed) platform to get his execution broadcast on tv. 

Also those making the arguments its cheaper to keep him alive, your assumptions are wrong. tsarnaev won't be getting life in a standard facility. his parent's lawyers will make the case that he will be a prime target for inmates, so he will be sent to a maximum security security federal penitentiary where the operating budget and prisoner cost is higher... for his safety. 

so a lifetime sentence will be greater in cost. just sayin


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 10, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Don't ask how I know, but 99.9% of people in prison deserve to be there. And there are plenty of people running their "empires" from prison.





ArtDecade said:


> 62 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot - at least 32 percent of the time.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Here's some sources for my last two posts:
> 
> Incarcerated Felon Population by Type of Crime Committed, 1974-2012 - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
> BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses
> ...



Chill, Max. Its not always about you.


----------



## asher (Apr 10, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Also those making the arguments its cheaper to keep him alive, your assumptions are wrong. tsarnaev won't be getting life in a standard facility. his parent's lawyers will make the case that he will be a prime target for inmates, so he will be sent to a maximum security security federal penitentiary where the operating budget and prisoner cost is higher... for his safety.
> 
> so a lifetime sentence will be greater in cost. just sayin



We've already presented quite a bit of research about that not being the case. Can you point me to figures about specifically SuperMax prisons costing way more than the rest to the tune of 10x more (necessary to be equivalent to Death Row)?


----------



## vilk (Apr 10, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What grey area? Baggies and digital scale as well as having more than an ounce makes it pretty obvious what intent they had.



I have all those things and I've literally never sold a gram of pot in my life


----------



## BucketheadRules (Apr 10, 2015)

Alex Kenivel said:


> They oughta duct tape his ankles and wrists together, pull his pants down and toss him in with the rapists.



Yeah, I reckon a bit of rape would totally solve everything.

Jesus.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Apr 10, 2015)

I agree. The Boston jury did a good job!


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Apr 10, 2015)

asher said:


> We've already presented quite a bit of research about that not being the case. Can you point me to figures about specifically SuperMax prisons costing way more than the rest to the tune of 10x more (necessary to be equivalent to Death Row)?



you mean despite the extra man hours and more advanced surveillance systems necessary to meet the common definition of "Supermax" via popular opinion (the only definition available) of wardens polled in 1998? No, not a ton. 

But enough to say that yes, the man-hour operating costs of supermax is higher because supermax depends on a larger guard-to-inmate ratio to make it safer. utility-wise it should cost the same, ditto with medical care. 

but the cost argument distracts from the topic at heart: does a mass murder deserve to live? 

"well it costs less to house lifetime..." not the point. does he, as a human being deserve to live after he admittedly conspired and executed a plot to hurt, maim, kill dozens of people (with the intention of doing more harm down the line). 

this question won't matter to you. we all know that. and for those who share your opinion, life in prison is enough, but that being said: 







you can make the logical argument for a guy convicted of first degree murder and i would buy it given the current inefficiencies of deathrow. But you'll have an impossible time convincing a lot of people that a mass-murdering terrorist (please don't bring the ethnic connotation into this, the shooters at columbine were terrorists too) deserves to live.


----------



## asher (Apr 10, 2015)

I mean, yeah, I'm not really going to be able to convince someone that he really shouldn't be executed. That is, indeed, my opinion.

But _you're_ the one who brought up again, and tried to push back on, the numbers thing.

I'd need to go back and check whether the numbers we've been using average out between maximum security and lowest-security prisons (I suspect they do). But I'd be very, very surprised and would need to see the math if SuperMax is so much more expensive than average that it closes a tenfold gap in price.

So no, the assumptions aren't wrong. But if they're irrelevant, why bring them up again?


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 10, 2015)

I thought he should die... but I've been reconsidering that position after Asher had me think about Breivik and Norway's criminal justice system. I have been spending a lot of time reading about it and it certainly challenges my views. In particular, I stumbled across this quote:

_Morten Rand-Hendriksen is the owner of Pink & Yellow Media, a design company based in British Columbia. Like his fellow expat, Svanemyr, he says he thinks containment would be the best option for Breivik: "He should sit in jail &#8230; and serve as proof that even though he committed the worst crime against the country since World War II, and even though he treated his victims inhumanely, we will still treat him as a human being." Rand-Hendriksen then adds, "I pity him for his lack of understanding of the human condition." _

Why the Norway Shooter May End Up Serving A Life Sentence | GOOD

That's the one that has been sticking with me. I don't want to become him by choosing to disregard human life as well. Its easy to say kill him when it is being handled by our criminal justice system. Its harder when we look at ourselves and wonder which path is the right one to take.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 10, 2015)

I personally want to know what people for killing him think we'll actually gain by killing him.

Will it send a message? Did torturing detainees send a message other than adding fuel to the fire? Do they not expect the "monsterous" US to kill/hurt a "just" individual. Nope.

Is it cheaper to kill him? Evidence suggests not.

Will it heal scars and bring back the dead? Certainly not. One might argue that some will sleep easier, the fact that the majority of Mass opposes the death penalty suggests more wouldn't sleep easier.

Will the world be a brighter place? Likely not. People will still be getting knifed and shot, many for the same reasons this guy killed people.

It's for your own personal satisfaction and nothing more. It'll help YOU sleep at night. It won't even begin to fix a single problem.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Apr 10, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> I personally want to know what people for killing him think we'll actually gain by killing him.
> 
> Will it send a message? Did torturing detainees send a message other than adding fuel to the fire? Do they not expect the "monsterous" US to kill/hurt a "just" individual. Nope.
> 
> ...



All of this x10000000000.

As a UK resident, where the last use of the death penalty was 31 years before I was born, I can't understand why it's actually still a thing in supposedly civilised, developed nations. It's not a mature, considered form of justice, which is what a government owes its citizens. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and it solves nothing. I don't want to live under a government that treats its own people, criminals or not, as if the red mist is still there.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 10, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> I personally want to know what people for killing him think we'll actually gain by killing him.
> 
> Will it send a message? Did torturing detainees send a message other than adding fuel to the fire? Do they not expect the "monsterous" US to kill/hurt a "just" individual. Nope.
> 
> ...



The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.


----------



## asher (Apr 10, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.



Oh god.

You are aware that _even the CIA itself_ had the research on how useless torture actually is for extracting real information?


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 10, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.



Water-boarding doesn't work. I will tell you anything you want to hear after a bit of torture...


----------



## Sumsar (Apr 10, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.



What good is it if you regardless of what "usefull" information you obtain under torture go to war anyway? Couldn't you then maybe not torture people in the first place?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 10, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.



There has been research done for decades that proves information gathered through torture is pretty much useless. Historical example, during the Korean war the Chinese got a .... ton of information on the US through the POW camps not by torturing them, but by essentially befriending them and slowly, through manipulation, convincing the soldiers that what they think isn't so bad. As time went on those soldiers lips loosened quite a bit, unlike what'd you'd see happen during torture.


----------



## asher (Apr 10, 2015)

flint757 said:


> There has been research done for decades that proves information gathered through torture is pretty much useless. Historical example, during the Korean war the Chinese got a .... ton of information on the US through the POW camps not by torturing them, but by essentially befriending them and slowly, through manipulation, convincing the soldiers that what they think isn't so bad. As time went on those soldiers lips loosened quite a bit, unlike what'd you'd see happen during torture.



It's like how we got lots of Nazi officers to open up or talk after WWII ended: long walks in the park and lots of chess.

(And a couple microphones, but, y'know.)


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 10, 2015)

vilk said:


> I have all those things and I've literally never sold a gram of pot in my life



Wow you must not trust your dealer then. 


And .... treating a piece of .... like a human being. Tsarnaev is lucky he isn't being dropped in a piranha tank.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 10, 2015)

asher said:


> Oh god.
> 
> You are aware that _even the CIA itself_ had the research on how useless torture actually is for extracting real information?




Oh god. 
Do you argue every point? 

How about if you read the line's I responded to. 
The initial comment was that the CIA could not deter terrorists by using torture. 

There's a distinction between using info to stop an act and deterring. 

My comment was that the CIA didn't use torture as a deterrent it was for information. 
Whether they got information is not what I commented on. Do you see anywhere in my comment anything about the quality or failure to get info? 

No. 
I said that the CIA used torture as an information gathering technique not as a way to deter. 

Hope I clarified that , since you jumped to a point that I don't disagree with in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 10, 2015)

Can folks just take the five gosh darn seconds to just explain thier point in a nice concise matter. We're not a bunch of old friends sitting around the camp fire reading between the lines. It's the Internet, where nuance isn't a thing unless you type it.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 10, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> What good is it if you regardless of what "usefull" information you obtain under torture go to war anyway? Couldn't you then maybe not torture people in the first place?




Once again I'll respond to you also because you didn't read my comment either. 

Did you see me say any thing about useful information? 
Nope. 
I said that torture was not for deterring people to stop doing something it's for obtaining info. 
There is a massive distinction between deterring someone by making them fear something and gathering info to stop them from doing something.


----------



## michblanch (Apr 10, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can folks just take the five gosh darn seconds to just explain thier point in a nice concise matter. We're not a bunch of old friends sitting around the camp fire reading between the lines. It's the Internet, where nuance isn't a thing unless you type it.



Agreed. 

But there is also an issue of reading more into something than what is actually said.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 10, 2015)

How/when the hell did we get on the topic of torturing? And what do you guys think of calling waterboarding "advanced interrogation techniques" instead of what it really is... you know, torture.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 10, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> How/when the hell did we get on the topic of torturing? And what do you guys think of calling waterboarding "advanced interrogation techniques" instead of what it really is... you know, torture.



Tis a winding road P&CE topics. 

Eh, I've never been fond of euphemisms. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters what we call it though as long as we all know, deep down, what it really is.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Apr 12, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The US didn't waterboard or torture to send a message, it was for information.



Two/three days and no posts. (hadn't checked the thread since my last post but felt this needed clarification.)

It doesn't matter that the purpose was something other than "sending a message." The fact remains that when you get into the terrorist game, or when you ally with extremist Muslims, torture was still a realistic thing to look forward to if you ever got captured, and people are were still eager to fight.

My only point is that torture, death, etc. deters nothing, so I was trying to get people to stop using the "it sends a message" argument. The people who commit these crimes are just religious zealots. It doesn't matter if you line them up and slit their throats and throw them into mass graves indiscriminately, it just fuels their fire.

I'm done with this thread now, I promise.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> The people who commit these crimes are just religious zealots. It doesn't matter if you line them up and slit their throats and throw them into mass graves indiscriminately, it just fuels their fire.



Actually that's exactly what needs done, and that would indeed help matters for us IMO.
I agree that our wimpy AITs do not send a serious message, but IMO they do help greatly with gathering info, and I thinks that's a proven thing by now.


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2015)

"AIT"?

Oh. That thing that lets us not call torture torture.

As a matter of fact, it's been greatly proven it is completely useless for extracting useful information.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Apr 13, 2015)

Armored Intelligence Tupperware?


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> Armored Intelligence Tupperware?



Arbitrary Internet Typing!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 13, 2015)

It's Advanced Interrogation Techniques. It's the spin Dick Cheney put on it. It's like calling rape "Forced Rectal Investigating".


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 13, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually that's exactly what needs done, and that would indeed help matters for us IMO.
> I agree that our wimpy AITs do not send a serious message, but IMO they do help greatly with gathering info, and I thinks that's a proven thing by now.



Alright Trench, this one's been going pretty good, so don't troll it. 

You can have the next one. Promise.


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It's Advanced Interrogation Techniques. It's the spin Dick Cheney put on it. It's like calling rape "Forced Rectal Investigating".



Don't laugh...

don't laugh....



(dammit)


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 13, 2015)

asher said:


> Don't laugh...
> 
> don't laugh....
> 
> ...



Are you laughing because you think I'm a fool, or because that's exactly the angle Dick Cheney and his lawyers would use if his old ass could sport a chubby long enough to do so?


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Are you laughing because you think I'm a fool, or because that's exactly the angle Dick Cheney and his lawyers would use if his old ass could sport a chubby long enough to do so?



Just being a five year old about the Forced Rectal Investigating phrase being funny, despite it referring to something actually horrible


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 13, 2015)

asher said:


> Just being a five year old about the Forced Rectal Investigating phrase being funny, despite it referring to something actually horrible



Sorta like AIT, which is also referring to something horrible.


----------



## ArtDecade (May 15, 2015)

The jury chose the Death Penalty.


----------



## asher (May 15, 2015)

Not surprised at all.

As expected, will be appealed.

Interesting thought:

It was prosecuted as a federal case, not a Massachusetts one. This leaves the death penalty on the table - it's banned in the state. This also means that, when the Feds screen jurors, they require them to be "death penalty qualified", or not opposed to it.

If a majority of Boston area residents (it's around 66% for both the state and the area, I think?) oppose the death penalty, then this &#8220;death qualified&#8221; jury means a jury selected from amongst a pool of Boston area residents whose views are amongst the minority of Boston area residents.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 15, 2015)

asher said:


> Not surprised at all.
> 
> As expected, will be appealed.
> 
> ...



I was watching CNN and they brought that up. It seems that even average, death penalty opposing Bostonians were calling this an exception or "worst of the worst" situation worthy of the death penalty, at least that's what thier polls were showing. Though, who knows how accurate that is.


----------



## estabon37 (May 15, 2015)

Most of us can think of exceptions to our moral stances, so I'd not be surprised if most residents of Massachusetts (Massachutians?) considered the death penalty appropriate in this case. 

That doesn't mean they'd be "death qualified" (I can't believe that's a social / legal terminology instead of a Steven Seagal film). So, I guess what I'm asking is whether the qualifying factor is being in favour of the death penalty in general, or being in favour of the death penalty in this case. If it's the former, then it opens up a strong possibility that a jury might be biased, or at least ideologically similar enough to not really represent the rest of society. The latter seems less problematic in these regards.

Although now that I think about it, why wouldn't a federal court case make up its jury from the federation at large (there's probably a really obvious answer to this that I've just missed in my state of sleepiness). Surely you could get 12 people from 12 states, and fly them in for a holiday where they get to sit around and quietly judge people they don't know (which, I've just realised, is most holidays).


----------



## asher (May 15, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> That doesn't mean they'd be "death qualified" (I can't believe that's a social / legal terminology instead of a Steven Seagal film). So, I guess what I'm asking is whether the qualifying factor is being in favour of the death penalty in general, or being in favour of the death penalty in this case. If it's the former, then it opens up a strong possibility that a jury might be biased, or at least ideologically similar enough to not really represent the rest of society. The latter seems less problematic in these regards.



It means they don't hold objections to the use of it.

So like, unless I perjured myself to get on the jury (so I could then hang it I guess?), I would be disqualified because I'm against it in all cases.


----------



## MFB (May 15, 2015)

I'm putting the death penalty ruling based solely on the fact that the jury viewed this as an attack against fellow residents, and thus were willing to put aside their usual moral high-grounds and declare that this won't be tolerated; thus, death penalty. I know that's how I'd view it, even if you are supposed to be un-biased and objective.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 16, 2015)

The idea that anything other than terrible torturous death is not supported is disturbing.


----------



## asher (May 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> The idea that anything other than terrible torturous death is not supported is disturbing.



The idea that terrible, torturous death is supported is disturbing. 

That said, this is the kind of place why I fully understand why people feel that way.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 16, 2015)

Really? To me my moral compass is sound. I don't think that people that want to blow up marathons (regardless of their religion or anything else) should live.

This is the case of the worst of the worst. Should be taken out back and shot immediately. Maybe then it would make someone think twice about it.

I realize a good portion of people support terrorist ....s like this. I'm not one of them.


----------



## estabon37 (May 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> I realize a good portion of people support terrorist ....s like this. I'm not one of them.



Please don't conflate 'being against the death penalty' with 'supporting terrorism'.

This is an important case and a _*very*_ important conversation because it tests the philosophies, ideologies, and stances of those of us who have stated here in the past that we're against capital punishment. We're _*supposed*_ to be conflicted, and re-consider our position on the issue. To fail to question ourselves in the face of absurd and insane violence would be an injustice in itself.

One's moral compass is not merely defined by arriving at an 'acceptable' conclusion, it is defined by the questions asked and decisions made along the way. 

Personally, having said in the past that I oppose the death penalty (and at other times that I support it), I see three possible stances I could take in regards to Tsarnaev.

1) For once, I don't have to invoke Hitler. His crimes are great enough that I will suspend my own rules, and I would prefer to see him executed.

2) His crimes are not much more horrific than those of a great many people that have been sentenced to death, so it would be illogical and hypocritical for me to make an exception in this case.

3) His crimes are significant, but I prefer not to relent on my position for extreme cases, because I believe the arguments against capital punishments are sound.

There are obviously far more options than this, but these are the three that I see being most relevant to my own feelings on the case. Note that I do not consider "terrible, torturous death" to be an option, I do not consider my refusal to consider "terrible, torturous death as essentially "supporting terrorism", I don't think that execution will "make someone think twice", because as we've covered extensively in this thread, the death penalty has thus far not won any wars against drugs or violence, and maybe most importantly:

I _*do not*_ think that disagreeing with me on the issue of capital punishment means your moral stance should be questioned. That you think that people who arrive at a different conclusion on the issue suggests your critical thinking skills need some work, but the only thing that defines one's moral stance is their definition of their moral stance. If you think that the premises and outcomes behind arriving at a decision in this case are simple, it might be because you're thinking simply.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 16, 2015)

What would you like me to do with him? Rehabilitate him? 

That would be a NO. Though I realize the irony of how much money he will cost to eventually have him put to death, what he did was UNBELIEVABLY HEINOUS. It wasn't a crime of passion, it wasn't some dumb kid who didn't know better. It was EVIL as evil can be.

I don't have any sympathy for people that are that bad. 

It wasn't a "war", it wasn't because of how poorly he was treated, or any of the other "human" things that you can apply. It was ....ing AWFUL. 

Manson should have been killed. That was horrible and heinous. He gets to be a celebrity.


----------



## narad (May 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> This is the case of the worst of the worst. Should be taken out back and shot immediately. Maybe then it would make someone think twice about it.



Honestly give the terrorists some credit in knowing that death is the likely outcome for these actions -- to accomplish their goal and be immediately executed is probably the ideal, romanticized scenario, and unlikely to deter people serious enough to plot months, if not years, in advance.


----------



## Demiurge (May 16, 2015)

I think that it could be argued that a swift execution doesn't adequately repay the suffering caused. It obviously has that chest-puffing, "take that, f**ker" gratification, but it seems almost too easy depending on the gravity of the crime. In civil cases involving personal injury or wrongful death the _duration_ of suffering by either the injured or the deceased (between trauma & passing), respectively, is a factor in establishing damages; it's not a perfect analog but the length of a prison sentence is the closest punishment-by-duration for criminals.

Someone as young this kid might know that he will be put to death at some point and therefore not get to experience life (duh), but I don't think he'd really comprehend (and experience the pain of) that loss if he were executed right now. His suffering will come through time, and it's probable that the decade-of-so of appeals will probably be worst part of the punishment. To put it another way, does anyone read The Pit and the Pendulum and think about the sharpness of the blade over the depth of the pit?


----------



## asher (May 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> What would you like me to do with him? Rehabilitate him?
> 
> That would be a NO. Though I realize the irony of how much money he will cost to eventually have him put to death, what he did was UNBELIEVABLY HEINOUS. It wasn't a crime of passion, it wasn't some dumb kid who didn't know better. It was EVIL as evil can be.
> 
> ...



I don't see why wanting life without parole is me supporting terrorists or something. Especially when we know the death penalty does nothing as an... anti -incentive (words failing me).

Like, again dude, I completely understand. Earlier in life I probably would have agreed with you. But I'm pretty firmly in estabon's #3.


----------



## estabon37 (May 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> What would you like me to do with him? Rehabilitate him?
> 
> That would be a NO. Though I realize the irony of how much money he will cost to eventually have him put to death, what he did was UNBELIEVABLY HEINOUS. It wasn't a crime of passion, it wasn't some dumb kid who didn't know better. It was EVIL as evil can be.
> 
> ...



Cool, but that's not the point either of us were making. As I highlighted, you were connecting particular punishments with partiular levels of dislike for terrorism. The whole point of a judicial system is to have as balanced and objective a trial as possible, even if it's ultimately impossible to do so in this case. You are advocating a sentence based on either pure emotion, or public dislike of a particular thing. That's the kind of shit that used to get people lynched. 

We get it, you don't like Tsarnaev. Welcome to the club. Your feelings on one particular case should not change the basis for an entire judicial system, and my feelings on that system say nothing about my feelings on terrorism. You're getting your wires crossed.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 17, 2015)

narad said:


> Honestly give the terrorists some credit in knowing that death is the likely outcome for these actions -- to accomplish their goal and be immediately executed is probably the ideal, romanticized scenario, and unlikely to deter people serious enough to plot months, if not years, in advance.



That's disgusting.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 17, 2015)

And torturing someone to death isn't?


----------



## flint757 (May 17, 2015)

What's disgusting about that statement?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 17, 2015)

These ....s will be regarded as martyrs whether they sit in prison for decades or are executed the minute they were found guilty. So to say he should be left alive so they don't get the satisfaction of martyrdom is silly.

The death penalty is a slippery slope. In cases like this where you have indisputable evidence against the accused and there is not a shred of doubt of their guilt on top of his cold, indifferent attitude shown in court, .... him. He should have been taken out and shot as soon as the verdict was passed. This wasn't a murder committed in the heat of the moment. He premeditated blowing up men, women, and children at what was probably a charity event. 

But of course he'll get his appeals and draw it out for years, where more money will be spent to keep him alive each year than a lot of people in this country make.


----------



## estabon37 (May 17, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> These ....s will be regarded as martyrs whether they sit in prison for decades or are executed the minute they were found guilty. So to say he should be left alive so they don't get the satisfaction of martyrdom is silly.
> 
> The death penalty is a slippery slope. In cases like this where you have indisputable evidence against the accused and there is not a shred of doubt of their guilt on top of his cold, indifferent attitude shown in court, .... him. He should have been taken out and shot as soon as the verdict was passed. This wasn't a murder committed in the heat of the moment. He premeditated blowing up men, women, and children at what was probably a charity event.
> 
> But of course he'll get his appeals and draw it out for years, where more money will be spent to keep him alive each year than a lot of people in this country make.



Many laws are a slippery slope. We could probably both name 10-100 people who make the world a worse place by exercising their freedom of speech, who may have used it to incite violence and hatred. That a law can be exploited doesn't necessarily make the law bad, though it probably says a lot about the person exploiting it.

Having an appeals process for high profile court cases is extremely important, which we can kind of 'prove' in this case by asking ourselves how we'd feel if a different verdict had somehow been reached. 

Probably more importantly, we have to allow him to appeal because it maintains our integrity. We have to do the right thing _*despite*_ his actions. We don't achieve anything by punishing those that break society's rules by saying "fuck the rules; stand against that wall and see if you can count to ten before I shoot you in the head".

To your point on martyrdom, I think I'm convinced. It's ultimately irrelevant to the larger situation.

EDIT: I forget occasionally that this site censors us. Felt compelled to go back and make sure a fuck was given


----------



## pushpull7 (May 20, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> And torturing someone to death isn't?



A bit of a false dichotomy. If someone just decides "yeah, Ima blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders with a homemade bomb" then yes. Now, if I was talking about someone who smoked a doob illegally, I'd be off my rocker.

You can't have it both ways. If someone is THAT big a .... that they make everyone miserable (in a deathly way) then yes, THEY deserve torture and death.


----------



## michblanch (May 20, 2015)

Good Riddance. 

How much of a martyr can you truly be, when you blame it all on your brother? 
How can he get his virgins if he didn't take responsibility? 
Wouldn't his brother get double? 
Or does his brother just get the 72 he was promised? 

These are issues he should have worked out ahead of time.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 21, 2015)

What he is is part of that "entitlement" idiot syndrome so many are.


----------



## estabon37 (May 21, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> A bit of a false dichotomy. If someone just decides "yeah, Ima blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders with a homemade bomb" then yes. Now, if I was talking about someone who smoked a doob illegally, I'd be off my rocker.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. If someone is THAT big a .... that they make everyone miserable (in a deathly way) then yes, THEY deserve torture and death.



A dichotomy is a comparison between things that are represented as completely different from one another. The comparison being made was that torturing people is fairly similar to using explosives on people. You introduced the dichotomy in this post by comparing harsh punishments for minor drug offenses with harsh punishments for violent offences.

So, when you yet again state here that somebody deserves torture, you are claiming something that is directly comparable (in other words, not contrasting) to the claim that anybody deserves to be bombed. 

In other words, the false dichotomy you claim to see in UnderTheSign's post is nonexistent, and the question is therefore legitimate. You chose not to respond to the question, and then double down on the claim in this post, so I guess I'll re-ask the question in UTS's place.

Is torturing a person to death not disgusting? 

I'll add to the question.

Is torturing a person to death not a disgusting enough act that you would suggest such a crime deserved the death penalty?

I also have a request. Outline your thinking in detail, because this:



pushpull7 said:


> What he is is part of that "entitlement" idiot syndrome so many are.



...doesn't really count as a reasonable claim (or, for that matter, a sentence) because you've made no attempt to support it with examples, evidence, comparisons, or any other form of reasoning.

This is not a personal attack (you've expressed frustration in another thread that suggests you think you're being slandered when others pick apart your posts). This is just a request that you support the claims that you are making.


----------



## narad (May 21, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> That's disgusting.



Whatever man. If you don't understand you're enemy (or at least *attempt* to grasp the bigger picture) then how can you understand what a suitable punishment or likely deterrent will be?


----------



## USMarine75 (May 21, 2015)

narad said:


> Honestly give the terrorists some credit in knowing that death is the likely outcome for these actions -- to accomplish their goal and be immediately executed is probably the ideal, romanticized scenario, and unlikely to deter people serious enough to plot months, if not years, in advance.



^ reminded me of Bill Maher's post 9/11 comment: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. Thats cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, its not cowardly."


----------



## michblanch (May 21, 2015)

narad said:


> Honestly give the terrorists some credit in knowing that death is the likely outcome for these actions -- to accomplish their goal and be immediately executed is probably the ideal, romanticized scenario, and unlikely to deter people serious enough to plot months, if not years, in advance.



How about if we don't give credit to the terrorist for anything? 
But hey , it's America so if you want to see their point of view then more power to you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 21, 2015)

michblanch said:


> How about if we don't give credit to the terrorist for anything?
> But hey , it's America so if you want to see their point of view then more power to you.



This is such a terrible post I seriously considering removing it as trolling. I'll chalk it up to satire.  

All Narad is saying is that terrorists are smart enough to know they're probably going to die. Given the outcome of most attacks, that shouldn't be a ground breaking opinion to a reasonably intelligent person. He's not at all agreeing with or rationalizing or condoning thier beliefs or actions.


----------



## Demiurge (May 21, 2015)

michblanch said:


> Good Riddance.
> 
> How much of a martyr can you truly be, when you blame it all on your brother?
> How can he get his virgins if he didn't take responsibility?
> ...



Never quite understood the appeal of the "virgin" thing. Inexperienced? Potentially dangerously-bad with their hands? Too timid and self-conscious to do the real dirty stuff? Will tell you that you were "great" even though it's obvious that they have no point of reference? 72 of them? Is that really paradise?


----------



## AxeHappy (May 22, 2015)

Even a well meaning virgin is frustrating. 72 of them raised in an anti-sex religion? I can only imagine how horrible that would be.


----------



## estabon37 (May 22, 2015)

Demiurge said:


> Never quite understood the appeal of the "virgin" thing. Inexperienced? Potentially dangerously-bad with their hands? Too timid and self-conscious to do the real dirty stuff? Will tell you that you were "great" even though it's obvious that they have no point of reference? 72 of them? Is that really paradise?



Yeah, you're thinking of women that you would actually treat as human beings. I'm pretty sure the promise is for 72 unspoiled, essentially unresponsive dick receptacles, and to some people that is paradise.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 22, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Yeah, you're thinking of women that you would actually treat as human beings. I'm pretty sure the promise is for 72 unspoiled, essentially unresponsive dick receptacles, and to *extremely sexually repressed, uninformed, and frustrated* people that is paradise.



That right there. 

It's no surprise they try to recruit young, socially awkward men and boys.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2015)

michblanch said:


> How about if we don't give credit to the terrorist for anything?
> But hey , it's America so if you want to see their point of view then more power to you.



So instead of attempting to understand, thus being better empowered to fight the causes of extremism, we should engage in blind hatred just like them.

Cool.


----------



## michblanch (May 22, 2015)

asher said:


> So instead of attempting to understand, thus being better empowered to fight the causes of extremism, we should engage in blind hatred just like them.
> 
> Cool.



Never said our government or military should not investigate the way they think or process. 
Regarding blind hatred , how is hating people who commit terrorist acts blind? 
I don't blindly hate anyone. If I hate you its for a specific reason. 
And I think I have been given plenty of reasons to hate the 9/11 hijackers and those who commit terrorist acts. 

So there is nothing blind here. 

The comment was : 
Honestly give the terrorists some credit in knowing that death is the likely outcome for these actions -- to accomplish their goal and be immediately executed is probably the ideal, romanticized scenario, and unlikely to deter people serious enough to plot months, if not years, in advance.


There's a distinction between understanding and giving credit. 
Give them credit for what exactly? 
Knowing that death is the probable outcome of their act earns what type of credit? Credit for bravery? Credit for what being smart? Credit for being good at their jobs?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 22, 2015)

You're reading so hard into that benign comment I can feel it all the way over here.


----------



## michblanch (May 22, 2015)

asher said:


> I don't see why wanting life without parole is me supporting terrorists or something. Especially when we know the death penalty does nothing as an... anti -incentive (words failing me).
> 
> Like, again dude, I completely understand. Earlier in life I probably would have agreed with you. But I'm pretty firmly in estabon's #3.




Even if the death penalty is not enough of a deterrent to not commit the crime it is still suitable as the punishment in Tsarnev's case. 

I don't view the death penalty as a deterrent to crime, it hasn't stopped it yet. 
It is the response with punishment to the crime.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You're reading so hard into that benign comment I can feel it all the way over here.



His hard reading radius is over 1,200 (miles)!

yes, I did just open google maps to compare the distance from houstin-milwuakee to houston-c'ville...

To that above that appeared while I was typing:

"Death penalty is a disincentive!" was being used as a rationale for using it. It's a crappy rationale that doesn't stand up to evidence. I know *you're* not using it.


----------



## michblanch (May 22, 2015)

asher said:


> His hard reading radius is over 1,200 (miles)!
> 
> yes, I did just open google maps to compare the distance from houstin-milwuakee to houston-c'ville...
> 
> ...




So it's only trolling if it's an opinion you and Max disagree with? 
Ahhh. I understand now.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2015)

michblanch said:


> So it's only trolling if it's an opinion you and Max disagree with?
> Ahhh. I understand now.



That was mostly a joke playing off of Max's comment, sheesh.

When I have more brainpower to work through your response and figure out what you're actually trying to say, I will respond.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 22, 2015)

michblanch said:


> So it's only trolling if it's an opinion you and Max disagree with?
> Ahhh. I understand now.



There's no opinion here, you're obviously trying to make it seem like Narad said a lot more than he did. 

You're nitpicking slight colloquialisms in attempt to make it seem like somehow he's talking positively about terrorists to place yourself on better moral ground when questioning his opinion. 

In not one, but two posts. It's so absurd that I honestly thought you were joking. 

But that's fine.

In case you didn't notice, no one is actually questioning your opinion on the death penalty.


----------



## narad (May 22, 2015)

michblanch said:


> There's a distinction between understanding and giving credit.
> Give them credit for what exactly?
> Knowing that death is the probable outcome of their act earns what type of credit? Credit for bravery? Credit for what being smart? Credit for being good at their jobs?



Give them credit in that their plans are not spur of the moment decisions -- not to generalize, but with US defenses what they are, these attacks are often meticulously planned out well in advance. That is to say that anyone committing these acts knows full well that death awaits.

Now, let's think about that for a minute. If someone is willing to throw their life away for a religious cause, then they must have strong convictions that they will be justly rewarded in accordance to those believes. Are they going to reap those rewards on earth, living their lives? No. The best way to fast-track that is to be executed immediately. 

Your posts sound like the typical emotional response: they killed some of us, let's kill him! Like eye-for-an-eye, let him experience some of the pain we experienced. But clearly, that's not the case - he gets the painless death he looks forward to, and you're left befuddled because the biggest hammer you have didn't instill the fear/remorse/sadness that it might to someone who was just trying to rob a convenience store for drug money.

Is the death penalty a suitable punishment here? Hell, I don't know. Maybe it is the most fitting. Personally I think he probably anguishes more in the appeals process than simply going to the gallows, but who knows - I can't say I've really followed the suspect's details (and that's intentional -- I'm heavily opposed to giving these guys media attention.) I just think it's probably worthwhile to think it through, even if it only means reaching the same conclusion. Fair enough?

Also, terrorists are so smart and hard-working and brave. Mad props to terrorists, yo.


----------



## michblanch (May 22, 2015)

USMarine75 said:


> ^ reminded me of Bill Maher's post 9/11 comment: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. Thats cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, its not cowardly."





The above was the first comment after your post. So I don't think my reaction was a reach.


----------



## donzilla (May 23, 2015)

It's crazy. Having served in Afghanistan..and then coming home and having things like this happen here is heartbreaking. It's bad enough that anything bad happens any where truth be told..but the bigger truth is bad things are gonna happen no matter what..because some folks will always have their reasons why doing bad things is ok. I don't really care what they do with the guy. I'll know what I think but I'll keep that to myself. I just can't get over how bad that bombing broke my heart knowing what people lost that day.


----------



## flint757 (May 23, 2015)

michblanch said:


> The above was the first comment after your post. So I don't think my reaction was a reach.



Considering you were literally the only one who chose to interpret it that way I think it kind of was.


----------



## Eliguy666 (May 25, 2015)

I don't get why people are justifying the death penalty by saying they can't empathize with those who are given it. That's not an argument for the death penalty, that's a personal failure.

The fact of the matter is that there are no benefits to the death penalty. It's expensive, immoral, useless at deterring crime, useless at keeping people safe, and often painful. I don't see how killing somebody through the state isn't murder. I can't understand the vindictive pleasure that people gain by causing hurt.



> They oughta duct tape his ankles and wrists together, pull his pants down and toss him in with the rapists.


There is nothing acceptable about this sentence. Rape isn't some kind of tool that you can justify using pragmatically. The cultural idea that sexual assault is a fair part of the criminal justice system is barbaric, thoughtless, and evil.
If you've been sexually assaulted, you know this. If you haven't, *you don't get to have a ****ing say in it.* End of story.


----------



## narad (May 25, 2015)

"Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers *$90,000 more per year* than a prisoner in general population."

Seriously...how is that even possible?


----------



## TheFranMan (Jul 1, 2015)

narad said:


> "Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers *$90,000 more per year* than a prisoner in general population."
> 
> Seriously...how is that even possible?



Appeals, pretty simple. Not to mention they're often housed in solitary sections that have to be specially maintained separate from the general population. So that drives up start-up costs and daily maintenance costs since the costs of wage or salary/inmate are much higher due to more individualized attention.

And I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I wrote my thesis on the death penalty and have plenty of data on anybody's questions if interested.

People love having knee-jerk reactions. "He killed someone, he should be killed!"

Show me another crime in America where the punishment is identical to the crime. For mass murderers, how could you even create an eye-for-an-eye punishment that would accomplish that purpose? Also, people often want to apply punishment individually without considering that punishment is systematic; any precedents set must apply not only to this instance, but also other instances systematically. That key point often gets lost in the discussion about what one "deserves" for their crime.


----------



## estabon37 (Jul 1, 2015)

TheFranMan said:


> people often want to apply punishment individually without considering that punishment is systematic; any precedents set must apply not only to this instance, but also other instances systematically. That key point often gets lost in the discussion about what one "deserves" for their crime.



I'm not saying that you're wrong on this point, or that I disagree, but I feel like an element is missing here.

I don't know much about _any_ criminal justice system, let alone America's specifically, but isn't it the role of lawyers and judges to provide nuance (legal, social, philosophical, ideological, etc) where a system can't? I tend to lean pretty heavily on mandatory sentencing when I have this discussion, because I think it's one of the most 'extreme' examples we have of systemic sentencing. About fifteen years ago in Australia (specifically in the Northern Territory and Western Australia) we had a situation where mandatory sentencing for juveniles was used for similar reasons that people use to justify the death penalty: a really harsh law and an unrepenting system should, in theory, dissuade criminal behaviour. In the end, we disproportionately imprisoned disadvantaged and vulnerable teenagers, and it led to some sentences that are so far removed from the concept of justice that it was ridiculous:



> LAW COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA - The Mandatory Sentencing Debate (September 2001)
> 
> 3.2 Anomalous and Unjust Sentences
> 
> ...


Again, I realise you're not arguing in favour of a 'purely' systematic method of law, but I think we as a society look towards individualised punishments because that's just as important to the role of lawyers and judges as maintaining the system. 

In terms of how all this applies to the death penalty and the Boston bombers, it might be worth looking to another example of a terrorist bombing in the US.



> (From Wikipedia)
> 
> On June 13, 1997, the jury recommended that McVeigh receive the death penalty.[67] The U.S. Department of Justice brought federal charges against McVeigh for causing the deaths of eight federal officers leading to a possible death penalty for McVeigh; they could not bring charges against McVeigh for the remaining 160 murders in federal court because those deaths fell under the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma. Because McVeigh was convicted and sentenced to death, the State of Oklahoma did not file murder charges against McVeigh for the other 160 deaths.


So, it seems there were competing systems in this case, not that there was a conflict between them. In the end, the harshest system was used, though it might be argued that is was the less 'just' system in terms of who it represented: McVeigh was convicted for the deaths of 8 people, not 168, because that was the best way to deliver the maximum sentence allowed by one system. I guess the question then becomes whether or not it was effective.

On his sentence, McVeigh had the following to say:



> (From Wikipedia)
> 
> "I am sorry these people had to lose their lives. But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."
> 
> "If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war."


And on lethal injection specifically:



> "I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel."


I imagine we'll wind up seeing a lot of quotes similar to these attached to Tsarnaev. Unfortunately, whether we favoured systemic or individualised punishments is probably irrelevant to the people that commit these crimes. They've already internally justified attacking civilians in response to government actions, determined that the criminal justice system is hypocritical in its application of the law*, and are at peace with receiving the harshest possible penalties. As shown above, introducing harsher penalties creates injustice. Our system and society is kind of incapable of dealing with that reality, so knee-jerk reactions are kind of an understandable response to a frustrating situation that is impossible to solve.

*I interpret that last McVeigh quote as him pointing out that doctors are not legally allowed to assist a person in committing painless suicide, which is why so many people commit 'suicide by cop'.


----------

