Tsarnaev death sentence overturned

I didn't imply that the families should act at Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Families usually are able to approach the criminal and some actually do forgive them while others condemn them AFTER the guilty verdict and before the sentence. Their opinions should matter rather than just the opinion of an anti-death penalty Judge .

post nups wrote:

You're slacking, LRC! I usually hear about anything remotely related to running on here first.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/31/metro/federal-appeals-court-tosses-tsarnaev-death-sentence-orders-new-penalty-phase-trial/

Guy should have been skinned alive or fed to pigs years ago. I cannot understand how anyone thinks people like this deserve to live.

Michael Brown Forever wrote:

You all act like this was the worst thing ever because it was WHITE PEOPLE who were the victims. Only 3 people died in the marathon bombing. 19 young blacks were killed in Chicago last weekend alone, and no one cares!! Where is the media! Black lives matter!!!!

Why even bring race into this discussion. I have no idea what the ethnicity is of the people who were killed an maimed by this terrible human being. I hope we'd all be equally appalled at his actions regardless of the race of the victims.

checking in wrote:the death penalty should not exist. life sentences should not exist. every life may have a chance at redemption. maybe it's circular to say i can think of no scenario in which two wrongs generally make a right, because the conservative killers will come back and say, here's scenario: death penalty for murder.

but that needs some support. usually the support is "justice" or "closure" or "deterrence" - - but i'm not sure any of those hold water, at least as the death penalty is currently administered. maybe it would be a closer case if we killed murderers quickly and more publicly?

In the case of this terrorist bombing, the court found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty as charged. He should be put to death as quickly and as humanely as possible. End of story.

Complete show trial.

WE still have no clue as to what really happened.

We do know that the FBI and the authorities lied repeatedly and that the defense lawyers acted as if they were the prosecutors

Tsarnaev wasn't a registered Democrat, but his defenders here seem to think so.

The Unkle wrote:

Complete show trial.

WE still have no clue as to what really happened.

We do know that the FBI and the authorities lied repeatedly and that the defense lawyers acted as if they were the prosecutors

Shame on you for actually remembering the circumstances of the trial, and considering that a cop might actually lie, or that the FBI might actually recruit and set up a terrorist event so they could get a conviction.

Both Tsarnaev brothers were reported to have been contacted by CIA agents (agents, not case officers or whatever they call their direct employees), and the FBI never explained what all those other people with black backpacks were doing there prior to the bombing. Who knows what really happened?

Good. The death penalty is morally indefensible.

It was f'd up that the jurors were vetted on whether they supported the death penalty on principle. That clearly leads to a non-representative sample of the population.

If he gets life in prison, he's in a cell 23 hours/day. Basically he will go mad.

Then again, there's the psychological element that he is stil alive, and, to the victims of the tragedy and others effected, that is not good enough.

For people who say the death penalty i's wrong, in theory, I think they are correct. However, when people do heinous things, some of them deserve to be executed.

If you really believe the death penalty is wrong, how can you say it's ok to have someone blast off a dozen people with a shotgun and not pay for that with their life? It's society's way of saying 'We don't want you here, physically.' They get a needle and then goodbye. And lethal injection is pretty humane, by most accounts that I've read. Sure it can go wrong, but, it's not intended to be a painful experience. It's intended to end the life of the murderer in a humane way.

I know about the Boston bombing but don't know the specifics of what this guy knew or how involved he was. Either way, he's going to spend a long time in prison or pay with his life.

Sounds like he will still get the justice he deserves.

yep. the state shouldn't be allowed to execute people.

He is a monster, no doubt. Doesn't mean our government has the right to be monsters.

arpy wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Complete show trial.

WE still have no clue as to what really happened.

We do know that the FBI and the authorities lied repeatedly and that the defense lawyers acted as if they were the prosecutors

Shame on you for actually remembering the circumstances of the trial, and considering that a cop might actually lie, or that the FBI might actually recruit and set up a terrorist event so they could get a conviction.

Both Tsarnaev brothers were reported to have been contacted by CIA agents (agents, not case officers or whatever they call their direct employees), and the FBI never explained what all those other people with black backpacks were doing there prior to the bombing. Who knows what really happened?

Remember how we were told that the brothers were id'ed by a video showing younger bro placing the bombs? But they could not show us for some reason? And how it turned out the video never existed? Hence to this day there is no official explanation as to how they id'ed the brothers?

Or how the FBI needed the public's help to identify them? Then it turned out that the Russians had warned them about the older brother? And how the FBI then said they talked to him only once and forgot about him? When the mother then claimed that they had talked to him several times, they charged her with a crime to prevent her from returning to the USA?

The brothers may very well have done it. Almost certainly they were being run by the American Deep State. We will never know.

qjncoe wrote:

yep. the state shouldn't be allowed to execute people.

He is a monster, no doubt. Doesn't mean our government has the right to be monsters.

What simplistic drivel. First, let's examine what he and his brother did. They maimed dozens of people who had to under go excruciating pain and suffering. Many lost limbs, had multiple surgeries, and are experiencing unthinkable mental anguish to this day.

So if we execute this man, who ruined dozens of lives, that makes us monsters? No. Society that does not take retribution on people who commit heinous acts are making light of the victim's plight. "We know what he did was wrong but we will allow him 3 meals a day and take care of his needs, but we won't allow him back into society". That isn't justice for the victims. It's a slap in the face.

"A life where he'll never walk in a park again, or go to a restaurant, or see a movie in a theater, or go on a date with a woman..."

So...just like normal life for everyone right now?

Massachusetts is a state that allows convicted murderers to get publicly-funded sex changes.

It always amazes me when “small government” conservatives want the government to have the right to kill citizens. If you find the government inept to pass laws, collect taxes or decide constitutional law in a way that you think is reasonable then do you really want them to have the right to decide whether a citizen lives or dies? Yeah, Tsarnaev did it but there are hundreds of other more nuanced and questionable cases. When the death penalty is used is also affected by a lot of arbitrary factors including how much the defendant can afford to pay a lawyer, whether the judge is elected or appointed and unfortunately on a large scale the races of both the defendant and victim. In fact, there are cases in which two people are convicted of the same crime and only one is put to death. I’d be fine with abolishing the death penalty as a general rule. People aren’t going to start murdering each other because they’re only likely to get life in prison if caught. In fact, the evidence is pretty sound that it costs taxpayers less to incarcerate a murderer for life then to fund the ongoing litigation the death penalty can (and should) require.

He was not a "citizen".

Thank you for that clarification, Bladerunner, you’re absolutely right. In this case please replace “citizen” with “human being” and I’ll stick with what I said.

The argument can be made that life in prison is more inhumane than the death penalty. Particularly when inmates spend the majority of their time in solitary confinement (which I believe is the case here).

I understand people arguing that the state shouldn't kill people, but to me it seems worse to cage them indefinitely and watch them slowly descend into madness .

This is an alternative, humane approach I think some people might find interesting.

You get a decent life, you're just locked up and your freedoms are restricted.

You can cook for yourself if you want. You have a tv. Maybe you can even read online, but definitely your ability to communicate online is not permitted.

You can go outside whenever you want, it's just that you have a soccer field with huge fences which

you're enclosed in.

Now.. that would be a life in prison where you have an actual life, just cut off from society.

That's a very liberal, humane approach. But, this guy was part of a bomb terrorist attack and showed no regard for human life.

Why should humans sympathize with him?

I think it's the noble thing to do, but, I wasn't effected directly by the Boston bombing attack.

If I knew someone who was injured or killed, maybe I want him put to death.

Personally I do not think there is a right or wrong way to handle this. Literally out of my hands.

Out of my country. And one other thing, if you allow a prisoner outside in an open field, even with fences, it opens the possibility to helicopter or drones. He's probably too high a security risk to be let outside.