There is a guy named Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who bombed people in Boston during the Boston Marathon and his brother died so he blamed him. Then he wanted life in prison, but people are saying he should die. What do you think? He also flipped off the camera in jail.
Let's all drop the conspiracy nonsense. Not because it's nonsense, but because it has nothing to do with the question. The bomber has already been convicted and the evidence of the bombing links Tsarnaev in certain ways to it.
I'd suggest approaching this question like a juror. Any juror who espoused some conspiracy theory would be removed. No such theory has been offered by the defence. What matters here are the lack of Tsarnaev's fingerprints on the bomb itself, the purported influence of his brother, and other mitigating factors that might diminish his legal culpability.
Whether you support the death penalty isn't relevant here (jurors were asked beforehand if they could impose the death penalty in this case. And Tsarnaev has already been convicted. So this is how to approach the question on offer.
Ok ok, so realy back to this : No one deserves death penality c: Only a murderer will kill someone else. if the jury says : Death penalty? Well the Jury is a murderer. Thats it, nothing more , nothing else. no one deserves to die, no matter how evil or cruel or whatever he is.
@FishPreferred, killing and murdering are the same thing.... are they not ? After that is considered what was intentional and what was not.
What should be done is those that accept to give the death penalty , to be prepared to do it themselves. Favor of Execution is killing someone....
if you talk with your friend and say you are in favour of him killing your wife, does that not make you guilty too ? Deliberating in favour of execution is a murder in its own way. You accept that he has to die, and you allow it to happen.
The jury are just bunch of normal people who are like sheep and can't think. in my country there are no Jury. you know why ? Because in USA the Jury can say a serial killer is innocent and let him kill again.
Also you know what i was talking about . Not die in the sence of dieing , but in the sence of being killed.
What should be done is those that accept to give the death penalty , to be prepared to do it themselves.
. . .
. . .
. . . What????
Favor of Execution is killing someone....
Well, no, it isn't. Nor is being in favour of nuclear power the same as fissioning rare earth elements in your backyard, nor is being in favour of birth control committing genocide, nor is being in favour of government surveillance tapping people's phones and hacking into their online banking, nor is being in favour of properly maintained sewers wading through biohazardous filth with a flashlight and wetsuit.
if you talk with your friend and say you are in favour of him killing your wife, does that not make you guilty too ?
Of course it doesn't. Even if he then goes off and does just that, it makes no sense to accuse someone of murder, or even accessory to murder, if their only involvement is stating that it would be rather decent, in their opinion, if such an event were to occur.
You accept that he has to die, and you allow it to happen.
Which is only rational, because: Everyone is inescapably bound to die.
The jury are just bunch of normal people who are like sheep and can't think.
Please refrain from further disparaging remarks about sheep.
in my country there are no Jury. you know why ? Because in USA the Jury can say a serial killer is innocent and let him kill again.
So, Bulgaria has no jury system specifically because some other country has one that, despite its myriad benefits, is not purely infallible at all times?
Deliberating in favour of execution is a murder in its own way.
You're missing a very important disconnect that's in place within US courts. Here is one kind of disconnect:
1) S has been found guilty of X
2) S actually did X
Notice that (1) is merely a legal ruling in a court of law. A jury might convict someone of some charge - but, as you pointed out, that doesn't mean they actually did commit that crime. All it means is that the jury, when presented with the evidence of S's alleged crime, could not find any reasonable doubt upon which to hang an acquittal of the charges.
The same thing can be applied to the death penalty. A jury gives a recommendation for a particular sentence. This recommendation may or may not be upheld. But these jurors are asked to consider whether, under the instruction of the judge regarding certain parameters and considerations, a particular sentence should be recommended.
There are so many factors discussed here that are totally irrelevant to whether the death penalty should be applied in this case. The morality of the death sentence isn't relevant (though it's certainly not murder). The severity of the punishment is only tangentially (or perhaps better, trivially) related to the question. The point is that someone who doesn't agree with the death penalty could still determine whether that sentence should be recommended given certain states of affairs. This is something that not many people could do - but it's a good exercise for those of us not involved in the proceedings.
The people who want death said if he got life, then there's a chance it could be a danger to society if the terrorists could bargain for his release by saying they won't blow up a kindergarten if he's freed. Or he could be used to free some foreign workers or diplomats being held by ISIL.
They're saying the USA depends on it, that it's a matter of National Security. I don't know what to say. Did they just make up some story or is there a chance of it happening if he gets life in prison?
I don't agree with you guys, and i will never will. In my eyes, killing someone is wrong. I will never agree with death penalities like you guys do.
"the terrorists could bargain for his release by saying they won't blow up a kindergarten if he's freed."
the "terrorists" Would blow up the kindergarden no matter if he is alive or dead. If they decide to blow up something they do it.
I honestly think they want him dead as soon as possible so he to not leak any information of what really happened.
@FishPrefered i can not argue with you. No matter what I say you will always try to say something to prove me wrong. Point of a Debate is at the end the sides agree on something. Not that they countinue to argue forever untill one gives up or trolls the other.
And i will never agree with you. Your points are old. you think like a normal person.
Favour of something means nothing?? if you are in favour, it means you agree. if you agree, means you should accept the consequences. Kill and Murder are not the same?I kill you, I murder you. For me Kill and murder are the same. You can't change that. After the death is decided if it was intentional, or not. If i intentionally killed you or intentionally murdered you. People should stop thinking too much into the words and accept that it means : One person making someone else die. Kill and Murder are just used to replace "making someone die". if you want more meaning, then please share it with someone else, who cares about deep meanings of synonim words.
I don't know why, but my last post not only didn't show up but double posted. Sorry about that. Let's try this again.
@xerox There's already a thread dedicated to the morality of the death penalty. I suggest you go there and read before posting if you want to discuss it.
On the actual subject, I haven't followed the trial itself so I'm going by the sentencing proceedings. In the defense's opening statement they brought up 3 main arguments. 1, You can't get revenge by killing him so put him in prison with other terrorists. 2, Don't make him a martyr. 3, It's his brother's fault. 1 and 2 are irrelevant to the law. There isn't even any evidence of 2 being valid without evidence that he and his brother were part of an actual terrorist cell instead of just being extremists. 3 would be a valid mitigating factor if there were evidence of it but his brother died before he could be captured and his parents weren't around to witness their behavior leading up to the bombing. The defense is giving evidence today to try to convince the jury not to recommend a death sentence, but based on the opening statement there's no valid legal reason not to.
What is the actual purpose of the death penalty? As a deterrent, it's not really working, is it? So, that leaves removing dangerous people permanently. Which is a rather defeatist attitude to take to human nature.
