Kibbles
Member
First sketch
He gets to wear a suit?
-
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
- Thread starter ActStriker
- Start date
- Status
He gets to wear a suit?
benjipwns
Banned
Ideally, we'd find a better method for restitution from most criminals than simply locking them up. But, thankfully, despite state abuse of this monopoly it can be reversed.
Murder however solves nothing and is irreversible. There is no reason to have it as a state power.
Republican states don't exist without the nominal consent of the governed. Their powers are derived from the people's granting them.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I'm torn on the issue.
Having lived in Boston during the bombing and knowing 100% that he's guilty, it's tough to think of any good reason to allow him to live, even though I'm generally against the death penalty. I had a dozen friends in the race that year, and a dozen more at the finish line including my ex GF and her sister, any one of them could have been killed or maimed.
Is life in prison more humane? He's the most hated man in America, he'd be torn to shreds by any other inmates who knew who he was, so his social interaction would be limited. Would parole be humane? He'd be dead inside of a week from being released. If not, he'd be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life while under witness protection in Cuba or something.
Even with the death penalty, he'll have 10-20 solid years to reflect on his crime. If he manages to become a better person, maybe then I'll feel sorry for him.
Having lived in Boston during the bombing and knowing 100% that he's guilty, it's tough to think of any good reason to allow him to live, even though I'm generally against the death penalty. I had a dozen friends in the race that year, and a dozen more at the finish line including my ex GF and her sister, any one of them could have been killed or maimed.
Is life in prison more humane? He's the most hated man in America, he'd be torn to shreds by any other inmates who knew who he was, so his social interaction would be limited. Would parole be humane? He'd be dead inside of a week from being released. If not, he'd be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life while under witness protection in Cuba or something.
Even with the death penalty, he'll have 10-20 solid years to reflect on his crime. If he manages to become a better person, maybe then I'll feel sorry for him.
I don't believe in the death penalty due to how the system has failed to protect the innocent from being executed so many times, and this scumfuck pushes my conviction to its utmost limit, but... no, he shouldn't be put to death. Lock him away, forever.
Incarcerated people can be released. The dead can't be reanimated.
Incarcerated people can be released. The dead can't be reanimated.
Yes, powers that are GREATER than the powers the citizens themselves have. They are given up specifically so they can not use them on each other but used at the discretion of the elected government for the betterment of the whole.
stufte
Member
You're right, but that's not what I was arguing.
benjipwns
Banned
No, the powers are being delegated. The people have the power to employ dispute resolution and restitution, they've delegated this to the court system by and large, but arbitration and other manners of reaching agreements on their own still exist. The people have no power to legitimately murder anyone, thus this isn't a power that can be delegated to an arm of the state.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This argument presupposes a particular conception of the state and won't convince anyone that doesn't already hold that conception.
People never have the power to legitimately tax or incarcerate each other, so I guess the government can't do that either?
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I think most people here feel the same way you do about the innocent civilians that got killed. Not sure what that has to do with this trial, though.
benjipwns
Banned
So does the argument that the state can murder when the individual cannot because basketball reasons.
Well, they can just like they can murder people but that doesn't make it a legitimate action.
Incarceration should really be seen as a failing of society to answer certain moral questions, not a found solution.
Oh right, duh.
Alright, so you are just here to argue huh? What is the point you're trying to make?
stufte
Member
Yep. It's awesome.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Are you speaking about democracies in general, or about the powers granted to the states under the US Constitution?
benjipwns
Banned
Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?
Same as all the other people arguing against murder.
Republican states, of which the U.S. is one and does outline the process in the Constitution, yes. I wasn't thinking the latter in mind but it could be so especially since this is a case in the U.S.
What does that have to do with this situation? Does every point need to be prefaced with "I don't agree with the invasion of countries X, Y and Z, in addition to my primary point..."?
NullPointer
Member
I don't see how its illegitimate provided there is due process.
"no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
And I'm all for curbing its use, but hold that it is just when it comes to the most heinous of crimes.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Numerous people have been falsely imprisoned, and even executed. The supreme court has even ruled that actual innocence isn't grounds for avoiding execution, so long as the state has a guilty verdict.
States, such as Texas, have fought to preserve said verdicts, even in the light of recanted testimony, new technology casting doubt on evidence, etc. Exoneration make the state look bad and cast doubt on the system, so the states do all they can to prevent them post verdict.
As for the A hole in this case? I'd not kill him. I'd send him to the deepest, darkest hole we have, and never let him out. Prevents him from being a martyr, and increases the odds he dies alone and forgotten.
benjipwns
Banned
I'd say due process is a necessary but not sufficient condition to murder.
There is a line between a discussion and pointless arguing, I think you inadvertently found it. Also your argument doesn't work, it literally can be used to rip away any power the state has that you don't, rendering it pointless. Yes people give the government it's powers, that does not mean that they people legally had the powers to begin with. It's not a physical item in which you have to "have" in order to "give." Instead it is a "freedom" that is surrendered for the greater benefit for the whole group.
Arguing that the government can't kill because people can't kill while the government is enacted doesn't make sense because the reason we can't kill is because we gave up that freedom in order to exist as a society. It does not however argue why the collective cannot legally kill one of the group because it threatens the safety of the others.
fastford58
Member
The death penalty is too good for this scum bag.
And lol at the thread now being about capital punishment.
And lol at the thread now being about capital punishment.
Then I'm not talking about you. Im talking about people clamoring for death penalty and the fact that the current and previous administrations are responsible for so many thousands of atrocities across the globe, yet people lose their shit and get all eye for an eye because 3 people got murdered by a bunch of sickos. If this guy deserves to rot or have his life taken away, then I'd take a good hard look at the president, government, politicians, and the people voting for these guys, because the US as a society is doing much, much worse things across the world.
The whole eye for eye bloodlust I see when people get their panties in a bunch is some hypocritical bullshit
NullPointer
Member
Well there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss about his guilt. Just what he now has coming to him.
Who exactly are you talking about?
Its tough to say that with a straight face and still think of the parents of the child who will never get to grow up and experience a life as full as the monster that took his. They have to hope for a life after death to see their kid again that may not exist. Each day this dude is above ground is a brutal reminder of the life and potential benefit to humanity their kid could have (or even could not have) been and that shit is a cold thought.
Murder is wrong, but murder sanctioned by the state this is not. This man got his day in court and the collective judgment of supposed peers found him guilty of his crimes and deserving of a punishment fit for those crimes.
You can argue its more just to keep him in prison for his natural life, but then you are arguing against prison for rehabilitation and instead as a form of punishment. Whats the right answer in this case to you? I am genuinely curious as I have seen this kind of rhetoric bandied about a lot here.
benjipwns
Banned
SOCIAL CONTRACT
This case and any "utopian" alternative is irrelevant, reversing the idea that it's moral and legitimate for the state to murder under any circumstances is the priority. As long as people think a legitimate role of the state is to enact vengeance, for some against the will of others, through murder then any discussion of the role of incarceration pales in comparison.
It was mentioned earlier by a person you quoted but I don't think you understand what the "social contract" is. In nature you are allowed to do anything you actually physically can, including murder, because nature is a place of absolute freedom. People as we developed realized that if we gave up some freedoms we could coexist as a group and we could not only survive better, but actually thrive. You give up freedoms to the government so they can have power. That does not mean the government has the same rights as the citizens because its purpose is to limit the freedoms of the citizens for the betterment of the whole.
You are so off topic it isn't funny, and despite what you think you "know" it seems obvious your here just to call out the US and it's foreign policy (which while has been responsible for terrible things is not much worse than most other major countries out there) which has nothing to do with this trial, or even if the death penalty should be used.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I don't care if he gets the death penalty but the death penalty is pretty dumb lol.
Fenderputty
Banned
It was bound to happen. He was guilty the moment he got out of the boat. The topic was almost always going to be should we kill him or not. This topic came up when the trials first started too.
I empathize with the person who's lost here. That's actually why I'm willing to step in and make the hard decision to not kill based on feelings of revenge. I don't expect the person who's lost to think rationally here. I expect the rest of the nation who's not personally connected to think rationally for them. Sadly most are still on the "revenge is an OK reason for the state to kill" bandwagon.
benjipwns
Banned
Murdering another is infringing on their freedom and thus not a "freedom" you legitimately possess.
And murdering another does not grant others a legitimate "freedom" to murder you.
NullPointer
Member
Reversing the idea?
When has society without any form of capital punishment ever been the norm?
Then quote them and call them out. Don't passive-aggressively wag your finger at imaginary foes.
You are not reading my posts, just responding. You need to spend more time arguing the moral aspect of why the death penalty should not exist because this:
being in the Constitution means that the state can legitimately and legally kill one of it's citizens as long as they have had their due process.
Can you elaborate on this? What I would like to know is sort of an idealized form of resolution based on your world view for an equivalent crime. Not trying to bait but honestly curious.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Never from an American perspective, but it is certainly the European norm.
benjipwns
Banned
I mean it in terms of people currently hold an idea going one direction (pro-murder), it needs to be reversed in the other direction (anti-murder).
And no I didn't provocatively label it that way on purpose.
NullPointer
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
True.
Now maybe, but I believe he was referring to societies in a whole throughout history. The wide spread rejection of capital punishment is rather new I believe.
The whole trial is about capital punishment. Why wouldn't this thread also be?
I personally believe the death penalty is wrong, but if it were my 8 year old that was killed I would probably change my mind.
Darkangel
Member
I think the government should only be able to hand out death sentences for people who are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. They would either need to be caught in the act by a large group of people or clearly filmed on video doing the crime. If the police manage to capture a guy half-way into a killing spree then I see no reason why the death penalty shouldn't be on the table (Breivik).
I suppose there's always the chance a judge could get too lax, but those are my theoretical thoughts on the matter.
SillyEskimo
Member
If you don't get the death penalty after admitting to and then being convicted of 17 separate crimes each eligible for the death penalty, then just get rid of it altogether. I mean, jesus christ.
benjipwns
Banned
No, it doesn't. As I noted above it applies a necessary but not sufficient condition to those deprivations.
As for legitimacy. The law and legitimacy are two separate things. A law can be illegitimate because it is immoral. For example, drug laws. "The law is an ass."
I am reading your posts and everyone else's my friend. Calm down.
Not as entertaining as people making defenses for the legitimacy, nay, necessity of murder.
This is what turned me on the death penalty. I was pro, until this came to light.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/new_abolitionist/february-2000-issue-14/illinois-stops-executions
13 innocents released from death row in Illinois... people exonerated by the work of students. The system failed them, their attorneys failed them, some students saved them.
In 2011 Illinois abolished the death penalty, entirely.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, yes. Racial equality and welfare for the poor are also relatively new.
- Status