Jump to content
RyanG

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to seek death penalty for accused Boston Marathon

Recommended Posts

Really? The state he committed his crimes in decided long ago that *no* crimes deserve death (Massachusetts has no death penalty). Personally, I'm of the view that he committed a crime mostly against the people of Massachusetts, and should be subject to their penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of  Massachusetts  have spoken through the media and poll's if you read the article most of Boston want's  life in prison 

 

 

death penalty is easy way out for him life in jail is always better and harder on the person

 

an which again the people of Massachusetts have spoken have done away with it and its disrepectful of the Fed government to want the dealthy penalty back on the book's for the state when the people of the state do not want it


My Latest Files 

          
https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/7083-liberty-city-based-on-seattle-10-part-1/   - Seattle Base
         
                           https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/6862-lc-based-on-new-oreleans-skin-pack-10-part-1/      - New Oreleans based   

 
Keep you eye  on this thread ;-)

              
 https://www.lcpdfr.com/topic/43278-k-9-police-9-wip-rel-thread/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, as mentioned by cp702 that title is totally misleading, it suggests he's looking to kill himself.

 

Second, I've said it before and I will say it again. Under certain circumstances I am for the death penalty. Being a firsthand witness to the events, and carnage of that day I can firmly say that I'd rather see the little f***er rot in jail than be put to death. YES I am aware that it will be awhile before he's put to death, YES I am aware some believe it's a "Tax" burden (in reality it'll cost more to put him to death, just saying).

 

That is all I will say on this, and about this.

 

 

**Please note it is NOT my intention to start any sort of flame war/massive debate because of this post. I am stating my opinion which I believe is fine given I stay in line. If anyone (member or Staff Member) has any issues please feel free to PM me and we can talk in a civilized manner**


[color=#0000ff]Tester for Braveheart's Polciing Script & Abraxas: [/color][color=#0000ff] [/color]Abraxas's Mods Policing Script [u][color=#ee82ee]GTACore[/color][/u]: http://www.gtacore.com/index.php?app=referrals&reff=35 [img]http://i50.tinypic.com/xogwsz.gif[/img] [spoiler] [sharedmedia=downloads:files:2876] [sharedmedia=downloads:files:2430] [sharedmedia=downloads:files:2267] [/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of  Massachusetts  have spoken through the media and poll's if you read the article most of Boston want's  life in prison 

 

 

death penalty is easy way out for him life in jail is always better and harder on the person

 

an which again the people of Massachusetts have spoken have done away with it and its disrepectful of the Fed government to want the dealthy penalty back on the book's for the state when the people of the state do not want it

I think he needs to pay for his crime with death. The thing about life in jail is that he gets to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he needs to pay for his crime with death. The thing about life in jail is that he gets to live.

Did you even read what was said above? Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty. Whatever sick wish you want for this guy, it won't come true.

 

If he gets to spend life in prison, so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life in prison is worse you get to spend your life in a 6 by 6 jail cell with 1 window thinking of what coulda been and what you coulda had  not just him but  for any1  put in jail for life

Edited by K-9 police 9

My Latest Files 

          
https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/7083-liberty-city-based-on-seattle-10-part-1/   - Seattle Base
         
                           https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/6862-lc-based-on-new-oreleans-skin-pack-10-part-1/      - New Oreleans based   

 
Keep you eye  on this thread ;-)

              
 https://www.lcpdfr.com/topic/43278-k-9-police-9-wip-rel-thread/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing is people reaction. In truth, I see how human kind is uncivilized.

 

People too fast respond with unnecessary anger. As far as I can see, everyone wants to penalize. But I have to remember you that prisons were made as a temporary solution: the real target of a country is to rehabilitate his guilty citizens. And to deprive a human being of his freedom & dignity is surely not the right way (not to consider that prison itself is not a working rehabilitation method).

 

I must remind you that ethics & morality are not the same everywhere. In Europe death penalty is rightly considered as "state murder", it's an offense against human dignity.

 

That's how it works in Norway
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

-- On 22 July 2011, he bombed government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people. He then killed 69 more people, mostly teenagers, in a mass shooting at a Workers' Youth League (AUF) camp on the island of Utøya. --

 

Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing is people reaction. In truth, I see how human kind is uncivilized.

 

People too fast respond with unnecessary anger. As far as I can see, everyone wants to penalize. But I have to remember you that prisons were made as a temporary solution: the real target of a country is to rehabilitate his guilty citizens. And to deprive a human being of his freedom & dignity is surely not the right way (not to consider that prison itself is not a working rehabilitation method).

 

I must remind you that ethics & morality are not the same everywhere. In Europe death penalty is rightly considered as "state murder", it's an offense against human dignity.

 

That's how it works in Norway

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

-- On 22 July 2011, he bombed government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people. He then killed 69 more people, mostly teenagers, in a mass shooting at a Workers' Youth League (AUF) camp on the island of Utøya. --

 

Something to think about.

 

1 thing 

 

you CAN NOT rehabilitate a terrorist


My Latest Files 

          
https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/7083-liberty-city-based-on-seattle-10-part-1/   - Seattle Base
         
                           https://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/6862-lc-based-on-new-oreleans-skin-pack-10-part-1/      - New Oreleans based   

 
Keep you eye  on this thread ;-)

              
 https://www.lcpdfr.com/topic/43278-k-9-police-9-wip-rel-thread/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if tried in a Federal Court (Which they probably will for such an offence), the death penalty is still an option even in Massachusetts, because it's not at the state level, where the death penalty was abolished in Massachusetts. 

 

In other words, with my understanding of the judicial system, he can be put to death even in a state where the death penalty is abolished.

 

Additionally, if the government wants him dead, they'll find a way. Especially with death penalty cases, there's a lot of politics played into it and a lot of innocent people have been put to death (Tsarnaev is most certainly guilty though). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read what was said above? Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty. Whatever sick wish you want for this guy, it won't come true.

 

If he gets to spend life in prison, so be it. 

Ahhhh don't worry the US gov will take him to a state that HAS death penalty. If the US gov wants death for him it WILL happen case closed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, the federal government has the option of putting him to death. Even if a state doesn't have a death penalty, the federal government can apply its own penalties. However, I'm of the view that if a crime is essentially against the people of one area, the federal government should respect the democratically expressed views of the people of Massachusetts that a death sentence is not justified for any crime, no matter how heinous.

The US government is NOT allowed to try him outside Massachusetts unless Tsarnaev requests it. It's unconstitutional for a federal criminal trial to be held outside the state in which the crime occurred unless the *defendant* moves to shift the trial to another district or state (typically because the local population is biased against them; it might actually be a good idea for Tsarnaev to move to be tried outside Massachusetts, because he does *not* want to face a Boston jury). The US can legally impose a death sentence for federal crimes, even if the trial is in Massachusetts. I just think they shouldn't when the local area has abolished the death penalty, deciding democratically that no crime justifies a death sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 thing 

 

you CAN NOT rehabilitate a terrorist

 

ah, I see... there's a written law about it!

 

Let me take a note (damn U.S., you have an answer for everything!) So, let me write it: how to import/export civilization... murder. Is it correct?

 

Maybe you'd better call Denmark council and update 'em

 

 

ps

Just sarcasm, take it as it comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct,  ...... *Cut for length reasons*

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

For your point of allowing Massachusites (Correct Plural Form) law to apply, because it's our state, I don't think Massachusites would have problems seeing him put to death. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let him rot in prison for the rest of his life hopefully he will find a man that will make him happy (lol)


28e28d75ee.png

                                                                                                        HAVE A QUESTION OR A REQUEST? MESSAGE ME I'M HAPPY TO HELP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, because of the specific crime, he is being trailed at federal level(murder, is technically a state offense, however, this is considered treason)- and therefore, doesn't really matter what anyone at the state level thinks.

 

Treason: "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."

 

Treason is relatively straight and clear, it ends in Death Penalty.

 

Edit: My personal opinion extends to: Kill him, or find some country, that doesn't treat prisoners well, to take him(although there is no valid reason to extradite him...)

Edited by Monarchco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't considered treason. Not even close. "Waging war" is taken very literally; in the absence of actual rebellion or fighting for an enemy *military*, it's pretty much not treason. There have been under 40 people ever even prosecuted for treason since the Constitution was adopted; the last conviction was in 1952, for someone who fought for Japan in WWII, and there has been a grand total of one indictment since then (for someone who is an actual member and spokesman for al-Qaeda, and who has used the fact that he was born an American for propaganda purposes (saying "I saw the light, you should too"). The US government does not deploy treason charges lightly, and if Tsarnaev was charged with treason, he could likely get acquitted (random homegrown act of terror != military campaign of any sort).

Those who advocate doing things extra-brutally should note that whatever the government does to Tsarnaev, it can do to you too. The US government can't extradite an American citizen accused of a crime in the US to another country to be tortured. If they could, everyone who pisses off the government could be susceptible to said torture. Have you heard about civil asset forfeiture, where the police can seize your property even if you haven't been charged with a crime, and only has to establish that the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was illegally acquired (meaning you get no benefit of the doubt; both you and the government are considered to start out with equal claims on the property, and you have to prove you used no illegally-obtained money to get it). It's a somewhat common form of police abuse of power in some areas; it's also legal. You know why it's legal? Because the first people the government went after were drug dealers. Everyone hated them, and they couldn't afford good lawyers (part of the point of the system is to keep you from hiring a good lawyer; in theory, the idea is that you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself with dirty money, but if you committed no crime, you're still at risk), so the system got established. Now, it allows police to seize anyone's property if the person can't prove they got it legally, and American courts give police an insane amount of deference in terms of credibility.

That's why I don't think his sentence should be death if most Massachusetts residents would sentence him in particular to death. The people of the state already decided nothing is worth a death sentence; debates in the abstract are much more reasonable a representation of the public will than a specific case where you can overload the media with reasons why this guy deserves worse treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard about civil asset forfeiture, where the police can seize your property even if you haven't been charged with a crime, and only has to establish that the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was illegally acquired (meaning you get no benefit of the doubt; both you and the government are considered to start out with equal claims on the property, and you have to prove you used no illegally-obtained money to get it). It's a somewhat common form of police abuse of power in some areas; it's also legal.

All it takes to strike that down is someone to get annoyed enough to push it up to the Supreme Court. Clearly no one has, as there are no, even proposed, cases towards the Supreme Court(let alone those taken.)

 

And "legal" is a... touchy term. Legal by local? state? federal? Definitely not constitutional, that's for sure(Amdmt 4 for seizure, 5th, 6th, 14th for presumption of innocence, and cite Coffin v. United States Supreme Court decision)

The people of the state already decided nothing is worth a death sentence

And here, Stuff changes. A lot. Look at common rulings like Brown v. Board of Education (got re-rolled through a year later from inactivity), or Plessy v Ferguson.

People do change their minds. Stuff happens. Much like how Plessy was overturned through Brown, Griggs v. Duke Power, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal by state and local, and generally has been accepted under federal law. You can't just push something to the Supreme Court, as they don't have to hear any appeals they don't want to. Everyone appeals to them, but they only take cases they think are important.

You're dead wrong about the "stuff changes" thing. We're not talking about people disagreeing with the old policies in the abstract. We're dealing with a specific case. You cannot run a justice system where public disgust at one individual means they get more severe penalties. That isn't a justice system at all. The state legislature has become *less* supportive over time at bills creating a death penalty; in 2007, they tried to pass one but it was shot down 46-110. I was wrong about how the penalty was originally eliminated; it was originally a court decision striking it down under the state constitution. However, since then, attempts to pass another law trying to create it again have all failed in the state legislature.

If the people of Massachusetts think some crimes deserve death, the way to express that is to pass a law re-activating the death penalty. However, there's another hitch - even if they re-create capital punishment, it would *still* be illegal under state law to use it in this case (you can't increase penalties for a crime after the fact, in part to prevent people from deciding that *this one person* deserves more severe penalties). At the time the crime was committed, the people of Massachusetts, through their legislature, had expressed a desire for no capital punishment. This would be binding in a state trial, no matter *what* happens after the crime. I think the federal government should also accept the restrictions, for the reasons I've stated (local citizens decide on punishments for crimes).

It's moot, though, because surveys seem to say most Boston residents favor life in prison, not death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, previously they felt that no crime deserved death. Now I'd be pretty certain they'd make an exception for this one(therefore changing their minds from "no crimes" to "extremely violent crimes").

Also, which surveys are you referring? It's a hot topic, that means it's going to be virtually the same thing as "surveys" conducted by NBC vs. Fox. They will have biased interest groups, that swing 1 side.

And on account of your entire argument that punishment should be decided by those affected, The Boston Marathon is a relatively high publicity, high attraction event, this *includes* many people from out of state(i.e. far more than just those living within Massachusetts were effected).

Edited by Monarchco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, previously they felt that no crime deserved death. Now I'd be pretty certain they'd make an exception for this one(therefore changing their minds from "no crimes" to "extremely violent crimes").

Also, which surveys are you referring? It's a hot topic, that means it's going to be virtually the same thing as "surveys" conducted by NBC vs. Fox. They will have biased interest groups, that swing 1 side.

And on account of your entire argument that punishment should be decided by those affected, The Boston Marathon is a relatively high publicity, high attraction event, this *includes* many people from out of state(i.e. far more than just those living within Massachusetts were effected).

 

Massachusetts would not make a one time exception to the death penalty, policy doesn't work like that.

 

However, if tried in a federal court, the death penalty is still applicable in Massachusetts, as a matter of fact, in any state. Federal and state policies are different and don't influence one another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...