Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Should He Be Executed?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe no one should be executed.

But if anyone deserves to be executed then- he is in that deserving group!

God, you people (even the ones saying to jail him with such and such condition) are bloodthirsty and cruel. This isn't about justice, but sating revenge and finding a legal outlet for bloodlust.

No, he just deserves to be executed... at the taxpayer's even higher expense.

The legal and administrative costs of executing a person are very, very high.

Well, from what little I've read about this death penalty costs more than life in imprisonment. Don't ask me why... the judge could just put a knife in the guy's head and it would cost a couple dollars for the knife or less. But I suppose there are rules for this stuff and nonsense. It costs a lot because of the "complex judicial process for death penalty" to ensure that no innocent person is put to death blah blah blah.

Whatever, death penalty does not deter these times of criminals.

When you hear this brought up that the "death penalty actually costs more!", you can pretty much guarantee it's going to be a nonsensical cop-out style argument every time. Sure, sitting on death row for decades (probably half the time you would spend during your life in jail anyway) and enjoying a million and one legal appeals costs more. That's the problem.

It should be limited to one appeal and the execution should be carried out neatly by a firing squad less than a week after confirmation of sentence. That would dispel entirely that line of argument. A bullet is cheap. And those raising this argument are generally being somewhat disingenuous as it's not purely a financial concern but another stick to wield in their anti-capital punishment crusade. If it cost nothing, they would still oppose it.

Executing someone is as easy as pulling the trigger.

1. buy a $300 .410 shotgun
2. buy shells at .60 cents a piece

equation for the cost of legally executing any number of people humanely and instantaneously:
(Y= total, X= people) Y=300+.6X

It is all very cheap when you do it the right way, and they feel almost no pain compared to any other method.

That's not how the death penalty works at all. There's something called "Death Row" which can take DECADES. During Death Row, the person who has been sentenced goes through a constant cycles of appeals, and has to be kept in isolation during this time. I'm no expert, but I know that it's not as simple as strapping them to a chair and putting a bullet in their skull.

Just last year there have been several high profile acquittal after decade in prison, these are people who had often unanimous verdict the first time round. The quality of justice is where near high enough to justify it.

People are very poorly educated on due process and legal principle.

0_equals_true,

Actually, in nearly all of the USA (except Louisiana and Oregon) and at the federal level, the jury must be unanimous before a verdict can be rendered. If the jury fails to render a unanimous verdict, then it is said that the jury has hung and the judge must declare a mistrial.

To get an appeal, you must provide:

A) New evidence that can prove something major
B) The government screwed up the case

Most states allow for two attempts at appeals, unless you are California (You get unlimited) and Texas (you get one)
Though if the case is air tight, you will quickly be denied an appeal and further appeals.

The federal government I do believe is three appeals with the same conditions as the states.

He should be executed within two years due to the case being air tight around him.
This is much more cheaper than having him live 50+ years in federal prison on the tax payers dime.

Sorry yes it is like that in the UK too, what I actually meant that it was quick decisive verdict.

I don't want to factoid to detract from the miscarriages of justice however. The chance of innocent people being sentence to death is a very real possibility.

Yes, he should be executed. He is scum.

No, no - I understand that and the process as it works in the U.S. today very well. Understanding is not agreement, and the entire point of my post was affirmation of the fervent disagreement I have with it. But then, there are some who place the values of English common law above all and this system is in my view an overrated one the moral center of gravity of which doesn't align with what I feel the purpose of any national legal system should be.

Absolutely, there is good an bad in every legal system. English law, is far from perfect, but prefer it to the Napoleonic code though.

It only a starting point and you have to come up with your own system, just don't discard or forget the lessons of the past.

Problems with UK legal system:

Lack of clear separation of church and state, the concept of Law Lords (although we do have a Supreme court now), Catholic Relief Acts were left incomplete (although most people aren't aware there are some technicalities based on where a legal marriage can take place, and who can preside over it).

Our libel laws are also over the top. Especially with libel tourism.

The good things about our system:

We don't have plea bargaining, fast track trials, etc. Anyone who advocates these, I only point to Rudy Guede who was rewarded with not being properly cross examined, and a reduced sentence for wriggling out of full culpability, even though he is the only one they know for sure was involved in the Murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, this is despite going on the run an biding his time, which he was full aware of the media hype.

Plea bargaining was introduced to tackle organized crime but it has been shown time and time again it produced poor quality justice.

I also think some crimes don't suit jury trials. For instance complex fraud. There was a case involving an extension to one of the London underground lines, and some contractors. The case was so technical the jury was unable to understand the technicalities of the case. It went through several mistrials, and was eventually drop due to lack of public interest in such expensive trials.

I am well aware of death row, that is the reason I suggested a simpler way to do things.

I've lived in countries with this simpler system. It isn't all what it is cracked up to be. There is something called due process, and rule of law.

These are age old populist arguments.

If you are going to have a death penalty at all, you can't avoid all that goes with it, unless you believe in mob justice.

That is a nice idea in theory not in practice.

Sharia law has such justice system effectively, you can be stoned to death, or whatever.

The law is law of the land and all subject, it is not law of retribution. Although retribution get mentioned a lot in legal cases, very rarely is there any formal connection to this term enshrined in law. It is is a perfectly understandable feeling, but justice cannot to be based on emotion.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 11 Apr 2015, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.