PDA

View Full Version : Legal Will Dzhokhar get the death penalty?


Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 09:07 AM
Massachussetts: outlawed the death penalty in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts

Gov Deval Patrick: Publicly opposes the death penalty. http://www.ontheissues.org/Deval_Patrick.htm

Most Americans prefer life imprisonment to death if given the choice:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90348&page=1


Therefore there can be no doubt that the bomber will be kept in prison rather than executed. No way a liberal state will be able to oppose the death penalty (esp when they made it state law)..... and then turn around to execute the bomber. Must be consistent.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 09:09 AM
He could be executed by the federal govt.

Hog Farmer
04-23-2013, 09:10 AM
He's gonna die. Bank on it.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 09:11 AM
Massachussetts: outlawed the death penalty in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts

Gov Deval Patrick: Publicly opposes the death penalty. http://www.ontheissues.org/Deval_Patrick.htm

Most Americans prefer life imprisonment to death if given the choice:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90348&page=1


Therefore there can be no doubt that the bomber will be kept in prison rather than executed. No way a liberal state will be able to oppose the death penalty (esp when they made it state law)..... and then turn around to execute the bomber. Must be consistent.

If there was no death penalty when the crime was committed, they can't create one and go back and apply it to a crime that has already occurred.
If the Fed charges qualify for the death penalty, then the Feds could execute him.

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 09:22 AM
If there was no death penalty when the crime was committed, they can't create one and go back and apply it to a crime that has already occurred.
If the Fed charges qualify for the death penalty, then the Feds could execute him.

Right, I know the Feds can go after it. (I made this point in another thread over the weekend). I'm talking more about the local environment there. Won't the citizens of the Bay State go crazy? Won't they protest? After all they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty - Surely you see the point here.


My hunch is that they want this guy killed despite their "stong moral convictions" that it's wrong.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 09:33 AM
Right, I know the Feds can go after it. (I made this point in another thread over the weekend). I'm talking more about the local environment there. Won't the citizens of the Bay State go crazy? Won't they protest? After all they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty - Surely you see the point here.


My hunch is that they want this guy killed despite their "stong moral convictions" that it's wrong.

Can't speak for everyone, but I think for a lot of people who are "against" the death penalty, they are against it not so much for strictly moral reasons (that it is always wrong to kill), but for more general complicated reasons. Such as--it is applied unfairly (disproportionately to minorities and to the poor who can't afford better lawyers and a better defense), and that there is always the possibility an innocent person will be executed.

However, when it comes down to an individual, a horrible act, and clear evidence like a video and admission, a lot of people who are generally against the death penalty aren't really bothered by it for specific situations.

alnorth
04-23-2013, 09:35 AM
Massachussetts: outlawed the death penalty in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts

Gov Deval Patrick: Publicly opposes the death penalty. http://www.ontheissues.org/Deval_Patrick.htm

Most Americans prefer life imprisonment to death if given the choice:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90348&page=1


Therefore there can be no doubt that the bomber will be kept in prison rather than executed. No way a liberal state will be able to oppose the death penalty (esp when they made it state law)..... and then turn around to execute the bomber. Must be consistent.

Massachusetts law is completely irrelevant, he'll be tried in federal court.

I think he will not get the death penalty just because there will probably be enough "my brother made me do it" mitigating circumstances.

blaise
04-23-2013, 09:40 AM
I don't think Mass.'s feelings on the death penalty will even enter into it.


If he doesn't get the death penalty he's probably going to the ADX. Either way he's going to be suffering.

AussieChiefsFan
04-23-2013, 09:43 AM
Either way, after they've exhausted questioning/interrogating him, I don't fell he'll be around for long.

blaise
04-23-2013, 09:44 AM
Either way, after they've exhausted questioning/interrogating him, I don't fell he'll be around for long.

What like let him die? They want him to stand trial.

DaFace
04-23-2013, 09:51 AM
I don't really have a full understanding of what the criteria are for the death penalty compared to multiple life sentences, but I could see him getting a lesser sentence due to the (probable) fact that his brother was really the one driving the whole thing, and he just went along for the ride.

AussieChiefsFan
04-23-2013, 09:52 AM
What like let him die? no

They want him to stand trial.Oh, right. I'd forgotten about that. They've already got enough for a "life" conviction I would have thought.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 09:52 AM
I don't really have a full understanding of what the criteria are for the death penalty compared to multiple life sentences, but I could see him getting a lesser sentence due to the (probable) fact that his brother was really the one driving the whole thing, and he just went along for the ride.

Ya' know I don't get that—going along for the ride. If he participated he did it too. He has free will and a conscience but agreed to mass killing.

stonedstooge
04-23-2013, 09:53 AM
Either way, after they've exhausted questioning/interrogating him, I don't fell he'll be around for long.

Since they read him his Miranda Rights, don't think there will be much information coming from him unless they trade him something for him to talk

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 09:53 AM
Right, I know the Feds can go after it. (I made this point in another thread over the weekend). I'm talking more about the local environment there. Won't the citizens of the Bay State go crazy? Won't they protest? After all they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty - Surely you see the point here.


My hunch is that they want this guy killed despite their "stong moral convictions" that it's wrong.

Death penalty is on the table as the federal charges he's been hit with include that as a sentence.

And he will get it. And rightly so.

blaise
04-23-2013, 09:54 AM
I don't really have a full understanding of what the criteria are for the death penalty compared to multiple life sentences, but I could see him getting a lesser sentence due to the (probable) fact that his brother was really the one driving the whole thing, and he just went along for the ride.

That's kind of how Moussauoi (sp?) got out of the death penalty. The jury said he was just along for the ride and there was not point in making a hanger-on some sort of martyr. That's how I remember it, anyway.
Except the brother here was more than just along for the ride. There were only two guys. He was one, and he was shooting at police until the end.

DaFace
04-23-2013, 09:57 AM
Ya' know I don't get that—going along for the ride. If he participated he did it too. He has free will and a conscience but agreed to mass killing.

No argument at all - he certainly deserves a VERY harsh sentence, and the death penalty wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm just saying that #1 was probably MORE at fault than #2. Whether that has anything to do with the criteria for the death penalty, I really have no idea.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 09:58 AM
I don't really have a full understanding of what the criteria are for the death penalty compared to multiple life sentences, but I could see him getting a lesser sentence due to the (probable) fact that his brother was really the one driving the whole thing, and he just went along for the ride.

Give me a break. He was actively involved in indiscriminate bombing that killed women and children and then ace a cop in cold blood and then get involved in a firefight with other cops. He could've ratted his brother out and prevented everything. He could've refused to participate.

Instead he wasn't even just a co-conspirator, he was an active participant. Whether he led or followed doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 09:59 AM
No argument at all - he certainly deserves a VERY harsh sentence, and the death penalty wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm just saying that #1 was probably MORE at fault than #2. Whether that has anything to do with the criteria for the death penalty, I really have no idea.


Yes, #1 was probably more at fault, but there's more than enough fault to go around for #2 to get the chair or the needle. Whatever the feds do.

blaise
04-23-2013, 10:04 AM
Yes, #1 was probably more at fault, but there's more than enough fault to go around for #2 to get the chair or the needle. Whatever the feds do.

Needle, at Terre Haute.

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 10:48 AM
Death penalty is on the table as the federal charges he's been hit with include that as a sentence.

And he will get it. And rightly so.


Again, I know this. I know Feds can swoop in and take precedence. I want to know how MA voters will accept this, given they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty. I just wonder if they'll be consistent, if Haaaahvad Square will have huge protests of liberals demanding no death penalty to Dzohkar.

Taco John
04-23-2013, 10:51 AM
Dershowitz believes that by not reading him his miranda rights, the authorities blew all chances at the death penalty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/dershowitz_authorities_will_regret_not_reading_boston_bomber_miranda_rights.html


I think he's probably right.

Taco John
04-23-2013, 10:52 AM
Again, I know this. I know Feds can swoop in and take precedence. I want to know how MA voters will accept this, given they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty. I just wonder if they'll be consistent, if Haaaahvad Square will have huge protests of liberals demanding no death penalty to Dzohkar.

No, and it's stupid to think that there would be. You're being a partisan douche.

blaise
04-23-2013, 10:58 AM
Dershowitz believes that by not reading him his miranda rights, the authorities blew all chances at the death penalty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/dershowitz_authorities_will_regret_not_reading_boston_bomber_miranda_rights.html


I think he's probably right.

I think simply causing death by use of an explosive can be a Federal capital offense, or even just premeditated murder, so I don't know that they'd have to prove terrorist intention.
But obviously he knows the law much better than I do.

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 11:53 AM
Dershowitz is not a partisan douche. He's known to be a political moderate. (lulz)

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 11:58 AM
No, and it's stupid to think that there would be. You're being a partisan douche.


True, we saw the war protests completely dry up after Obama was elected. Even though the wars continued. So you're right: no reason to think the Left will speak up against the death penalty for Dzhokhar. No law says they have to be consistent.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 12:40 PM
Dershowitz believes that by not reading him his miranda rights, the authorities blew all chances at the death penalty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/dershowitz_authorities_will_regret_not_reading_boston_bomber_miranda_rights.html


I think he's probably right.

I'm guessing that at the time Dershowitz said so, the feds had not yet Mirandized him. Which makes sense since Bomber #2 was nearly incapacitated and couldn't talk. At this moment it seems he can barely talk. The night of, he was in critical condition. He wasn't in any capacity to acknowledge his rights even if they had Mirandized him. (Waiving your Miranda rights has to be voluntary and knowing.)

Now, however, he has been Mirandized. Dzhokhar could certainly give enough evidence of an intention for terrorism (if that is a necessary requirement for death -- I'm not sure it is) in his answers to police. Or there could be other evidence. It certainly to me appears to speak for itself as terrorism.

I'm not a law professor, but I don't see how Dershowitz is right here knowing what we know now.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 12:57 PM
Again, I know this. I know Feds can swoop in and take precedence. I want to know how MA voters will accept this, given they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty. I just wonder if they'll be consistent, if Haaaahvad Square will have huge protests of liberals demanding no death penalty to Dzohkar.

Not "liking" the death penalty but being ok with it under particular circumstances isn't unusual or inconsistent.

Comrade Crapski
04-23-2013, 01:05 PM
No.

KChiefer
04-23-2013, 01:25 PM
To me, the only problem with sentencing someone to death is in cases where someone may have been wrongly convicted. This is as open and shut as it gets. Flip the switch!

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 01:41 PM
Not "liking" the death penalty but being ok with it under particular circumstances isn't unusual or inconsistent.

I'll grant that you fall into the category of liberals who are ok with the death penalty. At least in certain cases. Now, I ask you to grand me that the clear majority of anti-DP liberals oppose it because they are morally against it. They don't like it, they think it's barbaric, they think it's just wrong. NOT because of the "certainty issue".


Because I've never seen a liberal - not one - say "Well I'd be ok with the death penalty so long as we know he's guilty. Or he admits it." Never once have I heard that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-23-2013, 01:41 PM
It's obvious he's going to get the death penalty.

KChiefer
04-23-2013, 01:46 PM
Because I've never seen a liberal - not one - say "Well I'd be ok with the death penalty so long as we know he's guilty. Or he admits it." Never once have I heard that.

Really? That's just more evidence that you live in a bubble.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 01:52 PM
Needle, at Terre Haute.


Knew that Terre Haute was where all federal death row inmates go. Wasn't sure if everybody got the needle or not. Thanks.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 01:56 PM
Again, I know this. I know Feds can swoop in and take precedence. I want to know how MA voters will accept this, given they are good liberals who don't like the death penalty. I just wonder if they'll be consistent, if Haaaahvad Square will have huge protests of liberals demanding no death penalty to Dzohkar.


There may well be some protesters regarding giving him the needle because there are definitely some very liberal whackados in Cambridge especially.

But most folks will cheer the sentence I have no doubt. If you have some weird notion that Massachusetts is 100% granola crunching earthy liberal whackos, then let me help -- you're wrong. Very wrong.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 01:58 PM
I'll grant that you fall into the category of liberals who are ok with the death penalty. At least in certain cases. Now, I ask you to grand me that the clear majority of anti-DP liberals oppose it because they are morally against it. They don't like it, they think it's barbaric, they think it's just wrong. NOT because of the "certainty issue".


Because I've never seen a liberal - not one - say "Well I'd be ok with the death penalty so long as we know he's guilty. Or he admits it." Never once have I heard that.

I can't grant you that because I have no idea. Most of the "liberals" that I personally know are "against" the death penalty. But then some high-profile killer like Tim McVeigh comes along (you generally only hear about the high-profile or local ones), and they're not too bothered by it. Like I said, I think most people "against" it are against it as a general principle. But when applied to an actual murderer, they aren't that upset about it.

Frankly, I'm not sure why the religious right isn't more against it. Pro-life means pro-life doesn't it? The unborn baby might be more attractive to defend, but a murderer is a human being, created by God.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 01:59 PM
I'll grant that you fall into the category of liberals who are ok with the death penalty. At least in certain cases. Now, I ask you to grand me that the clear majority of anti-DP liberals oppose it because they are morally against it. They don't like it, they think it's barbaric, they think it's just wrong. NOT because of the "certainty issue".


Because I've never seen a liberal - not one - say "Well I'd be ok with the death penalty so long as we know he's guilty. Or he admits it." Never once have I heard that.

Liberals I know seem to be more against the death penalty because of its inconsistent application. Prof. Baldus' famous research showed that more minorities were being sentenced to death than whites for the same crimes; or, murdering whites led to death sentences whereas murdering minorities often led to life sentences.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 02:02 PM
Dershowitz believes that by not reading him his miranda rights, the authorities blew all chances at the death penalty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/dershowitz_authorities_will_regret_not_reading_boston_bomber_miranda_rights.html


I think he's probably right.

And I don't. I agree that the public safety exception may not apply, so any answers he gave might not be able to be used against him. That doesn't mean that he's off the hook for the death penalty, however. One doesn't need a criminal's own testimony to establish mens rea. I think there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to establish that he had intentions toward committing a terrorist act.

Dershowitz is a great lawyer, but he's also very liberal, and I think his bias is getting in the way here.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 02:14 PM
I'll grant that you fall into the category of liberals who are ok with the death penalty. At least in certain cases. Now, I ask you to grand me that the clear majority of anti-DP liberals oppose it because they are morally against it. They don't like it, they think it's barbaric, they think it's just wrong. NOT because of the "certainty issue".


Because I've never seen a liberal - not one - say "Well I'd be ok with the death penalty so long as we know he's guilty. Or he admits it." Never once have I heard that.


I think most people that are against the death penalty hold that position for one of several reasons:

1. it's morally reprehensible for the state to cause death. How can the state say killing is bad when it is itself killing people. THIS is the position that YOU are referring to. I think, actually, that most people who are against the death penalty are not against it for this reason. Typically you find, for example, devout Catholics and the like holding this position.

2. The death penalty is bad because sometimes innocents are convicted, and you cant' undo death.

3. The death penalty is bad because human bias typically results in uneven, unfair and therefore Constitutionally unacceptable unequal application. Studies have supported this (more blacks get the death penalty when killing whites than vice versa, etc. etc.).


I think MOST people who are against the death penalty in principle are against it for the latter two reasons.

Here, you've got a pretty blatant "yeah, this guy needs to die by needle", and only those who are in category 1 are going to give a damn.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 02:19 PM
Good post, Amno.

KChiefer
04-23-2013, 02:24 PM
Another reason why some don't like the death penalty is the drawn out process that goes with it that is needed to ensure they don't wrongfully execute someone. There was at least one injured victim from the Aurora shooting that said he hoped they wouldn't pursue death because it would take longer and thus postpone closure, the "healing process."

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 02:46 PM
Another reason why some don't like the death penalty is the drawn out process that goes with it that is needed to ensure they don't wrongfully execute someone. There was at least one injured victim from the Aurora shooting that said he hoped they wouldn't pursue death because it would take longer and thus postpone closure, the "healing process."



I guess. Is that a position held by many philosophically against all application of the death penalty, or just by one victim in one instance? I admit I havent' really heard that one before as a general concept.

Seems strange to me since either way the guy is going to be in jail. The only question is whether he's in jail awaiting death by natural causes or death by needle/chair.

jettio
04-23-2013, 02:46 PM
I think the best argument regards mitigating circumstances that his lawyers could make would be that he is only a year or two older than the minimum age for the death penalty and he has been smoking weed regularly since before he was death penalty eligible until a short time ago.

If the argument for a minimum age for the death penalty is that the mind is not fully developed for full culpability, then the fact that :bong: affected his developing mind and made him more likely to become overly religious and unduly influenced by his brother. The paranoia that comes with dope smoking can make a susceptible person think that he or his religion has all of the answers.

However, the aggravating factors of the numbers and scope of gruesome injuries and the callous disregard towards innocent people will outweigh that.

I think the only way he avoids a death sentence would be if he convincingly apologized and begged for mercy after explaining how he got to that point.

Dershowitz's statement about some crucial admission being excluded that would affect the outcome is off base. Even if some statements are excluded it will not matter.

You do not need a confession to prove that this was an intentional act with foreseeable and expected consequences and a confession is not needed to establish sufficient aggravating factors regards sentencing.

I am opposed to the death penalty for moral and church reasons. I also think that it is too expensive because the trial has to be done exactly right because the standard for death penalty defense lawyers is to preserve every issue and for death penalty appellate lawyers to argue every possible issue and then there are other stages of review beyond the first post-conviction appeal that take a long time and use a lot of resources if the prisoner wants his lawyers to try and save his life.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 02:50 PM
Since Hostess shut down, we can conclude that the Twinkie defense is definitely off-limits. Unless he had a secret stash.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 03:07 PM
Since Hostess shut down, we can conclude that the Twinkie defense is definitely off-limits. Unless he had a secret stash.

It could probably be extended to Little Debbie. The Zinger defense?

jettio
04-23-2013, 03:11 PM
Another reason why some don't like the death penalty is the drawn out process that goes with it that is needed to ensure they don't wrongfully execute someone. There was at least one injured victim from the Aurora shooting that said he hoped they wouldn't pursue death because it would take longer and thus postpone closure, the "healing process."

I am really surprised that they are pursuing death in that case. He seems to be genuinely crazy and I thought that was a strong mitigating factor. I think the prosecutor turned down a plea for life without parole.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 03:13 PM
I think most people that are against the death penalty hold that position for one of several reasons:

1. it's morally reprehensible for the state to cause death. How can the state say killing is bad when it is itself killing people. THIS is the position that YOU are referring to. I think, actually, that most people who are against the death penalty are not against it for this reason. Typically you find, for example, devout Catholics and the like holding this position.

2. The death penalty is bad because sometimes innocents are convicted, and you cant' undo death.

3. The death penalty is bad because human bias typically results in uneven, unfair and therefore Constitutionally unacceptable unequal application. Studies have supported this (more blacks get the death penalty when killing whites than vice versa, etc. etc.).


I think MOST people who are against the death penalty in principle are against it for the latter two reasons.

Here, you've got a pretty blatant "yeah, this guy needs to die by needle", and only those who are in category 1 are going to give a damn.

"Morally reprehensible" for the state to cause death? Are you fucking kidding me? I wonder how many millions of innocents have died in the name of United States of America over the centuries. Personally, I think it's morally reprehensible to keep these fucking vermin alive, and even more morlally reprehensible that MY TAX DOLLARS FUCKING PAY FOR IT.

As for can't undo death part, you also can't undo people getting set free who are guilty as hell because there wasn't enough evidence to convict them or because their prosecutors sucked or the defense team was masterful, so I call that a wash.

And we are awash in criminal scum right now. Our prisons are overcrowded, or streets are overrun, our criminal justice system is a sick, pathetic joke. Apparently you just want to pat these turds on the head and say hey, don't gun down any more honor students, that's not nice. Oh, and no more guns, K? :rolleyes:

We should be hanging these motherfuckers 100 at a time out in front of God and everybody.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:21 PM
I think the best argument regards mitigating circumstances that his lawyers could make would be that he is only a year or two older than the minimum age for the death penalty and he has been smoking weed regularly since before he was death penalty eligible until a short time ago.

If the argument for a minimum age for the death penalty is that the mind is not fully developed for full culpability, then the fact that :bong: affected his developing mind and made him more likely to become overly religious and unduly influenced by his brother. The paranoia that comes with dope smoking can make a susceptible person think that he or his religion has all of the answers.

Yeesh. If this Twinkie defense is the best anyone can come up with, then he's pretty well fucked. And yes, in fact, that may well be the best anyone can come up with and he probably is fucked. I certainly hope he is at any rate...

(I do note that you basically say so yourself in your subsequent paragraphs).

blaise
04-23-2013, 03:22 PM
I am really surprised that they are pursuing death in that case. He seems to be genuinely crazy and I thought that was a strong mitigating factor. I think the prosecutor turned down a plea for life without parole.

I'm so glad they are. He's not crazy. He's just an asshole.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:25 PM
"Morally reprehensible" for the state to cause death? Are you fucking kidding me? I wonder how many millions of innocents have died in the name of United States of America over the centuries. Personally, I think it's morally reprehensible to keep these fucking vermin alive, and even more morlally reprehensible that MY TAX DOLLARS FUCKING PAY FOR IT.

As for can't undo death part, you also can't undo people getting set free who are guilty as hell because there wasn't enough evidence to convict them or because their prosecutors sucked or the defense team was masterful, so I call that a wash.

And we are awash in criminal scum right now. Our prisons are overcrowded, or streets are overrun, our criminal justice system is a sick, pathetic joke. Apparently you just want to pat these turds on the head and say hey, don't gun down any more honor students, that's not nice. Oh, and no more guns, K? :rolleyes:

We should be hanging these motherfuckers 100 at a time out in front of God and everybody.


I note that I'm not anti-death penalty. Even 15-20 years ago, when I was much more liberal than I am now, I was at best wishy-washy on it. Now I'm definitely pro death.

Note that England had something like 100 separate death penalty offenses back about 100 years ago and it didn't dramatically deter crime. The simple fact is that the death penalty isn't really all that great a deterrent. No criminal really says to themselves "welp, if I do this crime then I'd get life in jail without parole so that's ok, but this other crime over here is death penalty and no way, fuck that!!"

It's just not really a thought process that criminals seem to go through. They all tend to assume they won't get caught anyway, so the punishment doesn't really matter much in terms of deterrence, with ONE exception -- prisoners already in jail for life. A prisoner facing multiple life sentences is harder to control since you can't really do anything more to him. In a death penalty state, however....

Frazod
04-23-2013, 03:30 PM
I note that I'm not anti-death penalty. Even 15-20 years ago, when I was much more liberal than I am now, I was at best wishy-washy on it. Now I'm definitely pro death.

Note that England had something like 100 separate death penalty offenses back about 100 years ago and it didn't dramatically deter crime. The simple fact is that the death penalty isn't really all that great a deterrent. No criminal really says to themselves "welp, if I do this crime then I'd get life in jail without parole so that's ok, but this other crime over here is death penalty and no way, fuck that!!"

It's just not really a thought process that criminals seem to go through. They all tend to assume they won't get caught anyway, so the punishment doesn't really matter much in terms of deterrence, with ONE exception -- prisoners already in jail for life. A prisoner facing multiple life sentences is harder to control since you can't really do anything more to him. In a death penalty state, however....

How many executed criminals commit new crimes?

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:36 PM
How many executed criminals commit new crimes?


Slightly fewer than criminals that are serving life sentences with no possibility of parole. :shrug:

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 03:37 PM
But most folks will cheer the sentence I have no doubt. If you have some weird notion that Massachusetts is 100% granola crunching earthy liberal whackos, then let me help -- you're wrong. Very wrong.


Yeah, whatever could've given me that idea? Where would I get the notion that MA was a very liberal state?

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 03:39 PM
I think most people that are against the death penalty hold that position for one of several reasons:

1. it's morally reprehensible for the state to cause death. How can the state say killing is bad when it is itself killing people. THIS is the position that YOU are referring to. I think, actually, that most people who are against the death penalty are not against it for this reason. Typically you find, for example, devout Catholics and the like holding this position.

2. The death penalty is bad because sometimes innocents are convicted, and you cant' undo death.

3. The death penalty is bad because human bias typically results in uneven, unfair and therefore Constitutionally unacceptable unequal application. Studies have supported this (more blacks get the death penalty when killing whites than vice versa, etc. etc.).


I think MOST people who are against the death penalty in principle are against it for the latter two reasons.

Here, you've got a pretty blatant "yeah, this guy needs to die by needle", and only those who are in category 1 are going to give a damn.


No way. NOOOOOO way. Vast majority of Libs absoutely are opposed to it under any circumstance, hence #1 is the clear runaway reason for it. You really think Stephanie Cutter or Rachel Maddow would agree to executions for anyone who confesses? No effin way.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:39 PM
Yeah, whatever could've given me that idea? Where would I get the notion that MA was a very liberal state?

It is liberal, but you're painting this picture that the whole state is like Cambridge, which is ridiculous.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:41 PM
No way. NOOOOOO way. Vast majority of Libs absoutely are opposed to it under any circumstance, hence #1 is the clear runaway reason for it. You really think Stephanie Cutter or Rachel Maddow would agree to executions for anyone who confesses? No effin way.

I said "most people that are against the death penalty" and then you convert that to most libs.

Not everyone against the death penalty is some kind of far left wing liberal. You're probably right that the far left wing liberals are against the death penalty all the time for reason #1. But there are many, and I would suggest a majority of those who are against the death penalty in principle, who are against it for reasons 2 and 3.

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 03:42 PM
It is liberal, but you're painting this picture that the whole state is like Cambridge, which is ridiculous.

The state banned the death penalty 30 years ago. The state routinely scores at or near the top in Liberal ID. Come on, let's move past obvious facts and get back to the topic: many of them say they're against the DP but in fact will want it for this guy. I know you see the point.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 03:47 PM
The state banned the death penalty 30 years ago. The state routinely scores at or near the top in Liberal ID. Come on, let's move past obvious facts and get back to the topic: many of them say they're against the DP but in fact will want it for this guy. I know you see the point.


errr...yeah, I agree with all that. You point seems to be that this makes Massachusetts somehow hypocritical I guess, but that's silly and incorrect, but whatever makes you happy.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 03:57 PM
Slightly fewer than criminals that are serving life sentences with no possibility of parole. :shrug:

And how much does it cost us to keep these fucking turds alive in jail for decades, for basically no good reason whatsoever?

Hey, Freddie murdered his entire family back in 1975, confessed to the crime, was caught playing with their severed heads, but he's got cancer now, so by God, call in a specialist!

VAChief
04-23-2013, 04:00 PM
Let's think a little outside the box:

* First put him a sparse cell with 24 hour video that is broadcast online.
* For $9.99 a month you can view what he does and comment (140 character limit)
* Synthesize the text using an approximation of the most annoying voice imaginable
(Kathy Griffin?)
* Broadcast those comments directly into his cell at conversational level 24/7

Interactive Reality TV at its finest.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 04:02 PM
And how much does it cost us to keep these fucking turds alive in jail for decades, for basically no good reason whatsoever?

Hey, Freddie murdered his entire family back in 1975, confessed to the crime, was caught playing with their severed heads, but he's got cancer now, so by God, call in a specialist!


I'll say it again -- I support the death penalty.

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 04:04 PM
errr...yeah, I agree with all that. You point seems to be that this makes Massachusetts somehow hypocritical I guess, but that's silly and incorrect, but whatever makes you happy.

But it does. When a state outlaws the death penalty and the citizens don't revive it, I can only surmise that they citizens don't want it. (Or don't want it enough to re-instate it). But I'm betting my last dollar that even most ardent opponents there want Dzhokar executed. This isn't hard to follow.


It's like anything else in politics: it's all local. When something directly affects me, I take notice. But not unless. The bomber affected them.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 04:08 PM
But it does. When a state outlaws the death penalty and the citizens don't revive it, I can only surmise that they citizens don't want it. (Or don't want it enough to re-instate it). But I'm betting my last dollar that even most ardent opponents there want Dzhokar executed. This isn't hard to follow.


It's like anything else in politics: it's all local. When something directly affects me, I take notice. But not unless. The bomber affected them.


Your point makes no sense when one realizes that Massachusetts' failure to reinstate the death penalty means all of the crimes occurring in Massachusetts that aren't subject to federal jurisdiction are going to be subject to a maximum of life in jail. There's no "let's vote Democrats into the White House but Republicans into our local legislature/governorship" thing going on here, or opposition to pork except pork that benefits us.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 04:12 PM
I'll say it again -- I support the death penalty.

Fair enough. I misread the initial post and thought you were stating your personal position.

My bad.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 04:17 PM
Fair enough. I misread the initial post and thought you were stating your personal position.

My bad.


No problem. My positions are rather easy to remember and can be summarized as pro death. Pro Choice, pro death penalty, pro assisted suicide.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 04:22 PM
No problem. My positions are rather easy to remember and can be summarized as pro death. Pro Choice, pro death penalty, pro assisted suicide.

Holy shit, we actually agree on something! :eek:

jettio
04-23-2013, 04:44 PM
I note that I'm not anti-death penalty. Even 15-20 years ago, when I was much more liberal than I am now, I was at best wishy-washy on it. Now I'm definitely pro death.

Note that England had something like 100 separate death penalty offenses back about 100 years ago and it didn't dramatically deter crime. The simple fact is that the death penalty isn't really all that great a deterrent. No criminal really says to themselves "welp, if I do this crime then I'd get life in jail without parole so that's ok, but this other crime over here is death penalty and no way, **** that!!"

It's just not really a thought process that criminals seem to go through. They all tend to assume they won't get caught anyway, so the punishment doesn't really matter much in terms of deterrence, with ONE exception -- prisoners already in jail for life. A prisoner facing multiple life sentences is harder to control since you can't really do anything more to him. In a death penalty state, however....

In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.

blaise
04-23-2013, 05:25 PM
In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.

They could also commit acts of violence to protest his imprisonment.

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 05:29 PM
Holy shit, we actually agree on something! :eek:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8vY-4zWKsJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Amnorix
04-23-2013, 05:31 PM
In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.


Don't think his execution increases violence one iota. Crackpots will pick a different day to "celebrate" by blowing up innocent victims, and losers will be recruited to jihad for "better" reasons (in their mind) than "they executed the marathon bomber"

theelusiveeightrop
04-23-2013, 05:42 PM
Dude should be executed using ball bearings, BBs and small nails.

blaise
04-23-2013, 05:48 PM
Like I said before, if he's not executed he's going to the ADX, most likely. There's more than a few people that actually consider that cruel and unusual, and turture.

jettio
04-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Don't think his execution increases violence one iota. Crackpots will pick a different day to "celebrate" by blowing up innocent victims, and losers will be recruited to jihad for "better" reasons (in their mind) than "they executed the marathon bomber"

Good points.

Saw a bit of abcnews tonight. Their mother apparently still thinks their innocent. Wonder if this guy plans on telling his parents that he is a jihadi warrior.

They said that she is facing a shoplifting charge for about $1,500.00 worth of merchandise from Lord & Taylor if she comes back.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 06:40 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8vY-4zWKsJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's my favorite movie, too. Damn you! :D

Prison Bitch
04-23-2013, 06:47 PM
Your point makes no sense when one realizes that Massachusetts' failure to reinstate the death penalty means all of the crimes occurring in Massachusetts that aren't subject to federal jurisdiction are going to be subject to a maximum of life in jail. There's no "let's vote Democrats into the White House but Republicans into our local legislature/governorship" thing going on here, or opposition to pork except pork that benefits us.


It kinda means they didn't want their state to take lives. Since that's all they can control. They cannot control Federal decisions can they? Therefore what relevance does it have what the Feds do here? I'm talking about what THEY want for their state. And I'm betting anything they oppose it in principle, but not in practice