• 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.

Docflem

Member
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.

Oh don't worry I'm very calm, but your understanding of Govt philosophy and political theory is lacking. I mean legitimate literally means "conforming to the law or to rules." The only way a law can be illegitimate is if it wasn't legally put in place.

Also your understanding of what freedom means in this context is off, without the government anything you want to do you can do. That is a state of perfect freedom, aka nature. True freedom is not really a good thing, it is actually a pretty scary thing, and that is why people "signed" the social contract. The American "social contract" is the Constitution and by living in the US as a citizen you are bound by this contract until you abandon your citizenship and leave or enact legal change. It legitimately states that through a proper process it can take your possessions, take your freedom, and in the end take your life.

Well, yes. Racial equality and welfare for the poor are also relatively new.

All three of which I am in full support of.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Oh don't worry I'm very calm, but your understanding of Govt philosophy and political theory is lacking. I mean legitimate literally means "conforming to the law or to rules." The only way a law can be illegitimate is if it wasn't legally put in place.

Also your understanding of what freedom means in this context is off, without the government anything you want to do you can do. That is a state of perfect freedom, aka nature. True freedom is not really a good thing, it is actually a pretty scary thing, and that is why people "signed" the social contract. The American "social contract" is the Constitution and by living in the US as a citizen you are bound by this contract until you abandon your citizenship and leave or enact legal change. It legitimately states that through a proper process it can take your possessions, take your freedom, and in the end take your life.
You're talking about actions, not freedoms/rights/liberties. Actions are limited only by capabilities and decision, liberties are limited only where they infringe upon others though they can be and are regularly violated.

Even with a state you can do anything you want to do. As Mr. Tsarnaev did.

No one signed the social contract, it's not a real thing, it's an attempt to justify the abrogation of individual rights without consent. Being bound by coincidence of birth has regularly been used in this manner.

Thank you for informing me of my lack of understanding politics agreeing with your premises.
 

Savitar

Member
How many years would take it for the guy to be executed if they went that way.

More than a few tend to go decades don't they.

Basically life imprisonment.
 

Docflem

Member
You're talking about actions, not freedoms/rights/liberties. Actions are limited only by capabilities and decision, liberties are limited only where they infringe upon others though they can be and are regularly violated.

Even with a state you can do anything you want to do. As Mr. Tsarnaev did.

No one signed the social contract, it's not a real thing, it's an attempt to justify the abrogation of individual rights without consent. Being bound by coincidence of birth has regularly been used in this manner.

Thank you for informing me of my lack of understanding politics agreeing with your premises.

You are not bound, this is not North Korea, you can renounce your citizenship and leave. By staying, paying taxes, and enjoy benefits of citizenship your are in fact agreeing to the laws, one of which is death if you commit terrorism (not one i agree with morally but it is legitimate). Again all I have to do is define the word freedom:
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
With a government in place we have limited freedoms, but with the promise that if someone crosses those bounds they will be punished.

Seriously, pick up Plato's The Republic or an intro to political theory textbook, what I'm saying is pretty basic stuff.
 

Sanjuro

Member
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.

This isn't a situation where an innocent man is on death row for killing a convenience store clerk.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
This isn't a situation where an innocent man is on death row for killing a convenience store clerk.

Doesn't matter, if you have the death penalty, you have to determine whether or not its appropriate for a particular case. And there's no guarantee you'll get that right all the time... or the verdict, for that matter.

We're not saying there aren't people who deserve nothing less than death. We're saying that we're unable to properly make that determination 100% of the time.
 
The way I see it, if you support capital punishment, and you are an informed and reasonable individual, your reasoning has to basically be vengeance. In other words, you support the death penalty because it makes you, or others, feel better to see guilty men put to death by the state.

The reason I say this is because, again if you are an informed person, there can be no pragmatic reason for supporting it. We have every reason to believe the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to violent crime, and that killing people as opposed to imprisoning them for life does not save the state money. Plenty of others in this thread have linked sources for these claims. If you trust accepted reasoning in regard to this issue, the only argument you can make for the continued existence of capital punishment is an emotional one.

I think that sort of reasoning would be morally dubious at best assuming a perfect system, but the one we have isn't. We convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit all the time. And the death penalty offers no recourse for correcting these inevitable mistakes. So if you support it because of moral or emotional reasons, you're essentially weighing the catharsis you feel against these facts.

If we had a perfect system where we could know, every time, of someone's guilt beyond any doubt, personally I would support capital punishment, accepting that my personal sense of justice overrides the fact that it is not a deterrent and it is not cheaper than indefinite incarceration. But I can't support it, because we do not have a perfect system, and although I believe that some people may deserve to die, giving our government the power to make that decision means that inevitably it will be used to put innocent men to death.

The alternative is these guilty men spend the rest of their lives in cells as opposed to being killed. And innocents who would have otherwise been killed at least have some small hope of exoneration.
 

Sanjuro

Member
Doesn't matter, if you have the death penalty, you have to determine whether or not its appropriate for a particular case. And there's no guarantee you'll get that right all the time... or the verdict, for that matter.

We're not saying there aren't people who deserve nothing less than death. We're saying that we're unable to properly make that determination 100% of the time.

It does matter. This is a federal trial. If it wasn't, then he would get a nice luxury suite the rest of his life.
 
Doesn't matter, if you have the death penalty, you have to determine whether or not its appropriate for a particular case. And there's no guarantee you'll get that right all the time... or the verdict, for that matter.

We're not saying there aren't people who deserve nothing less than death. We're saying that we're unable to properly make that determination 100% of the time.

I swear this concept shouldn't be that elusive.

yet ...

It does matter. This is a federal trial. If it wasn't, then he would get a nice luxury suite the rest of his life.
 

benjipwns

Banned
You are not bound, this is not North Korea, you can renounce your citizenship and leave.
Actually, you can't without the state's permission. The United States is hilariously unique in these matters.

By staying, paying taxes, and enjoy benefits of citizenship your are in fact agreeing to the laws
No, this is consent under duress, which is not legitimate consent. The "benefits" of citizenship are unsolicited goods and services which a receiver is not required to compensate the provider for, and paying taxes is hardly consent considering the consequences of refusing to.

Seriously, pick up Plato's The Republic or an intro to political theory textbook, what I'm saying is pretty basic stuff.
Thank you for the condescending tone, but reading things like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Rawls doesn't mean you automatically agree with their faulty premises and logic. (Especially the latter.)

That said, would you like to revoke my Masters in Political Science and Masters in History or just one of them? Which I mention only as a form of "proof" that I've read all the other horrible "essentials" you might bring up that attempt to justify the violation of individual rights by geographical corporate monopolies.

Also to horrify everyone that "knows" me on here that I might be teaching others. Or even teaching them.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
This isn't a situation where an innocent man is on death row for killing a convenience store clerk.

There is always the possibility that someone put on death row actually committed the crimes that he was found guilty of; in fact it's probably most usually the case. Why is this guy different?
 

Sanjuro

Member
There is always the possibility that someone put on death row actually committed the crimes that he was found guilty of; in fact it's probably most usually the case. Why is this guy different?

Are you asking me why the Sexy Boston Marathon Bomber is different from an individual in a sketchy murder trial from a rural town?
 

Docflem

Member
Actually, you can't without the state's permission. The United States is hilariously unique in these matters.


No, this is consent under duress, which is not legitimate consent. The "benefits" of citizenship are unsolicited goods and services which a receiver is not required to compensate the provider for, and paying taxes is hardly consent considering the consequences of refusing to.


Thank you for the condescending tone, but reading things like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Rawls doesn't mean you automatically agree with their faulty premises and logic. (Especially the latter.)

That said, would you like to revoke my Masters in Political Science and Masters in History or just one of them? Which I mention only as a form of "proof" that I've read all the other horrible "essentials" you might bring up that attempt to justify the violation of individual rights by geographical corporate monopolies.

Also to horrify everyone that "knows" me on here that I might be teaching others. Or even teaching them.

Your trying to tell me you have two masters and yet you don't know the definition of freedom or legitimacy? You really tried to just say that you are "under duress" by the US government and could not leave if you wanted to? Took me two seconds to look it up, http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html, that is how you do it. No where does it say it can be rejected by the US, only that you have to do it properly. Sorry I'm just not very impressed.

Edit:
I can feel this getting petty (on both sides) so I'm going to go ahead and bow out here. Nothing else further to gain from this argument.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
Are you asking me why the Sexy Boston Marathon Bomber is different from an individual in a sketchy murder trial from a rural town?

No. I'm saying that we should be consistent in our stance on capital punishment. If you can imagine a scenario justifying its usage because the guy's so obviously guilty then we can't dismiss other people's justification of capital punishment which usually relies on that same idea of a person clearly being guilty. And I'm guessing the vast majority of death row inmates actually committed the crimes they were accused of.

That will happen and yet still not justify the existence of capital punishment.
 

Sanjuro

Member
No. I'm saying that we should be consistent in our stance on capital punishment. If you can imagine a scenario justifying its usage because the guy's so obviously guilty then we can't dismiss other people's justification of capital punishment which usually relies on that same idea of a person clearly being guilty. And I'm guessing the vast majority of death row inmates actually committed the crimes they were accused of.

That will happen and yet still not justify the existence of capital punishment.

You are talking about two different things. Consistency based on state to state requirements? Yeah...that's something that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd ideally like that, but using this instance as an example towards fulfilling that requirement doesn't make sense.
 
You are talking about two different things. Consistency based on state to state requirements? Yeah...that's something that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd ideally like that, but using this instance as an example towards fulfilling that requirement doesn't make sense.

we are asking for a federal ban on capital punishment due to an inconsistent application at both the state and federal levels. Unless you're going to get it 100% right everywhere, its not with implementation if we ever get it wrong. Where are the apples and oranges here?
 

Sanjuro

Member
we are asking for a federal ban on capital punishment due to an inconsistent application at both the state and federal levels. Unless you're going to get it 100% right everywhere, its not with implementation if we ever get it wrong. Where are the apples and oranges here?

Obviously not that sentiment.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Your trying to tell me you have two masters and yet you don't know the definition of freedom or legitimacy?
I know the definitions just fine. You disagree with my proper usage of them.

You really tried to just say that you are "under duress" by the US government and could not leave if you wanted to? Took me two seconds to look it up, http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html, that is how you do it. No where does it say it can be rejected by the US, only that you have to do it properly.
Of course it's under duress. You literally have to leave the country forever and likely become a stateless citizen. You can't renounce while in the country or live or work in the U.S. or reacquire citizenship. You have to forfeit all sorts of ownership rights.

This is ignoring of course the more important fact that you were supposedly bound to the contract by condition of birth. About the most anti-liberal concept imaginable.

Sorry I'm just not very impressed.
I'm not here to impress you. So I apologize for not impressing you.
 

Pyrrhus

Member
I know the definitions just fine. You disagree with my proper usage of them.

The collective body of Western thought disagrees with you about them.

Of course it's under duress. You literally have to leave the country forever and likely become a stateless citizen. You can't renounce while in the country or live or work in the U.S. or reacquire citizenship. You have to forfeit all sorts of ownership rights.

The ownership rights are granted by the state. In nature, you own what you can keep other people from taking and nothing more. You want to be an island, go for it, but don't expect the state to protect you if you renounce citizenship. I might add that if Tsarnaev had blown your leg off or blinded you, you'd have no recourse without a state. You seem to expect faction perks without being a member of the faction.

This is ignoring of course the more important fact that you were supposedly bound to the contract by condition of birth. About the most anti-liberal concept imaginable.

There are a number of things you don't get to choose that are determined by your birth. Family, race, name, socio-economic status, geographic location, physical fitness. Some things just are and you have no say. Nation of origin is one of these. The fact that you decry this as "anti-liberal" and act like there's an alternative is kind of bizarre.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The collective body of Western thought disagrees with you about them.
No, just a subset.

The ownership rights are granted by the state.
Ownership rights stem from the fact that we own ourselves and thus our labor and thus the fruits of our labor.

I might add that if Tsarnaev had blown your leg off or blinded you, you'd have no recourse without a state.
I might add that I have no recourse with a state. How does his conviction and death make me whole? Or bring me any restitution?

You seem to expect faction perks without being a member of the faction.
No, I expect negotiable and contractual perks, not arbitrary ones.

That said, as I noted unsolicited benefits do not convey a legitimate claim for payment.

The fact that you decry this as "anti-liberal" and act like there's an alternative is kind of bizarre.
None of those things are like the claim of a "social contract" that has no limits and that no one can read but can be enforced against all generation who are bound at birth. It's the same thing as binding the serfs to the land, debt bondage or multi-generational slavery. One party got to the set the terms, the other party could not negotiate, agree to or not agree to the terms.

Liberalism distinctly repudiated all three of those forms of bondage. I see no reason why the similar one-sided bondage of a "social contract" enforced upon people by a single corporation is not as anti-liberal in premise.

Hobbes' use of the "social contract" made sense to him because such feudalistic contracts were the dominant of the time. When contract law evolved thanks to liberalism the theory fell apart despite the endless attempts to prop it up to justify oppression. By the time Spooner came around liberalism had already realized how silly the concept was:
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed.
And in this and other cases deem themselves justified to murder because "social contract" and "guilty!"

Others see the death penalty for the illegitimacy it is.
 

Zophar

Member
None of those things are like the claim of a "social contract" that has no limits and that no one can read but can be enforced against all generation who are bound at birth. It's the same thing as binding the serfs to the land, debt bondage or multi-generational slavery. One party got to the set the terms, the other party could not negotiate, agree to or not agree to the terms.

"Mom, Dad, I didn't *ask* to be born!"

You should probably get your money back on those Masters degrees if they didn't push you into thinking about the premises of this voluntaryist whackadoo for more than 10 minutes. Else I'd like to see some publications if you insist on your credentials somehow proving your authority on the subject.

The death penalty is unethical for valid reasons, but they don't lie down the path you've taken to find them.
 

benjipwns

Banned
You should probably get your money back on those Masters degrees if they didn't push you into thinking about the premises of this voluntaryist whackadoo for more than 10 minutes. Else I'd like to see some publications if you insist on your credentials somehow proving your authority on the subject.
They helped push me away from libertarianism into thinking about the absurd premises of the popular whackadoo justifications for cheerleading monopoly corporate violence by elites against the lower classes.

And I didn't invoke them for authority, I would hope that any such use of credentials would make someone consider me less of an authority than my arguments alone. I was stating that so people would stop telling me to read a basic textbook or some other 101 garbage as if I hadn't or that it's impossible to read something and reject its premises.

The death penalty is unethical for valid reasons, but they don't lie down the path you've taken to find them.
It's unethical because it's murder, that's my path. I was told it's ethical because "social contract." So I pointed out why the "social contract" theory is unethical.

I, for one, don't care what path has led to benji's enlightened position regarding capital punishment.
You will when the voluntaryist revolutionary uprising begins and we force you to "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother others I guess or not, whatever, it's up to you"
 
What if he were to escape from prison and commit the same atrocities again? Death penalty guarentees that won't happen, life in prison does not. Is government not obligated to protect its people in the most efficient way? While, I agree the probability of his escape and reoffending are absurdly low, they are still higher than his chances if he were dead.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
What if he were to escape from prison and commit the same atrocities again? Death penalty guarentees that won't happen, life in prison does not. Is government not obligated to protect its people in the most efficient way? While, I agree the probability of his escape and reoffending are absurdly low, they are still higher than his chances if he were dead.

The government is not protecting its people when it kills them. And the government kills a lot of innocent people in our prison system. I think the death penalty is wrong in all situations; and I'm not about to suspend my beliefs because this one guy has the public's ire. Not that he's innocent; he's blatantly not. But the fact that some people that are set to be killed by the state are actually guilty does not take away from the fact that capital punishment is still wrong.

Edit: And I for one appreciate Benji's insightful posting.
 

jbug617

Banned
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...l?hootPostID=01fb642503878e4b2c5b71a32cf7de0e

Martin Richard's parents wrote a letter in the Boston Globe asking the Department of Justice to take the death penalty off the table and offer life in prison without parole and waiving his right to appeal.

The past two years have been the most trying of our lives. Our family has grieved, buried our young son, battled injuries, and endured numerous surgeries — all while trying to rebuild lives that will never be the same. We sat in the courtroom, day after day, bearing witness to overwhelming evidence that included graphic video and photographs, replicated bombs, and even the clothes our son wore his last day alive. We are eternally grateful for the courage and life-saving measures of first responders, Boston police, the Boston Fire Department, and good Samaritans on April 15, 2013. We also thank the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice, and the Massachusetts US Attorney’s Office for leaving no stone unturned during the investigation and trial.

But now that the tireless and committed prosecution team has ensured that justice will be served, we urge the Department of Justice to bring the case to a close. We are in favor of and would support the Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal.

We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul. We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring.

For us, the story of Marathon Monday 2013 should not be defined by the actions or beliefs of the defendant, but by the resiliency of the human spirit and the rallying cries of this great city. We can never replace what was taken from us, but we can continue to get up every morning and fight another day. As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.

This is a deeply personal issue and we can speak only for ourselves. However, it is clear that peace of mind was taken not just from us, but from all Americans. We honor those who were lost and wish continued strength for all those who were injured. We believe that now is the time to turn the page, end the anguish, and look toward a better future — for us, for Boston, and for the country.
 
Jesus, every time i enter a thread regarding punishment on an american forum i get legit terrified. Just pure barbarism at times, fuck.

Probably going to get death penalty, or life inprisonment. Hoping for the latter.
 
Day 2 of jury deliberations for sentencing is today. Jury is to determine whether or not he should be put to death.

Breaking News said:
During day 2 of deliberations, Boston Marathon bombing trial jurors want to know if they should use their own interpretations of the charges or the exact wording of the verdict slip - @wburLive

Verdict could come any day.
 

Piggus

Member
Hoping for no death penalty. Not because I'm against it, but because death is probably what he wants, and the ADX H-unit is even worse.
 
Even if you are a proponent of vengeance/retribution focused justice, the death penalty ends their suffering entirely. If want them to suffer as much as possible for as long as possible, stick them in solitary confinement for life and they'll slowly go insane.

Other than that I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said. ED: I'm not trying to suggest or imply he is innocent of charges, but am speaking generally to the death penalty as it applies to the justice system at large.

Researchers have conservatively estimated that as many as 4% of death row prisoners are wrongfully convicted. Pick anything else and ask yourself if you would consider a 4% chance of innocent or wrongful death to be acceptable in any circumstances. My guess is you probably wouldn't use your car if you knew it had a four percent chance of exploding upon ignition. The whole point of not having a death penalty is that life in prison at least affords the opportunity to be exonerated, whereas killing them ends it.

The researchers also note that a 4.1 percent rate of false conviction is conservative, given that separate calculations gauging the accuracy of the assumptions that took an even more conservative stance—assuming that people who were executed had zero chance of false conviction and that the chances of exoneration after retrial would be twice that of people on death row—would still produce a larger figure than their 4.1 percent estimate.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Even if you are a proponent of vengeance/retribution focused justice, the death penalty ends their suffering entirely. If want them to suffer as much as possible for as long as possible, stick them in solitary confinement for life and they'll slowly go insane.

Other than that I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said.

Researchers estimate that as many as 4% of death row prisoners are wrongfully convicted. Pick anything else and ask yourself if you would consider a 4% chance of death to be acceptable in any circumstances. My guess is you probably wouldn't use your car if you knew it had a four percent chance of exploding upon ignition. The whole point of not having a death penalty is that life in prison at least affords the opportunity to be exonerated, whereas killing them ends it.

What's the point of bringing up false convictions here? There is 0% chance he didnt do what he did
 
Even if you are a proponent of vengeance/retribution focused justice, the death penalty ends their suffering entirely. If want them to suffer as much as possible for as long as possible, stick them in solitary confinement for life and they'll slowly go insane.

Other than that I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said.

Researchers have conservatively estimated that as many as 4% of death row prisoners are wrongfully convicted. Pick anything else and ask yourself if you would consider a 4% chance of innocent or wrongful death to be acceptable in any circumstances. My guess is you probably wouldn't use your car if you knew it had a four percent chance of exploding upon ignition. The whole point of not having a death penalty is that life in prison at least affords the opportunity to be exonerated, whereas killing them ends it.

I agree with your argument against the death penalty but I don't think there's any possible way that Tsarnaev was wrongfully convicted. I mean his whole case was based around the idea that he did do it but that he didn't deserve to die because his brother essentially brainwashed him.
 
But it's out of context in this case. He admits he did it.

All mitigating convictions will be read BEFORE the verdict on penalty is read.

Discussion about the death penalty in general should be contextualized in light of all people who may face such a sentence, not just those whose guilt is not in question.
 
@JimArmstrongWBZ said:
#Tsarnaev jurors had options for each sentencing factor:
Yes to all counts
No to all counts
Yes to some counts

(The "counts" refer to the 17 death-penalty eligible offenses for which #Tsarnaev was convicted at the 1st phase of the trial.)

NOTE: Jury might find every single aggravating factor was proved; that says nothing re: their sentence. Must wait till the end for that.

Verdict should be coming over the next half hour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom