Explosions Rock the Boston Marathon

[meikle]

Someone who takes away more than one life should be sentenced to death immediately , once proven that he committed the murder.

Then you give that criminal no recourse but to do anything at all to avoid being taken alive.

We should not give killers incentive to kill more.  It is better for the rest of us if killers are inclined to surrender rather than to die in a shootout.

[Hellis]

Also; consider this.

If we preach not to take a life, enforce it by law. Then what would death sentences be if not giant hypocritical act? Will killing someone solve anything, will it give us as society, anything back? No. Most western countries did awway with it for a reason, murder is murder. Killing a person in cold blood (yes, a execution is the very definition of cold blood) is never right, no matter if you are head of the state, a goverment or a normal citizen.

[Trieste]

Pretty much. There are certain things that a government should not do to its citizens, and taking their lives is one of them.

[Formless]

Taking a life isn't the essence of what I am saying.

But when someone is hell bent on taking another's life and they consider the punishment. They know the worst could happen is a life time in prison. Some may resort to that if they can end someone's life.

I think what I am trying to say is that the punishment doesn't make some people reconsider when they're about to kill someone. Discipline needs to be harsh in order to have someone contemplate what they'll do.

[meikle]

But when someone is hell bent on taking another's life and they consider the punishment. They know the worst could happen is a life time in prison. Some may resort to that if they can end someone's life.

You are not considering the full extent of your incentives.  We should not endeavor to create a situation where someone who commits murder is incentivized to do absolutely anything they can to never get taken into custody.  The moment you say, "You've crossed the threshold and now we're going to kill you if you we catch you," that is the moment where a strong self-preservation instinct will force a criminal to do whatever it takes not to get caught, including killing more people.

You can't put the highest possible penalty at the very beginning, because when you do, you remove any incentive for criminals to stop committing crimes.

[Trieste]

Taking a life isn't the essence of what I am saying.

But when someone is hell bent on taking another's life and they consider the punishment. They know the worst could happen is a life time in prison. Some may resort to that if they can end someone's life.

I think what I am trying to say is that the punishment doesn't make some people reconsider when they're about to kill someone. Discipline needs to be harsh in order to have someone contemplate what they'll do.

I actually already commented on that earlier in the thread. Relevant parts bolded:

I think that if he is guilty of the bombing, he should be treated like the murderer he is. He took peoples' lives away. I also think he's only 19 and 19 year olds are not always the best at recognizing the effects they have on other people. I sincerely hope that, if he is guilty, maturity only brings with it a nigh-unbearable burden of guilt. I'm personally okay with that.

He messed with my home and I want him to pay. I do. But that's not what the justice system is for, and that's not why I'm working my ass off to contribute what I can to the justice system. The justice system is there to keep him the fuck away from other people, at the very least. I know it's sort of up in the air as to whether the US justice system is rehabilitative or punitive (and it really needs to make up its mind). And if he has buddies that are planning to commit further crimes, then we need to catch up with them - but I think it's a mistake to think of the justice system as being a deterrent, not for crimes like this. Yeah, okay, you don't steal gum at the grocery store because it might be an inconvenience. You don't speed gratuitously because you might get pulled over. But making a bomb and carrying out the kind of crimes that have been committed here? I don't think anything, up to and including the death penalty, really counts as a deterrent there.

[Formless]

I have to admit ... The argument regarding death penalty never ends well.

Life is precious , but try to tell it to those who lost someone dear ... Don't tell them their loved ones lives' are dear ... Tell them the murderer's life should be perserved.

[meikle]

"Life is precious, that's why I think we need to kill more people."

Our legal system should be designed to discourage crime and protect people, not to help people get revenge.

[Trieste]

I have to admit ... The argument regarding death penalty never ends well.

Life is precious , but try to tell it to those who lost someone dear ... Don't tell them their loved ones lives' are dear ... Tell them the murderer's life should be perserved.

It tends to pull up a lot of emotions. But I don't think that refusing to kill more people is telling the victims' families that their loved ones were not worthwhile. First, we don't judge the worthiness of people in terms of others' lives. It is not a meterstick held up in any case except when someone thinks someone should die for their crimes. It is somewhat a personal decision as to whether that should be the exception to the rule, but I don't think it should. Second, the justice system makes mistakes. It absolutely makes mistakes. I ascribe to Blackstone's law, myself: "Better that ten guilty men should go free than one innocent suffer". It is easier to reverse a mistaken life sentence than to reverse a mistaken death sentence.

So for me, it is a combination of these things: 1. It's not a deterrent. 2. The measure of the victim's importance is not whether we kill someone else for their death. 3. The government does not have the right, responsibility, or obligation to take the lives of its citizens, even if they have done heinous things. 4. The idea of executing an innocent citizen horrifies me deeply, and there is no sense of vindication that comes from putting someone to death that justifies that horror.

Edit: Misspoke. Edit to change "executing a guilty" to "executing an innocent" because that's what I actually meant. ::)

[Oniya]

I'm not sure who will agree with me on this but ...

Someone who takes away more than one life should be sentenced to death immediately , once proven that he committed the murder.

Define 'proof'.  Then, I would recommend that you do some reading up on The Innocence Project.  Take a look at how many people have been exonerated (That's not just 'not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.  That's 'proven not guilty beyond any doubt'.) from life sentences and from death row.  And yes, some of them were originally convicted of multiple deaths.

Immediately looks awful damn quick beside those numbers.

[Trieste]

Define 'proof'.  Then, I would recommend that you do some reading up on The Innocence Project.  Take a look at how many people have been exonerated (That's not just 'not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.  That's 'proven not guilty beyond any doubt'.) from life sentences and from death row.  And yes, some of them were originally convicted of multiple deaths.

Immediately looks awful damn quick beside those numbers.

Interestingly, I had a bit of a discussion on FB on a friend's status about this. I mentioned that the Innocence Project had exonerated many who had been convicted based on eyewitness testimony and the response was, "As a lawyer, I have never seen anyone convicted on the basis of one person's testimony". I kind of wanted to reply with something along the lines of, okay, well, when you start actually practicing law...

...

::)

[Oniya]

Oh, there's never just one person's testimony presented, but when they talk to the juries afterward, there's often one person's testimony that 'made all the difference'.

[AllieCat]

The reason for the death penalty charges is because his bomb killed a foreign national (the Chinese grad student).

[Oniya]

Oooh, that would be why the feds are involved, then.

[Rogue]

I would like to point out there are things worse than death (such as the solitary confinement that was referenced a bit ago in this thread). Why do you think people go on suicide watch all the time in prison?

My dad works in a low risk prison and there are still suicide watches all the time. And these are the people that are being reformed, taking classes, and have a lot of freedom for being in a prison. Some of them even are allowed dogs (as part of a reform project). If these people are willing to take their own lives, why would you think the death penalty is any better? Because it costs money, lots of money, to keep our prisoners and our prison workers housed and fed.

Personal opinion: Family of the prisoner should keep them fed beyond basic necessities. They eat better than our military at times and live in better conditions. I wish Tent City Jail could work every where but... *sighs*

[Trieste]

Oh, there's never just one person's testimony presented, but when they talk to the juries afterward, there's often one person's testimony that 'made all the difference'.

Yes... and a lawyer should be aware of that. :/

[Moraline]

Just shows you how on edge the world is about terrorist bombings...

~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10013768/Bogus-AP-tweet-about-explosion-at-the-White-House-wipes-billions-off-US-markets.html

The US stock market went into a temporary tailspin after hackers broke into the Twitter account of the Associated Press and announced that two bombs had exploded at the White House, injuring Barack Obama.

In Canada...

~http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/23/f-via-plot-analysis.html

Since the arrest Monday of two men accused in a plot to derail a passenger train in the Toronto area, experts have been analyzing whether the accused received support from outside Canada, the timing of the arrests and the involvement of the Muslim community.

Chiheb Esseghaier, 30, of Montreal, and Raed Jaser, 35, from Toronto, have been charged with conspiracy to carry out a terrorist attack and "conspiring to murder persons unknown for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group."

U.S. law enforcement and Canadian security sources said the alleged plot targeted a rail line between Toronto and New York City. Via Rail and Amtrak jointly run routes between Canada and the U.S. Both companies say they're working with authorities.

RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia said the two accused were getting "direction and guidance" from al-Qaeda in Iran. There was no information to suggest the attacks were state-sponsored, he said.

In other news...  "Justin Bieber's monkey going nowhere, say (German) customs officials" ~ http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/04/23/bieber-monkey.html   :P  (I just couldn't resist adding this)

[gaggedLouise]

*nods at Moraline* Read about the White House bombing hoax five minutes ago in another paper and just shook my head. It seems the AP bureau was hacked by supporters of Assad, using the moniker Syrian Electronic Army.

I mean, it can't really be the anti-Assad rebels, can it?

By the way, Bieber was playing around here this weekend.  Haven't heard any local news about his monkey though. O:)

[Oniya]

Someone wants to touch Beiber's monkey?  What?  [/SNL joke]

[Ephiral]

Taking a life isn't the essence of what I am saying.

But when someone is hell bent on taking another's life and they consider the punishment. They know the worst could happen is a life time in prison. Some may resort to that if they can end someone's life.

I think what I am trying to say is that the punishment doesn't make some people reconsider when they're about to kill someone. Discipline needs to be harsh in order to have someone contemplate what they'll do.

There's just one small problem with that: It doesn't work. Well, that and the whole "can't revive someone who was wrongly executed" bit.

Interestingly, I had a bit of a discussion on FB on a friend's status about this. I mentioned that the Innocence Project had exonerated many who had been convicted based on eyewitness testimony and the response was, "As a lawyer, I have never seen anyone convicted on the basis of one person's testimony". I kind of wanted to reply with something along the lines of, okay, well, when you start actually practicing law...

My first thought on that: Oh really? This, right here, is a textbook example of why the death penalty is a bad idea.

[Hellis]

I think what I am trying to say is that the punishment doesn't make some people reconsider when they're about to kill someone. Discipline needs to be harsh in order to have someone contemplate what they'll do.

We used to have thieves hands cut off, did it detter everyone from stealing, did stealing become more common when that punishment was removed? No, it didn't. The reasons why people commit crimes are many and range from fanatic zealotry to desperate poverty. Beating your kids is one way to raise a kid, but that kid might just aswel decide that becouse you beat him, he has to be less open about who he is, or what he does. He might become more desperate when you find him out. As stated before, a criminal who realizes he is gonna get death penalty, will likely try to go out in a blaze instead.

Also, I was the target of three men beating me to the inch of my life, one of my friends were killed by hooligans in supporter fight between local teams here and I lost a uncle to malpractice. In neither case do I think death should be the penalty. It would not bring me my two preciuos friends back, one wich was family nor undo the abuse that I was forced to undergo. The ability to lament and Rehabilition are two things we as humans take for granted all to often. We are so blinded by our shortsighted need for immediete satisfaction that we do not understand the implications of our actions.

Do the kid deserve a harsh punishment? Yes, he does. He needs to live with what he has done, locked away till he is no longer a threat.

[Chris Brady]

Unfortunately, and there is no proof this kid will be one of these, but sometimes, it won't change them.  We like to think that rehab actually works and for a small selection it does.  But for some, prison is where they create ins and networks to other criminal enterprises.  And all that happens is that they come out unchanged and willing to commit again, and all we did was feed and clothe someone who will never repent.

Will this kid be one of those?  Who knows.  The real question is:  Do we want to take that chance?

The second, and equally important question is: how do deal with it?

Wish I had the answers.

[meikle]

Will this kid be one of those?  Probably, because the US prison system is designed to create repeat offenders, because the US prison system is a for-profit business that makes money by keeping people in jail.  Or probably not, because he'll probably get a life sentence and cost us lots of money because, hey, prisons gotta be profitable, yo.

Talk about a conflict of interest, right?  I don't think you can look to the US prison system for proof that people don't tend toward rehabilitation.  We put people in these tanks where we force them to live like violent criminals and then act surprised when they act like violent criminals when they come out the other end.  If our prison system bothered to make an effort to rehabilitate, rather than being financially incentivized to encourage repeat offenders, we might see a different result.

[Hellis]

Unfortunately, and there is no proof this kid will be one of these, but sometimes, it won't change them.  We like to think that rehab actually works and for a small selection it does.  But for some, prison is where they create ins and networks to other criminal enterprises.  And all that happens is that they come out unchanged and willing to commit again, and all we did was feed and clothe someone who will never repent.

Will this kid be one of those?  Who knows.  The real question is:  Do we want to take that chance?

The second, and equally important question is: how do deal with it?

Wish I had the answers.

We do, lest we be hypocrites and accomplices to state funded murder, effectively lowering us to their level.

[Zakharra]

We do, lest we be hypocrites and accomplices to state funded murder, effectively lowering us to their level.

If it can be proven he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, then I am fine with killing him. If he did it, why do we, as society, have to pay for his sorry ass to rot in jail for the next 60 plus years until he died or old age?  What's the cost to keep someone locked up for six or more decades?  $30,000 a year? If it is $30k a year, that's $1.8 million spent in keeping this murder alive. I'd rather just kill him and get it over with. Let his memory die. He intentionally and with deliberate forethought planted those bombs to kill people, he deserves death.