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.

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.

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.

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 January 31, 201412 yr by Monarchco

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. 

Mr. Quiggles is right.

And even if a state sees a horrific crime and wants to reinstate the death penalty because of it, that state cannot apply the death penalty to the crime in question. It is illegal, full stop, to apply criminal penalties retroactively. You can only be tried under the law in effect at the time of the crime, and you cannot be sentenced to a higher penalty than was allowed for that crime when the crime itself happened. New crimes and increases in penalties only apply to future behavior; they have no impact on anything that happened before they were passed (OTOH, if a formerly criminal act is legalized or penalties are decreased, they *are* allowed to apply *that* retroactively; the "no retroactive law" only applies to laws that increase punishments). If the government *is* allowed to apply the law retroactively, or make an exception from general laws for one person, nobody is safe.

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.

And that's nothing good at all in the way ''how it works in Norway". A prison, apart from being a punishment, is supposed to help offenders improve theselves. Mr. Breivik, being a mass-murderer and a terrorist, enjoys a comfortable life in prison, speaks to reporters and complains about his coffee being cold and butter is not enough. What happens when Mr. Breivik does his time? He gets out, being world-famous, proud, and heroic. He gives even more interviews, participates in shows, explains his actions.

 

And it may become clear for everyone that in Norway, if you dislike something, you can take a rifle and kill anyone you dislike. You're not going to be punished for this. You'll have a nice clean room with coffee and butter and press attention, because you're a human and have your dignity. 

 

Personally I hope you will never encounter such a man, but who knows? Just don't forget to tell a killer that his victim is a human too. 

 

That's why I think Tsarnaev should be put in prison for life. To protect society and give him enough time to realize that he did. Death is unnecessary fast way for him to go. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by Hastings

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.

I wasn't suggesting an exception, but a change in policy(which technically, if done fast enough, could still apply to the case IF it was at state level, as policy changes still effect active cases, but in distinction may not effect previously ruled cases(unless policy change resulted in reduction of sentencing).

In this change in policy, I was suggesting they change from their current, no crime gets death, to extremely violent crimes get death.

Prison is to nice now a days...Death is to easy. After speaking with a few people there that day, I say drop off in downtown Boston and see how long he lasts.

All the effort, resources and money going into capturing the guy.  All the medical treatment, all the security for him and his trial, it must add up to a phenomenal amount of money.

 

Seems pretty odd just to kill him straight after.  I don't think it should be up to the federal government whether or not he gets put to death upon a conviction.

@Monarchco:

That's not true. Penalty increases cannot affect any case in which the crime has already occurred. It doesn't matter if the case is still active or if no sentence has yet been handed down; the government cannot, no matter what, apply punishments retroactively. There are cases where they can add restrictions on people who have already committed crimes, because that's considered regulatory and not punitive (e.g. even if you committed domestic violence before the Lautenburg amendment was passed, it still prohibits you from owning a firearm), but death sentences are punitive. It's actually never been legal in the US to apply punishments retroactively; this is one of the very very few areas in which the main body of the Constitution explicitly prohibits states from doing something (almost all of the Constitutional restrictions on states are in the 14th Amendment and later, post-Civil War; the ban on ex post facto laws has been around since before the Bill of Rights was even passed).

Honestly, life in prison would be more of a punishment than death in my opinion.

Apart of the fact that I'm totally against death penalty and more in a country that tries to give lessons of 'democracy' and 'moral principles' to the world, I think he should be sentenced to life in prison. I'm curious what would he think about what he did in 30 or 40 years. Hell, they could even try to reform him and if it works, repeat with other convicted terrorists.