• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boston bomber Tsarnaev sentenced to death for 2013 attack

Barbaric is blowing a child to bits as he watches a marathon. He knew he would be killing children and he did it anyway.

His sentence is far better than he deserves.

True-50 years in solitary confinement is a far worse punishment. or they could put him in the general prison population
 
I do think bacon is magic... on my tongue.

I don't think it makes him go to hell, but it would certainly remove the perceived glory of being a mass murderer caused by things like getting on the cover of Rolling Stone if the attack is done in the name of Islam. He will die a martyr in some peoples' eyes.

It wouldn't do that at all. You have some really bizarre impression of Islam regarding pork.

If a Muslim is over at your house for dinner and you serve pork, they can eat the pork if they think refusing might offend you. Says so in their book.

Pork isn't Muslim Kryptonite.
 
Last edited:
He can also keep appealing his death sentence for many decades to come, all at taxpayers expense.

Once you've been executed it is very difficult to keep filing new lawsuits.
 
Good. No need to allow him a life of relative comfort, no matter the additional cost.
 
I have never understood why the death penalty is considered a more just punishment than life in prison. Life in a supermax prison DOES suck. Death is just a dreamless sleep. No suffering, no regrets, no nothing. Just like before one is born...nothing.

People kill themselves to escape dispair. We often feel relief when a loved one suffering from a terminal and painful disease finally passes away, not because we want them gone, but because they are finally no longer suffering.

Euthanizing one's beloved pet when it is in incurable pain is considered a kindness by most people.

And now we are going to extend this same kindness to a killer rather than make him endure incarceration for the rest of his life.

I don't get it.


I just don't get it.

I'm strongly against the death penalty generally speaking but regarding your claims you are wrong.

When a mass murderer is being put to death it is not done simply out of revenge(which lest we forget is simply another word for justice), but mainly so to rid society of him and the danger that he poses for good. When someone gets life in prison it usually does not mean he will meet his end in prison and these prisoners tend to be released eventually. Even if the guy is a 100 years old when he's released back to society it's wrong to let it happen. In the case of high-profile terrorists like this maniac you even run the chance of having terrorists from overseas (or at home) abducting people and taking them hostage demanding you to release him, so the death penalty does ensure it ain't going to happen.

My issue with the death penalty like most folk here is that once you find out that the guy was innocent and was wrongly accused, which is something that tends to happen, you cannot undo the punishment if he's dead. I do however have no issue at all with killing mass murderers who the evidence to their crimes is quite conclusive such as in this case. That is generally the case with terrorists' trials.
 
I don't think the jury thought this through...

This was a mistake.

Not because of the DP; I'm not anti-DP. And if anyone deserves the DP, it's Tsarnaev.

It's a mistake because there's a good chance that it will backfire. Jihadists will begin calling this guy a martyr, and it will lead to more copycat attempts at this kind of bombing. Better that he should be beaten to death by fellow inmates.
 
With regard to killer (known as specific deterrence), it is unparalleled in it's effectiveness. For it to be more of a general deterrent, it would need to be used far more often and rather publicly. Quite frankly, some people just ****ing deserve it.

Public executions is very Dark Ages and totalitarian. In totalitarism it is used as a fear tactic to manipulate behavior, but it was never successful in deterring behavior, actions, nor did it create social conformity. It just created fear.
 
Perhaps for some it will but the reality is that closure has to come from within yourself.

I do find it interesting reading the different arguments put forth relating to the Death Penalty but it's not something I have to worry about here. The death penalty was abolished forever in Australia after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it could never be reinstated 2 years ago. The last time the death penalty was used was in 1967, many years before i was even born.

My personal opinion only (I get others will see it differently) is that the life of the person that killed someone I love is not considered an equal trade for my loved one, nor will it ever be. Sentencing the offender to death is not going to automatically square things up and it won't bring closure or acceptance to the reality that they are gone and the family is broken. That has to come from within.

I agree with this. I also think that attending the execution of the person who killed a loved one, requires a lot of strength I cannot comprehend. The fact that you are going to look at the perpetuator again, is going to bring back memories. It would be very difficult, and sitting in a room to watch somebody die would add another complicated layer to the healing process.

I realize that not everybody heals the same, but I cannot imagine that would make me feel better. I think the whole process is kind of morbid. I also have doubts that the death of the perpetuator would automatically bring closure, and I say that based on things I have experienced. I have been able to heal and find closure after a crime and death was not involved.
 
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death despite appeals for mercy

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I have a difficult time building up a head of steam over it in cases of mass murder. As a firefighter who helped the victims said, "Tsarnaev wanted to go to hell, and he’s going to get there early."

BOSTON — Two years after the horrific bombing of this city’s famed marathon, a federal jury on Friday sentenced to death one of the young men responsible for the attack, turning away appeals for mercy from his attorneys and even some victims.

The jury of seven women and five men rendered its decision after deliberating for more than 14 hours. As the verdict was read, the bomber, 21-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, displayed no sign of emotion.
The outcome was a victory for prosecutors, who said the former college student worked in tandem with his older brother and carried out the attack in a “heinous, cruel and depraved manner.” Jurors rejected arguments that Tsarnaev had fallen under the sway of his brother, Tamerlan, and was remorseful over the suffering he caused.
Tsarnaev will be transferred to a federal prison, where he will remain until he is put to death by lethal injection. His attorneys did not comment after the verdict, but they are expected to appeal the sentence.

Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death despite appeals for mercy - The Washington Post
 
Ever hear of appeals?
Ever hear of people cleared of sentences after sitting on Death row for 20 or 30 years after they should have been executed according to your belief.
Guess not.
Cloistered world you reside in.
Perhaps you should re-read what I posted with the aid of a dictionary.
 
No, you quite literally do not. He is still a human being in every way. Dehumanizing him only helps people rationalize their support for the death penalty. It's much easier to pretend you're endorsing the death of someone who's inhuman than it is to acknowledge that you're killing someone who is as much of a human being as you are.

Sorry but that is your opinion and mine is different. If you intentionally kill a child then you lose that right to be considered a human. You rob him or her that chance to experience that wonder of growing up and learning about life. And then you go off to a grocery store to buy some milk for yourself.

No, he is no longer a member of the human race.

As John Prine put it best:

Some humans ain't human
Though they walk like we do
They live and they breathe
Just to turn the old screw
They screw you when you're sleeping
They try to screw you blind
Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind
 
In the United States, where dangerous criminals can be safely locked up, the death penalty serves no other purpose but revenge. People advocate it to feel better - to give people what they think they "deserve". They're sentencing people to death based on subjective notions of morality. That, from my perspective, is a very sick way to use our justice system.

The terrorists in GITMO were safely locked up. And then they were released. And now several of them are back to killing us.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but it's not accurate to claim that it serves no purpose. It serves the purpose of being sure that such people won't do such things again in the future.

Many times I've been assured that atheists and other freethinkers are all in agreement that murder and deadly assault are wrong even if they don't have a God to tell them it's wrong. So where the **** do you get this "subjective notions of morality" bull****?
 
Proper sentence and it should be carried out quickly after the appeal is heard. Look up how the assassin who killed Mayor Cermak of Chicago was dealt with in 1933. Now that was the death penalty without ten years of nonsense attached to it.

Give this man the opportunity to file an appeal and have all the issues heard at that time. If the appeal fails - then execute him.
 
Perhaps you should re-read what I posted with the aid of a dictionary.

English is my 1st language, where and what did I misinterpret?
 
Its Americas fault n stuff!

It's a seminal death penalty case, of course we're going to register our opinion. I personally believe that the death penalty is barbaric, has no meaningful impact on crime, and generally has little positive benefit to the pursuit of justice other than the satiation of vengeance. I'm not going to stretch my moral outrage muscles over this, nor am I going to picket on the eve of his execution--but I wish we hadn't done it.
 
The idea that the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent is ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is that anyone would claim to know for certain it does not. I wouldn't care in any case, because I also support it on other grounds.
 
English is my 1st language, where and what did I misinterpret?
I clearly stated that I was not a fan of the death penalty and to elaborate it is specifically because too many, for my liking have been executed who were innocent. I also stated that for cases such as this one where the guilt is irrefutable I am for it. What is the point of appeals in such a case?
 
It's a seminal death penalty case, of course we're going to register our opinion. I personally believe that the death penalty is barbaric, has no meaningful impact on crime, and generally has little positive benefit to the pursuit of justice other than the satiation of vengeance. I'm not going to stretch my moral outrage muscles over this, nor am I going to picket on the eve of his execution--but I wish we hadn't done it.

That's pretty much my take as well. US Conservative will attempt to frame your comment, however, as hating America or being soft on terrorism.
 
What is ludicrous is that anyone would claim to know for certain it does not. I wouldn't care in any case, because I also support it on other grounds.

I always point out that there are actually two types of deterrence, general and specific. Specific relates to deterring the convict himself, general is more about deterring everyone else. It probably doesn't serve general deterrence, any more than any prison term or sentence does because people rarely concern themselves with possible consequences when engaged in criminal conduct, but it is the only 100% foolproof method of specific deterrence when carried out. I think I have yet to have an anti-DPer actually address that.
 
Boston bomber Tsarnaev sentenced to death for 2013 attack

So my guess is Sister Helen Prejean's testimony to play on the sentimental feelings of the jury didn't work as lethal injection will be in this bastards future. He'll be most likely transported to a supermax, spending 23 and 1/2 hours in his cell while his lawyer no doubt will start the grind of appeals. Hopefully within a relatively short decade and a half - he'll get the needle, assuming the laws don't change between now and then.

Good riddance . . . . wish my name could be put in the lottery to do the injection.
 
The terrorists in GITMO were safely locked up. And then they were released. And now several of them are back to killing us.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but it's not accurate to claim that it serves no purpose. It serves the purpose of being sure that such people won't do such things again in the future.

Many times I've been assured that atheists and other freethinkers are all in agreement that murder and deadly assault are wrong even if they don't have a God to tell them it's wrong. So where the **** do you get this "subjective notions of morality" bull****?

Keeping people locked up also serves the same purpose.

Some people think the death penalty is immoral. Others do not. Isn't that sufficient evidence that it's subjective?
 
I bet pay-per-view could make a lotta money broadcasting this execution.
 
Back
Top Bottom