Makes sense.
I'm against the death penalty, by the way... I'm glad we don't have it here.
-
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
Makes sense.
I'm against the death penalty, by the way... I'm glad we don't have it here.
That was not my point. You cannot compare Idaho with Illinois for a vast amount of reasons - the amount of people is irrelevant. You certainly cannot isolate the death penalty as a deterrent by averaging out murder rates of two highly contrasting populations.
CountAntonius
Member
This thread has gone exactly as expected.
State sanctioned murder? Check
Barbaric? Check
Not a deterrent? Check.
I'm only against the death penalty because of how many innocent people have probably died due to corruption but in cases like this I have no quarrels.
State sanctioned murder? Check
Barbaric? Check
Not a deterrent? Check.
I'm only against the death penalty because of how many innocent people have probably died due to corruption but in cases like this I have no quarrels.
What does the amount of people in a state have to do with this?
This is a guy who wrote a manifesto bleeding and dying, wishing he could've gone out like his bro. He was ready to die and meet his maker. He's had a couple years now preparing to die. I doubt he cares at this point.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
So would it be correct to assume that you believe the majority of criminologists who believe there is no deterrent effect to the death penalty are doing so because they are incompetent at their jobs and research and don't understand how to do statistics or interpret them? That all the experts in the field agreeing with these conclusions is a huge farce? This is practically running in parallel with global warming conspiracy nonsense.
A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.
eBay Huckster
Member
Notice something about every state you brought up in your initial post calling into question a consensus among criminologists?
Go ahead and prove to us that DP gives families closure. You are making the claim for it, burden of proof is on you.
Let's flip this around. why should DP be part of society?
So facts about DP first:
- It is racially biased
- Claims a lot of innocent lives
- DOES NOT deter people from committing crimes
- It is not cost effective at all (it tends to cost a few times more than life without parole)
- Disregards mental illness
Oh and nowadays in the US most people are against it
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf
Last but not least, we are fucking humans dude, we are supposed to be better than that. we should always strive to make life better for everyone, even for those who have committed crimes against humanity. Death fixes nothing.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
what is the purpose of a justice system?
I've not herd its use be defined, as you just have, to it being only past looking. That's not criminal justices, thats judging of sins which belongs in the realm of religion, no the state
The entire reason people allow the state allow laws that impose fines, allow jail time, the seizing of property, etc is to either deter or protect future members of the community. It can't change the past. It can only affect the future.
So would it be correct to assume that you believe the majority of criminologists who believe there is no deterrent effect to the death penalty are doing so because they are incompetent at their jobs and research and don't understand how to do statistics or interpret them?
A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.
Read your own link. " In April 2012, The National Research Council concluded that studies claiming that the death penalty affects murder rates were "fundamentally flawed" because they did not consider the effects of noncapital punishments and used "incomplete or implausible models." This is basically the conclusion I came to, I'm glad the Research Council is as rational as I am.
I'm interested in how much influence his brother had. Was his brother the ring leader in all of this and was perhaps involved in the brainwashing of his brother?
I have no sympathy for this murderer, but I still think the death penalty is stupid.
Edit: just realised he was like 19 years old at the time. Seems a bit harsh for a dumb kid.
I have no sympathy for this murderer, but I still think the death penalty is stupid.
Edit: just realised he was like 19 years old at the time. Seems a bit harsh for a dumb kid.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Then why did he get captured alive???
Talk is cheap, his brother wanted to die for the cause and take down anyone before he did.
Little bro didn't seem to want that.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
These two statements are incompatible.
You're not against the death penalty.
You can't be a vegetarian and be ok with eating chicken
I fail to see how this relates to my post.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Yes, they're contrasting the council's conclusion with that of those experts working the field. Which is to say, I presume, that you believe that all the experts are wrong and are doing their jobs poorly. I.e., 88% of criminologists should be fired because they are not rational.
eBay Huckster
Member
So if you agree with the NRC's conclusion that there is no statistical evidence for death penalty effects on murder rates, either positive or negative, while the posters you're ostensibly against are arguing that there's no statistical evidence for negative effects (such that people shouldn't be using "it's a deterrent" as an argument for the death penalty), then why even are you arguing?
(Sorry if my posts were unclear at first, been posting while distracted for a couple hours.)
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
The fact that we still have the death penalty is a massive black mark on this country. It's a disgusting practice that should have been done away with decades ago.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Even if that's the case, you can make the argument (and many people have) that solitary confinement in that manner constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
CountAntonius
Member
No they are not. If It was up to me there would be no death penalty because the justice system is far too corrupt, not because I think everyone should be spared. In cases like this where it is cut and dry I don't care if he dies. But, understanding how many innocents have probably died I would personally do away with it. I know people like to be very black and white with subjects like this but I don't see it quite that way.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
He's being technical with your words for some reason despite it being obvious what you meant.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty
A report released on April 18 by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). Criminologist Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, said, “We recognize this conclusion will be controversial to some, but nobody is well served by unfounded claims about the death penalty. Nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment."
Yes, those criminology "experts" are wrong, apparently - according to research. You cannot appeal to research and studies only when it suits your own claims. Those criminologists that took the survey were wrong in 2009 and this 2012 research delved into the topic more conclusively and came to the correct conclusion.
NullPointer
Member
Just to be sure I haven't defined justice, nor said that its only past looking.
I'm saying that the judgment passed down here is a penalty - it a severe response to a heinous act that's already been committed and cannot be undone or compensated for. That doesn't exclude consideration of the future, but in this particular person's case that future will probably be appeals and more appeals and finally some resolution.
For many of us the world isn't that black and white. And whats with vegetarians that eat fish anyway?
GregLombardi
Member
I also admit I am a bit surprised a bunch of Southern New Englanders gave the Death Penalty. It isn't a part of their mental curriculum in my experience. (assuming the jury was all from there)
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
How about "I want him killed because he deserves to be killed"???
Bill Richards' testimony at trial
He knew is 8 year old son wouldn't make it and had to act fast or risk loosing his 7 year old daughter too. He left his dying son and rushed his daughter to the hospital where her life was saved.
Bill Richards did NOT want the jury to pursue the death penalty. He lost his son, and his daughter was maimed, because of the actions of this man and his brother.
A lot of the surviving victims and the families of the deceased have expressed wanting him to get life in prison for closure. Now it's going to be appeal after appeal for years while he sits on deathrow.
'To end the anguish, drop the death penalty' - In Bill and Denise Richards own words
In Globe poll, most favor life term for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Most In Boston Think Tsarnaev Should Get Life In Prison Over Death Penalty
Massachusetts isn't OK with the death penalty
It's really easy to sit back and see that this man took lives and therefore his own should be forfeit but I really think the victims and the community affected's desires should convey that it really isn't so black and white.
He knew is 8 year old son wouldn't make it and had to act fast or risk loosing his 7 year old daughter too. He left his dying son and rushed his daughter to the hospital where her life was saved.
Bill Richards did NOT want the jury to pursue the death penalty. He lost his son, and his daughter was maimed, because of the actions of this man and his brother.
A lot of the surviving victims and the families of the deceased have expressed wanting him to get life in prison for closure. Now it's going to be appeal after appeal for years while he sits on deathrow.
'To end the anguish, drop the death penalty' - In Bill and Denise Richards own words
In Globe poll, most favor life term for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Most In Boston Think Tsarnaev Should Get Life In Prison Over Death Penalty
Massachusetts isn't OK with the death penalty
It's really easy to sit back and see that this man took lives and therefore his own should be forfeit but I really think the victims and the community affected's desires should convey that it really isn't so black and white.
That's even worse.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
No, it's not.
Bloodlust is him blowing up bodies and forever altering the lives of many others physically and emotionally.
What I want is him to be gone because he doesn't deserve the simple privileges of life he robbed many others of.
CountAntonius
Member
Do you really think this is the main motivation? I think a lot of people feel safer with confirmed mass murderers no longer existing.
Not saying you are completely wrong but viewing things to such an extreme makes me wonder if you really thought out your opinions or if you're just grandstanding.
If we believe punishment itself is a deterrent, then one could potentially believe that the most extreme punishment in the US is a deterrent because it sounds rational and the data we have does not necessarily shake that rationale.
And you have no capacity to decide that. Neither does any court.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I'd still argue that the contrast is important, because that position again implies that a huge majority of the field is forming an incorrect belief on the position through flawed methodology, flawed research, flawed supporting evidence, etc. To have that significant of a disparity between what the experts believe versus the appraisal of existing research quality would severely question the practice and credibility of criminology in its entirety.]
It's not like Amnesty International "accidentally" put that prefatory sentence/link in there. They knowingly included that. Furthermore, even if you grant that all the research should be thrown out due to taint, that leaves you with no evidence to believe one way or the other, so your position should be a neutral, no evidence for deterrence one way or the other, not an assumption that there is an effect because it's "rational".
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Yes they do and they have.
It's law, your opinion is welcomed but it means nothing at all when it comes to reality.
Inertia Creeps
Banned
Don't delude yourself. This is sad, pathetic, self-righteous barbaric tribalism and nothing more. No one in this thread applauding sending someone to the electric chair in 2015 is doing so out of a fear that person will pull a Shawshank. It's because the idea of killing bad people makes them feel warm and fuzzy.
CountAntonius
Member
Well, that's an opinion.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
I didn't feel warm and fuzzy nor celebrate(always found that odd) when they killed Osama bin Laden but I thought it was a justified action.
But he wouldn't be put to use, he wouldn't be rehabilitated. If he were getting life in prison, his sentence would entail sitting in a small concrete room for 23 hours a day, for the next several decades.
To be clear, I was in favor of life over the death penalty, but there'd be no practical gain or benefit from him being kept alive in prison were that the case.
...by hurting/killing other guards and inmates?
People have posted a lot of data that shows that the death penalty isn't a deterrence and yet folks are still pretending that it is. The leads me to think that people don't actually care if it is or isn't and just want to see someone die. We even had someone in this thread post that it should be televised. It's pretty clear what the real hidden feelings behind this are.
Reality is that the civilized world has abandoned capital punishment as the archaic relic of barbarism it is.
The US is welcome to join any time. Their monumentally inept justice system should be a catalyst if anything.
CountAntonius
Member
I don't think it's a deterrent to be honest I'll give you that much.
I'm against the death penalty in this case because I think a quick painless death is too kind for him. He doesn't deserve it. I'd rather him be locked in a cell and be miserable his whole life. What do you think about that?
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
But what percentage of the 88% were murderers?
/s
NullPointer
Member
We have courts and judges and juries with the authority to do exactly that.
I'm not arguing their authority, misplaced as it may be, but their moral capacity to decide over something as final as life or death. Which they lack.
To be fair, what the hell else is he gonna say? "I'm really really scared, please let me live"?
If he wanted to go out like his brother, he wouldn't have fled. He also unfortunately didn't have a third sibling that could return the favor and run him over either.
NullPointer
Member
Why do you think that authority is lacking? Or is that just a tautology?
Are we on strictly religious grounds here?
I also think he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
The major problem with the death penalty imo is not about authority, but that the barbaric action of intentionally murdering a convicted criminal legitimizes the barbaric action he's found guilty of on a very fundamental level 
- Status