Poll: 70% of Americans Want Death Penalty for Tsarnaev if guilty 27% Oppose

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/most-want-death-penalty-for-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-if-he-is-convicted-of-boston-bombing/2013/04/30/3f547f96-b1c5-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html


A large majority of Americans support the death penalty for the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing should he be convicted in federal court, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall, 70 percent of those surveyed say they support the death penalty for 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. While most Democrats and Republicans alike say they would support the death penalty for Tsarnaev, there are deep racial divisions on the matter, reflecting a common gap in public views of the death penalty itself.

Most Americans, 74 percent, also back the decision to try Tsarnaev in the federal court system instead of a military tribunal.

[Christian Liberty]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.

This is tricky for me because I do support the death penalty for murder with sufficient evidence, but I don't actually believe that this guy's guilty.

[brandon]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate time to use the death penalty than in this case, unless some new evidence comes to light during trial. Then again, leaving this guy in solitary for 60+ years would be a nice option too.


He should be tried in a state court though.

[Southron]

I would support the death penalty if there were at least 2 witnesses to him committing the crime.

[sailingaway]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.

This is tricky for me because I do support the death penalty for murder with sufficient evidence, but I don't actually believe that this guy's guilty.

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

[AGRP]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/kni/lowres/knin193l.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc0120l.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/cheeksofgod/cartoons/cartoon032808-small.jpg

http://www.henry4school.fr/USA/Death%20penalty/images/barbarian.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Ron Paul:

Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[181]

In September 2007, he elaborated:

You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you’re poor and you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there’s been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.[182]

He believes that opposing capital punishment is consistent with being pro-life; in his book, Liberty Defined, stating "It's strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war."[182]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.henry4school.fr/USA/Death%20penalty/images/barbarian.jpg

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

[AGRP]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

We hope you learn more over the next 6 years and 10k+ posts.

[Brian4Liberty]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.


Agree.


they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.


Yeah, that is a lame excuse. Crime happened in Boston, should be tried in Boston.

[Christian Liberty]

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

As far as I understand the constitution, even that excuse isn't good enough...


http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/kni/lowres/knin193l.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc0120l.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/cheeksofgod/cartoons/cartoon032808-small.jpg

http://www.henry4school.fr/USA/Death%20penalty/images/barbarian.jpg

There is a difference between capital punishment and murder. Not because the government does it (Which is completely irrelevant) but because convicted murderers lose their right to life.


It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

Yeah. Its also funny how Republicans (With obvious exceptions) seem to think Middle Easterners aren't people. Both sides are epic fails in different ways.

[Zippyjuan]

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We hope you learn more over the next 6 years and 10k+ posts.

Who's "we" and why do I need to learn anything from them?

One would think three years and over 4,000 posts on this website would help one to understand that not everyone here shares the same worldview. There are progressives, regular conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, etc.

[PSYOP]

I'm absolutely disgusted by this...

[tod evans]

I'd like to see the fate of the guilty decided by the families of the dead and those who were maimed..

Not the media, and certainly not the "Just-Us" department...

[luctor-et-emergo]

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?


Criminal (civilian)

For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[29] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[30]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[31]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[32]

any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[33] pipe bombs,[34] shoe bombs,[35] and cactus needles coated with botulin toxin[citation needed] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

(a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Under the same statute, conspiring,attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if by death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.[36]

The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for the use of airplanes as WMD.

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was charged in April 2013 with the federal offense of "use of a weapon of mass destruction" after he and his brother allegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of Boston's most famous race. His alleged terrorist act resulted in three deaths and at least 282 injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

[Zippyjuan]

Thanks. Seems to qualify.

[The Free Hornet]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

Given the long list of innocent and exonerated put on death row (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row), could you explain the 'ha ha'/"is funny" part?

Also, unlike an unborn baby, these people paid taxes for the privilege of being put on death row.

[kcchiefs6465]

I would support the death penalty if there were at least 2 witnesses to him committing the crime.
Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. Most of the people exonerated were put in from witness testimony.

[kcchiefs6465]

Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. Most of the people exonerated were put in from witness testimony.
Perhaps inaccurate isn't the word I'm looking for. Witness testimony can be reliable. You can run into issues with it and I would not support the death penalty should that be the only evidence of guilt, though. People are sometimes mistaken for what they saw, influenced or persuaded to say what they didn't see, (by the media, the cops, wanting to be a good witness) and sometimes it is a case of the mind playing tricks on you. Not 100% in any sense.

[Smart3]

The blood lust is horrifying.

The terrorist is a 19-year old stoner. he was corrupted by his loser-evil brother who is dead. Why does he deserve death or even life in prison? Just give him 60 years and be done with it. He won't be any threat to anyone by 80.

[Christian Liberty]

Given the long list of innocent and exonerated put on death row (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row), could you explain the 'ha ha'/"is funny" part?

Also, unlike an unborn baby, these people paid taxes for the privilege of being put on death row.

You know, I'm as against big spending as anyone, and if we decide we just can't have a death penalty that almost never, if ever, mistakenly kills an innocent person (I don't think 100% is a reasonable standard for anything, but it needs to be like 99.9% for me to feel comfortable with capital punishment) without spending five times as much money as life imprisonment, than just lock them up for life, or restore the common law "Outlaw" thing. This isn't really a problem with me. I don't mind abolishing the death penalty for pragmatic reasons. I submit, however, that it is NOT murder to execute a guilty murderer, and if libertarians ever take over, theey should use it during the nuremberg trials for the murderers who have already admitted to their crimes because they are "Legal" (Abortion doctors and congressmen/senators/presidents who have voted for/ordered aggressive war.)


The blood lust is horrifying.

The terrorist is a 19-year old stoner. he was corrupted by his loser-evil brother who is dead. Why does he deserve death or even life in prison? Just give him 60 years and be done with it. He won't be any threat to anyone by 80.

That seems just weird to me? Why would we let him out at 80? Assuming he'll even still be alive then?

He's going to be screwed when he gets out anyway. No experience in life. Of course, our country has SS, but it shouldn't and if it didn't, how would he support himself?

Again, I'm not convinced the guy did it but if he did he shouldn't get out.

[Smart3]

You know, I'm as against big spending as anyone, and if we decide we just can't have a death penalty that almost never, if ever, mistakenly kills an innocent person (I don't think 100% is a reasonable standard for anything, but it needs to be like 99.9% for me to feel comfortable with capital punishment) without spending five times as much money as life imprisonment, than just lock them up for life, or restore the common law "Outlaw" thing. This isn't really a problem with me. I don't mind abolishing the death penalty for pragmatic reasons. I submit, however, that it is NOT murder to execute a guilty murderer, and if libertarians ever take over, theey should use it during the nuremberg trials for the murderers who have already admitted to their crimes because they are "Legal" (Abortion doctors and congressmen/senators/presidents who have voted for/ordered aggressive war.)



That seems just weird to me? Why would we let him out at 80? Assuming he'll even still be alive then?

He's going to be screwed when he gets out anyway. No experience in life. Of course, our country has SS, but it shouldn't and if it didn't, how would he support himself?

Again, I'm not convinced the guy did it but if he did he shouldn't get out.

I'm assuming 2074 will be a very different world indeed. He and other murderers will be shipped off to penal colonies on the Moon or Mars or another planet(oid)

I'm also assuming when he reaches 80 that he will not be senile and will live a functioning healthy life from that point on. Under supervision of course.

[BlackTerrel]

I'd like to see the fate of the guilty decided by the families of the dead and those who were maimed..

Not the media, and certainly not the "Just-Us" department...

Like a poll of a few thousand people? Would you need some sort of majority or 51% takes it?

[James Madison]

I don't wish to live under a government that has the legal authority to kill regardless of how wicked the criminal may be.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't wish to live under a government that has the legal authority to kill regardless of how wicked the criminal may be.

I don't think he did it, but if he did, death is indeed the correct punishment. The logical connection between killing and life imprisonment doesn't really exist. Its philosophically weak.

[tod evans]

Like a poll of a few thousand people? Would you need some sort of majority or 51% takes it?

No I said nothing about 51%, either come to an agreement or cut the convicted loose.

[affa]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

if they considered it life upon conception... they wouldn't. but they don't. obviously.

[Christian Liberty]

100% seems unrealistic if you're talking about a lot of people. Maybe a really high number like 95% but if you make it 100% there's bound to be someone who doesn't believe in ANY punishment and it screws everyone else over.

Then again, since Obama and DHS set this up, we shouldn't really need any votes to convince us that they need to be overthrown...

[Ender]

I sorta like the "Innocence until proven guilty" part of a real justice system.

[James Madison]

I don't think he did it, but if he did, death is indeed the correct punishment. The logical connection between killing and life imprisonment doesn't really exist. Its philosophically weak.

I don't want either.

Exiling him and his family is more than enough.

[jmdrake]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

It's funny how Republicans don't seem to care about murdering born or unborn babies in foreign countries when it's called "collateral damage." That's what I love about Ron Paul. He's truly pro-life.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?


Good question. But I'd expect you to point out that a "weapon of mass destruction" implies capability, not result. A weapon, not used, may not kill anyone.

[bolil]

I would like to see a witness. More than one would be dandy. The man whose legs were blown off... why would you watch someone drop a backback, walk away, and not gtfo?

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Epic! "You want to stop drug trafficking, for get the dealers. Start executing the bankers laundering the drug money!"

Note: I'm not for executing either, but Carlin makes a great point (as usual). We focus on the wrong criminals on many crimes.

[James Madison]

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?

Well, you see...there's this thing called 'the government' that a bunch of idiots decided to give a monopoly on legal force. A weapon of mass destruction is whatever they decide it to be, unless they are responsible; then it's collateral damage. Those people shouldn't have been in the way of our bomb.

[BlackTerrel]

No I said nothing about 51%, either come to an agreement or cut the convicted loose.

100% agreement? All the family members and all the injured have to agree? You could never 100% out of 1,000 people.

[jclay2]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate time to use the death penalty than in this case, unless some new evidence comes to light during trial. Then again, leaving this guy in solitary for 60+ years would be a nice option too.

Sarcasm? Forgive me if it is, my meter is malfunctioning due to lack of sleep.

[jmdrake]

I'd like to see the fate of the guilty decided by the families of the dead and those who were maimed..

Not the media, and certainly not the "Just-Us" department...


Like a poll of a few thousand people? Would you need some sort of majority or 51% takes it?

There were a few thousand people maimed? I think your numbers are wildly inflated. There were 3 dead. If we're going with average size of immediate family members that's anywhere from 9 to 15 people. Of the 144 injured, only 10 had amputations which is a good definition for "maimed". I assume those 10 could speak for themselves so that's 25 at the most.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

why would you watch someone drop a backback, walk away, and not gtfo?

Really?

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't believe the state should execute people. And I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." We aren't barbarians.

[AGRP]

There is a difference between capital punishment and murder. Not because the government does it (Which is completely irrelevant) but because convicted murderers lose their right to life.

Is that covered in the 10 Commandments, 18 year old Christian?

[jclay2]

I believe in the death penalty, however, I am too scared that my government will use it to execute innocents and patriots.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I believe in the death penalty, however, I am too scared that my government will use it to execute innocents and patriots.


Will use? lol Try already has and most certainly will in the future.

[kcchiefs6465]

Will use? lol Try already has and most certainly will in the future.
Knowing someone on death row that undoubtedly did the crime, I'd prefer that the man suffer his fate. (cocktails are a little bit weak for this one) I understand the argument against execution. It is a shame those that were innocent and never exonerated, even in death. Many innocent people have died in jail as well. It is a tragedy.

I am for the death penalty. The burden of proof should be extremely high. Any doubt or chance and the sentence should be changed to life w/o parole until the evidence is re-looked into. If I had my way, an eye for an eye would suffice. Though I understand the problems with that as well.

[jclay2]

Will use? lol Try already has and most certainly will in the future.

Should have clarified that. On a more global production scale into the millions is what I was getting at.

[The Free Hornet]

I submit, however, that it is NOT murder to execute a guilty murderer, and if libertarians ever take over, theey should use it during the nuremberg trials for the murderers who have already admitted to their crimes because they are "Legal" (Abortion doctors and congressmen/senators/presidents who have voted for/ordered aggressive war.)

What about the mothers whom - IIRC - you have already agreed are equally and criminally liable? Keep in mind, you will be putting "one-third of American women" (http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/) on death row. Your standard of evidence for this is non-existent: "murderers who have already admitted to their crimes because they are 'Legal'". Masterbation is legal, but how do I prove you have done it? Where is the "admitted" part?

Also, you have already excused a class of abortionists:


FreedomFanatic
04-14-2013, 09:35 PM
The term Pro-Life should also extend to those who are already born. What if the family requires two bread-winners to survive?

Innocent people who were already born, yes. Murderers (I'd agree that an abortion as an act of self-defense to save the mother's life does not really make one a murderer, see the analogy that I gave above) no longer have any right to life.

www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-411287.html (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-411287.html)

Look for others to excuse incest, rape, early term, birth defects, youthful indiscretion.

Anyway, that said, I grow tire of what you would do with power. You'll get little support from libertarians.

Thanks for one more reason to oppose the death penalty: people like you are on the juries.

[PierzStyx]

I wish there was a modern day John Adams to defend Tsarnaev. No matter how "apparent" his guilt may be, he deserves the best defense possible starting with an assumption of innocence. I really got the feeling he is in for more of a very public, very proper, lynching.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No matter how "apparent" his guilt may be, he deserves the best defense possible starting with an assumption of innocence.

That's a little hard to do when he already admitted it and has given police details. If he was swearing up-and-down it wasn't him, it'd be a different story.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Well, you see...there's this thing called 'the government' that a bunch of idiots decided to give a monopoly on legal force. A weapon of mass destruction is whatever they decide it to be, unless they are responsible; then it's collateral damage. Those people shouldn't have been in the way of our bomb.
It's somewhat ironic though.. In military terms a WMD is something either nuclear, chemical or biological in nature. In civil law almost anything is a WMD. By the civil standards Iraq was and still is full of WMD's. But I suppose that logically follows the lower accountability for violence in warfare opposed to civil life... It does not radiate morality or logic however.

[PierzStyx]

Is that covered in the 10 Commandments, 18 year old Christian?

The Ten? No. In the Bible? Repeatedly. And not just in Mosaic Law either. The Noahide Laws covered capital punishment for murderers very clearly. Its among the first things God told Noah when he exited the Ark after the flood for the first time.

Also there is a school of thought that says the "Thou shall not kill" in the Ten is actually an English mistranslation. A more proper translation would be "Thou shall not murder." Which makes a lot of sense when you consider the Mosaic Law itself authorized capital punishment for a whole list of crimes.

[PierzStyx]

That's a little hard to do when he already admitted it and has given police details. If he was swearing up-and-down it wasn't him, it'd be a different story.

Before they read him his Miranda Rights. In a civilian case anything he said would be inadmissible as evidence based on the potential for coercion from the police and ignorance of the accused. (Which is probably one of the reasons he is being tried in a Federal court.) The whole concept of Miranda Rights exists because cops used to do just that, use force and the threat of violence as a way to get innocent people to confess to crimes.

In any case people have confessed to crimes they did not commit repeatedly through out history for all sorts of reasons. Confession does not actually prove guilt.

[V3n]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz2inoysrF1roh8k6o1_1280.jpg

[donnay]

Dead men tell no tales. Just like Timothy McVeigh was swiftly executed and why there has been no exclusive uncensored interview with Terry Nichols.

[Christian Liberty]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz2inoysrF1roh8k6o1_1280.jpg

Yeah, nice quote from a guy who killed so many orcs:D

[BlackTerrel]

There were a few thousand people maimed? I think your numbers are wildly inflated. There were 3 dead. If we're going with average size of immediate family members that's anywhere from 9 to 15 people. Of the 144 injured, only 10 had amputations which is a good definition for "maimed". I assume those 10 could speak for themselves so that's 25 at the most.

Ok fine. Immediate family of dead - only parents, children, brothers, sisters. And only people who have amptuations can vote. Any injuries aside from amputations can't vote. And this group of people have to come to a unanimous decision on the penalty for the bombers.

Still strikes me as complex.

[Slutter McGee]

From Wikipedia:


Crimes

Anderson kidnapped and murdered five-year-old Audra Ann Reeves, in Amarillo, Texas on June 9, 1992. Anderson told police that he kidnapped Reeves as she was returning home from playing in a park. He brought her inside his house and unsuccessfully tried to rape her. He then beat, stabbed, and drowned Reeves, then stored her body in a styrofoam ice chest. Her body was found that day by a neighbor throwing out trash. Anderson was identified as the person who discarded the chest, was apprehended by police, and confessed almost immediately.

Anderson said he committed the crime after a dispute with his wife of eight months. The Associated Press quoted Anderson as saying, "The whole day revolved around the fight. She stormed out of the house and said when she returned she didn't want to find me." [1]
Execution

Anderson was sentenced to death and was executed by lethal injection in Texas on July 20, 2006.

Some people just deserve to die.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Ender]

That's a little hard to do when he already admitted it and has given police details. If he was swearing up-and-down it wasn't him, it'd be a different story.


Who says he has admitted it?

[DamianTV]

Guilty by MSM, not a Jury, or a Fair Trial.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Who says he has admitted it?

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_confesses/

[MelissaWV]

Ok fine. Immediate family of dead - only parents, children, brothers, sisters. And only people who have amptuations can vote. Any injuries aside from amputations can't vote. And this group of people have to come to a unanimous decision on the penalty for the bombers.

Still strikes me as complex.

It is, especially since a large number have other extensive soft tissue damage caused by projectiles and were in surgery to try to salvage limbs... but they don't have a claim in this scenario because they got to keep the limb (whether or not it's of much use).

[alucard13mmfmj]

Either he will get a fair trial....or he won't get a fair trial.

[V3n]

Yeah, nice quote from a guy who killed so many orcs:D

LOL! They were an imminent combatant threat!

(and he wasn't eager to do it!!)

[tod evans]

Actually I started this scenario and "maimed" is the criteria I gave...:o



I'd like to see the fate of the guilty decided by the families of the dead and those who were maimed..

Not the media, and certainly not the "Just-Us" department...


It is, especially since a large number have other extensive soft tissue damage caused by projectiles and were in surgery to try to salvage limbs... but they don't have a claim in this scenario because they got to keep the limb (whether or not it's of much use).

[ClydeCoulter]

I would like to know the inhabitants of what planets within which solar systems would be considered, that a "jury of his piers" could be found that have not been biased or compromised.

[Ender]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_confesses/

Oh, yeah! Those famous "official unnamed sources".

Riiiiiight.

The kid's confession should speed up internet censorship and keep the ME conflicts going beautifully.

How convenient.

[wizardwatson]

From Wikipedia:



Some people just deserve to die.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Why? Because what he did offends people?

The death penalty is wrong on so many levels that I wonder how anyone in this movement can still believe in it.

Maybe we keep him alive and he cures cancer. Or he works at a job and the money feeds hungry kids. Killing him will prevent him from killing but it also prevents him from doing any good. Even if he's economically useless and we can learn nothing by studying him it's still dangerous to kill him. People in this movement love to talk about blowback. The moral and philosophical blowback from executing someone should be obvious.

Oh, but if we have perfect information, and those closest to the victim want to kill him then we should. Is this ever possible? Can we know whether the cops, the witnesses, the judges, the DA, the lawyers, if they ever made a moral compromise or used deception to insure his death? In my opinion we're making a moral compromise by supporting this ridiculous idea at all.

Oh, but the family! Who cares? The victim of murder will never get justice. And if are Christian you believe that she is with God. Is Christ going to console her with the promise that the murderer will be executed? Does the victim want her murderer to be executed?

All that aside the movement will probably never have a consensus on this issue (even though it definitely should) therefore it's a non-issue when it comes to a strategy. So it's not a political end goal. We should at least have a consensus on that fact.

If you want a political end goal how about this. You can sign your drivers license to indicate you will donate your organs upon your death. How about we pass a law that allows all citizens to indicate via a government form whether they want their would be murderer to be sentenced to death via "due process". Let the parents choose for their kids so they can deal with the fact that their kids will grow up and say "why did you do that? that's not right".

So let's do it. I like this idea. I think I'll start a petition for everyone that wants their potential murderer to be sentenced to death. It's actually brilliant. This way the murderers are more likely to kill the people who don't sign the petition then do because they'll be afraid of the death penalty! Then the people who don't sign will be scared that they will be targeted unfairly so they'll get scared and sign the petition too! It's genius! [/sarcasm]

[tod evans]

Some people just deserve to die.


I'd be okay with the public execution of prosecuting attorneys who file one frivolous or duplicitous charge...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Oh, yeah! Those famous "official unnamed sources".

Riiiiiight.

The kid's confession should speed up internet censorship and keep the ME conflicts going beautifully.

How convenient.

At least I posted a source. Do you have anything to suggest Tsarnaev hasn't admitted anything to police, other than your own wishful thinking?

[Aratus]

the WMD charge opens him up to the death penalty.
massachusetts does not usually execute people now.
its a civilian court, not a military tribunal, but if found
guilty, he can be executed if he does not spend at least
twenty to thirty years behind bars inside a federal prison.

[Ender]

At least I posted a source. Do you have anything to suggest Tsarnaev hasn't admitted anything to police, other than your own wishful thinking?


Ahhh.... so doubts raised by lack of evidence are now called "wishful thinking". And of course what ever the Salon says must be true.

I think the article that donnay posted by Paul Craig Roberts in much closer to the mark than any MSM:


Where is the evidence of a first shoot-out and a second shoot-out? The second shoot- out consisted of the authorities bombarding a motionless youth bleeding from wounds in a boat with multiple volleys of stun grenades and then multiple gunshots. The unconscious 19 year old was unarmed and unable to respond to the boat owner who discovered him. As he lies there, he is shot many times, including through the throat, and is on life support. But the very next day, according to the presstitute media, he is providing hand-written confessions.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?413156-You-Are-The-Hope&p=5006368#post5006368

[tod evans]

I'd be okay with the public execution of prosecuting attorneys who file one frivolous or duplicitous charge...


the WMD charge opens him up to the death penalty.


Point made!

[SkepticalMetal]

Who really cares about these polls? It's not like they went around interviewing every single American. This isn't to say that there isn't a large amount of bloodthirsty residents of the United States, but I think it's really annoying when news sites try to pass this off as "we polled ALL Americans, and this is what they had to say."

[BlackTerrel]

Who really cares about these polls? It's not like they went around interviewing every single American. This isn't to say that there isn't a large amount of bloodthirsty residents of the United States

I don't think wanting to kill a mass murderer makes someone bloodthirsty.


but I think it's really annoying when news sites try to pass this off as "we polled ALL Americans, and this is what they had to say."

I don't think any news site claims they polled all Americans ever.

Polls CAN be manipulated. But it is also true that when polls are used correctly they are usually accurate within a margin of error. Companies make billion dollar decisions off polling data. They wouldn't do this if the information they provided wasn't accurate.

[BlackTerrel]

Who really cares about these polls? It's not like they went around interviewing every single American. This isn't to say that there isn't a large amount of bloodthirsty residents of the United States

I don't think wanting to kill a mass murderer makes someone bloodthirsty.


but I think it's really annoying when news sites try to pass this off as "we polled ALL Americans, and this is what they had to say."

I don't think any news site claims they polled all Americans ever.

Polls CAN be manipulated. But it is also true that when polls are used correctly they are usually accurate within a margin of error. Companies make billion dollar decisions off polling data. They wouldn't do this if the information they provided wasn't accurate.

[Ender]

Again-

How about innocent until proven guilty?

Then it is time for sentencing.

[BlackTerrel]

Again-

How about innocent until proven guilty?

See thread title. If guilty.

[Ender]

See thread title. If guilty.


Saw the thread title-

It allows that the kid is probably guilty.

[BlackTerrel]

Saw the thread title-

It allows that the kid is probably guilty.

He probably is.

[anaconda]

It will just be a sham kangaroo court anyway. So the question is essentially moot.

[mtr1979]

I've heard the argument that goes something like this: I don't trust the government to to do _________ so why would I trust them to put someone to death.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've heard the argument that goes something like this: I don't trust the government to to do _________ so why would I trust them to put someone to death.
That is pretty much my dilemma.

I recognize that many people ought to be put down but understand the inaptness and incompetency of the different agencies. Innocent men have been executed. Innocent men have passed in prison 'naturally.' It is fact, and I couldn't even begin to imagine their plight. I'm on the fence for capital punishment. My views are evolving and I understand the arguments for both sides.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

See thread title.

Which was changed. Gee, wonder which moderator could have done that? :rolleyes:

[tangent4ronpaul]

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?

I wonder how many cluster bombs the US dropped on the middle east today?

-t

[BlackTerrel]

Which was changed. Gee, wonder which moderator could have done that? :rolleyes:

Didn't realize that. What was original thread title?

[Slutter McGee]

I don't really have a problem with state sanctioned executions as long as they are done at the State level. I think it is often appropriate punishment, decided by a jury of their peers in their District/County. I do have a problem with Federal executions. I don't want that power in the hands of the Federal Government, outside of the military.

Slutter McGee

[tod evans]

Federal executions are court sanctioned not court ordered..

In the end there's a dead citizen at the hands of the federal government.

[Kregisen]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate time to use the death penalty than in this case, unless some new evidence comes to light during trial. Then again, leaving this guy in solitary for 60+ years would be a nice option too.


He should be tried in a state court though.

Keep in mind...this is the death penalty we're talking about. If he did get the death penalty, he would likely sit in prison for 20 years before he was killed anway.

[Kregisen]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/kni/lowres/knin193l.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc0120l.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/cheeksofgod/cartoons/cartoon032808-small.jpg

http://www.henry4school.fr/USA/Death%20penalty/images/barbarian.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Ron Paul:

Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[181]

In September 2007, he elaborated:

You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you’re poor and you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there’s been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.[182]

He believes that opposing capital punishment is consistent with being pro-life; in his book, Liberty Defined, stating "It's strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war."[182]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

AGRP I agree with you on a ton of issues but these comics don't make a lot of sense. Using this logic that you're using, that the government can never kill guilty people because it's not moral to kill someone, is the same argument as saying the government can never imprison someone because it's not moral to kidnap someone. Using this logic, you are saying murderers can roam the streets, and NOBODY, not even the government, can touch them. Horrible logic.