• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jury has reached verdict in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial - sentenced to death

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zeemumu

Member
The Beard said:
Yes, just put him in general population in a Massachusetts prison. Feed his ass to the wolves. Hopefully he lives to be 100 and hates everyday day he's alive.
Click to expand...

I feel like you're reversing the argument for the death penalty being the less humane option.
 
N

nilbog21

Banned
they need to get a super charming Muslim to really enlighten this guy and then let him live the rest of his life in a cell realizing what hes done.. no worse punishment than that IMO

that, or send him to that mega jail in miami LOL. maybe set up a 24/7 hr reality show around it

the death penalty is what this guy wants... pls dont give it to him =[
 
P

Phreaker

Member
Glad to see he was found guilty on all charges. It really doesn't matter to me if he gets death or life. I also don't care if giving him the death penalty makes him a "martyr" since it's all BS anyway.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
benjipwns said:
What's weird is they want others to do the taking for them, and to pay for it, and so on...I thought they're the ones who wanted vengeance?
Click to expand...

This is the least weird part about it for me. Keeps the hands clean while they make their stance on the issue. IMO the whole "inhumane" thing is the same. Killing someone via I.V. while they're asleep is a lot easier to do than watching them drool, have their eyes pop, skin color change and the body writing in pain like a gas chamber. Even more ironic is that usually the very staunch supporters of the death penalty are conservative people. There was that recent poll that found libs support it widely too, but more so with conservatives. The same people who are supposedly for less government because they can't do anything right are fine with giving the government power to kill it's own citizens. Pushed even further into the ironic territory since we know the government isn't doing it perfectly and is in fact occasionally killing innocent citizens instead of the bad ones.
 
S

SocksAndShoes

Banned
Zen_Arcade said:
No, I didn't say you had an extremist opinion about being against the death penalty. I myself am against the death penalty. You having an extremist opinion comes in when you start equating all violence as the same, ignore the many motivations and reasonings of why people would be happy at other people getting hurt, and even claim that being happy that someone is getting hurt is morally equal to committing a terrorist attack.

It seems that your opinion essentially boils down to the idea that it's not ever good to be happy when someone gets hurt, and that's an extremists opinion for sure. It colors the situations as nothing more then black and white, with two sides being absolutes. You have no middle ground in your opinion from what I can see. It's "If you enjoy someone getting hurt, you're as bad as someone who actively goes out and hurts people.", which sounds pretty extremist to me.

No, I think it's extremely dumb to color the situation as black and white, and to judge these two groups of people equally. Me bringing up the law is evidence that trying to do that is a really dumb, unreasonable thing to do. It's not just a matter of revenge, because I think that there are many situations where revenge isn't a good enough excuse to kill another person. If you'll see above, I don't actually support the death penalty. Mostly because I don't think it will ever work in practice and that there are too many errors to be made. The only thing I've taken issue with is the blindingly dumb opinion some people seem to be holding where they are trying to claim that supporting the death penalty is equal to the motivations of a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Literally nobody in this thread is saying that. You can be a bad person for wanting others to feel pain and not be a murderer. That's the very antithesis of a black and white opinion.

To address the first bolded quote, what exactly does anyone gain from being happy that others get hurt? Why is that a good, instinctive response to have?
 
Tesseract

Tesseract

Banned
you know what's better than lethal injection?

nitrogen, easy peasy

that's def gonna be my exit bag when i'm 97 and shambly
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Zen_Arcade said:
The only thing I've taken issue with is the blindingly dumb opinion some people seem to be holding where they are trying to claim that supporting the death penalty is equal to the motivations of a terrorist.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. No one is saying the motivations for the killings are equal. We're saying it doesn't matter what the motivations are in the first place. Killing is bad regardless unless you're forced to. Taking this stance is NOT disgusting as you put it.

This is also why you brought up the law. You stated it ludicrous to NOT consider motive and that even the law makes exceptions. That's when I compared the act of a state approved revenge death to a manslaughter.
 
J

JCizzle

Member
He's a massive piece of shit. I don't care what happens next, but at minimum he needs to be in jail forever. Some actions are so heinous that the perpetrator doesn't deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation.
 
S

Sigmaah

Member
Killing him ain't really a punishment, more like a gift... Wherever he goes he's gonna die somehow. How about they let that motherfucker rot in prison for the rest of his life. Let him go insane and realize what he did was wrong. Let him be alone forever.
 
D

DrGonzo615

Banned
TemplaerDude said:
The only snark here is the clear manipulation of my words to justify your bullshit points. Again it is made to believe that I am drawing equality to a crime; I am not. My statement has been boiled down to some vague idiom; it is more than that. You argue that context matters, and I say obviously you would argue that because you seem to think the death penalty is a justifiable punishment and I'd say here we are at square one again because I disagree strongly.
Click to expand...

Not sure how I am manipulating your words, please clarify if I got it wrong. But it is a bit funny that you are complaining about that when you didnt even read mine in my first post when I said that I am personally undecided on the death penalty in this instance.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
F

FunkyMunkey

Banned
Sigmaah said:
Killing him ain't really a punishment, more like a gift... Whether he goes he's gonna die somehow. How about they let that motherfucker rot in prison for the rest of his life. Let him go insane and realize what he did was wrong. Let him be alone forever.
Click to expand...

Yep. And let him watch the world move on and evolve and his name get shit-on and eventually lost in time.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
Don't doctor assisted suicide patients receive the same injection? If guillotine was more humane, then doctor assisted suicide patients would choose that instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think that those doctors would last very long with those methods considering the shit they already get.
 
Z

Zen_Arcade

Banned
Fenderputty said:
This is not accurate. No one is saying the motivations for the killings are equal. We're saying it doesn't matter what the motivations are in the first place. Killing is bad regardless unless you're forced to. Taking this stance is NOT disgusting as you put it.
Click to expand...
Well this is just baseless and not worth talking about when we are discussing things in reality. This is why I bring up the law. It's generally seen as a moral leveler in society, and the main thing to consider in law is the motivation and context of the situation at hand. Stripping the situation of these things renders the conversation useless, because we are now accessing a situation outside of the basis of the reality of the crimes and our societal structure.

In fact, by adding the caveat of "Unless you're forced to" you're establishing the idea that there are situations where killing someone is justified. So you're not even making your point, because you're bringing in motivation and it's place in guiltiness one sentence after a sentence where you're saying motivation doesn't matter.

This is the same thing as saying they're equal. Saying that motivations don't matter means that as long as anyone does an action, they should be judged equally. By taking out motivation, you're establishing a basis of equality regardless of intent.
 
O

OrlanisWorks

Banned
Tesseract said:
you know what's better than lethal injection?

nitrogen, easy peasy

that's def gonna be my exit bag when i'm 97 and shambly
Click to expand...

post-23470-Jeremiah-Johnson-nod-cropped-g-jtcK.gif


Sleep forever. Best way to die.
 
Baki

Baki

Member
Africanus said:
I won't support the death penalty on the minute chance that he is not guilty of this bombing.

Despite evidence seeming 100% secure in this time period, in a later one, with better technology Tsarnaev may be exonerated.
Click to expand...

What's the evidence that says he's guilty? Just curious? And did he ever say why he did it?
 
Velcro Fly

Velcro Fly

Member
Baki said:
What's the evidence that says he's guilty? Just curious? And did he ever say why he did it?
Click to expand...

they have video of him placing the bomb

his defense was basically yeah but my brother who isn't here to defend himself made me do it.
 
Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus

Member
Baki said:
What's the evidence that says he's guilty? Just curious? And did he ever say why he did it?
Click to expand...

Seriously? There is video of him and his brother leaving the backpacks with the pressure cooker bombs inside them in a crowd of people, right behind the little boy who was killed. There are GPS tracking records for the car he hijacked and kidnapped the driver of. There's the fact that he drove over his brother with that car during a shoot out with police. He wrote a manifesto on the side of the boat he was hiding in admitting to doing all this shit for jihadist reasons. There is literally zero doubt he is guilty of the crimes.

St3v3 said:
It was 2 years ago?
Click to expand...

Time flies when you're grieving for your children or learning to walk on prosthesis, ya know?
 
N

NateDrake

Member
Baki said:
What's the evidence that says he's guilty? Just curious? And did he ever say why he did it?
Click to expand...

Considering the trial started with his lawyer admitting he partook in the actions, it was never a question of whether or not he was guilty. Mostly did he act on his accord, or was he warped by his brother.
 
stufte

stufte

Member
Africanus said:
I won't support the death penalty on the minute chance that he is not guilty of this bombing.

Despite evidence seeming 100% secure in this time period, in a later one, with better technology Tsarnaev may be exonerated.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but this isn't some sketchy low profile murder where there aren't many facts... this guy is guilty all day long.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
its weird, i am against the death penalty. but if i was to think it was ever justified, it would be in this case. i think the girls swooning over this asshole half convinced me of this. i honestly think it he cops should have just yelled 'gun' and shot him full of 300 holes as he popped his hands out the boat.
 
P

Polari

Member
catfish said:
its weird, i am against the death penalty. but if i was to think it was ever justified, it would be in this case. i think the girls swooning over this asshole half convinced me of this. i honestly think it he cops should have just yelled 'gun' and shot him full of 300 holes as he popped his hands out the boat.
Click to expand...

Nah, too easy. Let him rot.
 
Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus

Member
catfish said:
its weird, i am against the death penalty. but if i was to think it was ever justified, it would be in this case. i think the girls swooning over this asshole half convinced me of this. i honestly think it he cops should have just yelled 'gun' and shot him full of 300 holes as he popped his hands out the boat.
Click to expand...

No, if you want to talk about making him a martyr, that would have done it. It is very important that this is all done in accordance with the law.
 
B

boredofcanada

Member
The craziest aspect of this case for me is the video they have from multiple angles. Were they aware of the security situation in that area? They had to have known. They didn't care, which makes the crime that much more deliberate and calculated.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
benjipwns said:
Yeah, I don't think that those doctors would last very long with those methods considering the shit they already get.
Click to expand...
If lethal injections are inhumane though, wouldn't it be irresponsible for a doctor to allow patient suicide until we find a humane way of killing someone?

Edit: don't answer this, it would get us too off-topic
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
perfectchaos007 said:
Don't doctor assisted suicide patients receive the same injection? If guillotine was more humane, then doctor assisted suicide patients would choose that instead.
Click to expand...

No. Europe produces a superior compound which is much more effective and painless, which is used in those European countries which provide for euthanasia, but the European Union bans it from being sold to the United States (well, not specifically the United States; any country with a death penalty).
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Zen_Arcade said:
Well this is just baseless and not worth talking about when we are discussing things in reality. This is why I bring up the law. It's generally seen as a moral leveler in society, and the main thing to consider in law is the motivation and context of the situation at hand. Stripping the situation of these things renders the conversation useless, because we are now accessing a situation outside of the basis of the reality and our societal structure.

In fact, by adding the caveat of "Unless you're forced to" you're establishing the idea that there are situations where killing someone is justified. So you're not even making your point, because you're bringing in motivation and it's place in guiltiness one sentence after a sentence where you're saying motivation doesn't matter.

This is the same thing as saying they're equal. Saying that motivations don't matter means that as long as anyone does an action, they should be judged equally. By taking out motivation, you're establishing a basis of equality regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

It's not baseless and is very much rooted in reality. It's an ideal, sure, but an ideal based on real world reasoning. You're just upset your bloodlust is being called out for what it is rather than it being allowed to slip by going unquestioned. You bringing up the law didn't even help your argument either. The law almost never excuses a killing and usually just downgrades to lesser crimes like manslaughter. Whoo hoo ... you're not a murderer anymore!

The caveat "unless your forced to" was always used. It wasn't a recent caveat just added to the argument. We're using this here as a baseline agreement between the two parties. Everyone agrees you have the right to take another life when yours is being threatened. I've been saying form the get-go. "Never kill anyone unless forced isn't a more disgusting comment than never kill anyone unless forced or because revenge." You just thought it was disgusting because it ruffled your feathers.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
Crab said:
No. Europe produces a compound which is much more effective and painless, which is used in those European countries which provide for euthanasia, but the European Union bans it from being sold to the United States (well, not specifically the United States; any country with a death penalty).
Click to expand...
Heh that's strange. If Europe finds a cure for cancer hopefully they don't keep the cure from the rest of the world
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
perfectchaos007 said:
Heh that's strange. If Europe finds a cure for cancer hopefully they don't keep the cure from the rest of the world
Click to expand...

It's actually presented a big problem for the United States, and has driven up the cost of the death penalty enormously, to the point I think Georgia (if I remember rightly) was attempting to bring a legal case against the European Union over the issue. The United States doesn't produce enough of their own execution drugs, and the ones it does produce (propofol) are more expensive to produce in the necessary quantities and not as effective.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Delta Assault said:
Oh boy. I guess we'll just have to go back and rethink this whole "social contract" thing...

Pack it up fellas.
Click to expand...
The state does not have powers beyond those of its citizens. If someone kills your child, it's not legal for you to go and kill that person after their trial. Why is it legitimate for the state to do so? The state isn't acting in self-defense, it already has the person in a cage and chains. It's pure vengeance in the name of others against their consent.

The "social contract" is a farce, it violates every standard that contracts have to meet.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
Crab said:
It's actually presented a big problem for the United States, and has driven up the cost of the death penalty enormously, to the point I think Georgia (if I remember rightly) was attempting to bring a legal case against the European Union over the issue. The United States doesn't produce enough of their own execution drugs, and the ones it does produce (propofol) are more expensive to produce in the necessary quantities and not as effective.
Click to expand...

I guess Europe feels its their moral responsibility to keep anything promoting the death penalty away from the US, but at the same time, not having that superior chemical concoction isn't going to keep the US form executing people so....
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
benjipwns said:
The state does not have powers beyond those of its citizens. If someone kills your child, it's not legal for you to go and kill that person after their trial. Why is it legitimate for the state to do so? The state isn't acting in self-defense, it already has the person in a cage and chains. It's pure vengeance in the name of others against their consent.

The "social contract" is a farce, it violates every standard that contracts have to meet.
Click to expand...

I don't think many philosophers argue that the social contract is a literal device; just a heuristic for considering proper conduct.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
perfectchaos007 said:
I guess Europe feels its their moral responsibility to keep anything promoting the death penalty away from the US, but at the same time, not having that superior chemical concoction isn't going to keep the US form executing people so....
Click to expand...

Well that's sort of the point, it does. Georgia doesn't have enough drugs supplied to actually be able to execute all of the people it wants to execute. There's an article about it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...rope-end-the-death-penalty-in-america/283790/
 
stufte

stufte

Member
benjipwns said:
The state does not have powers beyond those of its citizens. If someone kills your child, it's not legal for you to go and kill that person after their trial. Why is it legitimate for the state to do so? The state isn't acting in self-defense, it already has the person in a cage and chains. It's pure vengeance in the name of others against their consent.

The "social contract" is a farce, it violates every standard that contracts have to meet.
Click to expand...

So the state can lock up criminals (something, afaik, a citizen isn't allowed to do), but they can't execute someone? Huh?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
I guess Europe feels its their moral responsibility to keep anything promoting the death penalty away from the US, but at the same time, not having that superior chemical concoction isn't going to keep the US form executing people so....
Click to expand...

So at least their hands are clean while we muddy ours.
 
D

Docflem

Member
benjipwns said:
The state does not have powers beyond those of its citizens. If someone kills your child, it's not legal for you to go and kill that person after their trial. Why is it legitimate for the state to do so? The state isn't acting in self-defense, it already has the person in a cage and chains. It's pure vengeance in the name of others against their consent.

The "social contract" is a farce, it violates every standard that contracts have to meet.
Click to expand...

That is a very silly, and untrue, statement followed by a metaphor that doesn't work. Hell I'm on your side technically but that is just a terrible argument.
 
L

Lime

Member
"Please sell us stuff to allow us be barbaric and inhumane" is what I'm reading in some posts. Unfathomable.

Also, people have no problem executing someone responsible for the death of 3 people, yet don't say a word about all the innocent lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the countless other countries that are violently exposed to US extrajudicial killing non-Americans and its disastrous foreign policies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Peter Bergs Patriots Day gets a teaser poster
2
51
4K
spyder_ur replied
"Austin Powers" actor, Random Task, sentenced to 27 years in for killing cellmate
14
6K
Christian replied
Iowa couple gets $3.25M after adopted son killed by birth father
18
5K
Panthalassic replied
  • Locked
Boston Bomber Tsarnaev's Boat 'Manifesto'
2
71
12K
Majima Everywhere System replied
  • Locked
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will go on trial on November 3rd
38
3K
andycapps replied
Top Bottom