Boston Bomber Found Guilty

end of the road

Carnacalla wrote: »

For him, the only punishment I would find acceptable is a slow painful torture. Forget human rights, we know he did forgot them when killing all those people. His limbs should be cut off one by one in a sign of justice for people who lost their limbs.

if your for human rights, then human rights can't be forgotten. if you want human rights to be forgotten for him to cary out your sadistic drivel, then you condone him forgetting about the human rights of others when he commited his crime.

Carnacalla wrote: »

Why should people who commit such sick and disgusting crimes be treated humanely?

because your supposed to condemn the crime. by treating him inhumanely your legitimizing what he did and saying its right.

Carnacalla wrote: »

People will never get justice from this man. If he was tortured in the most extreme way it would not be justice, his crimes are too extreme.

exactly. life in prison is the only way.

Carnacalla wrote: »

It sickens me that seriel killer pedofiles get such benefits in prisons in Europe, TVs, bathrooms etc.

well, get over it.

Carnacalla wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is the only country with the right punishments for extreme crimes. (Although I don't agree with a lot of there laws)

and yet those crimes are rife there

Carnacalla wrote: »

A lot better than leaving him in prison and costing €10,000.

€10,000? thats nothing. mind you the real cost of life in prison is cheeper then a backward outdated punishment that failed from the start.

Carnacalla wrote: »

It acts as a serious disincentive to people to commit these crimes

no it doesn't. the evidence shows this to be extremely wrong and untrue

Carnacalla wrote: »

and finally they deserve it.

so the people who's lives they took deserved it then also. if you support the death penalty, that is what your saying.

Carnacalla wrote: »

They should know their victims pain.

[/QUOTE]

well, if you condone what they did to their victims, then fine, go ahead.

Carnacalla wrote: »

I can only imagine it would reduce it. Would you be more inclined to steal a bar of chocolate in Saudi Arabia or steal a car in Ireland?

it wouldn't and it never will reduce it. i wouldn't steal in either. all that happens is in saudi, people will do more not to get caught.

Carnacalla wrote: »

That's not the point at hand. Why should they be left in prisons to watch tv, exercise, read and get the occasional anal trauma*

because its the modern way. the backward way is the state and the people condoning the crime.

Carnacalla wrote: »

The very least they should get is the death sentence.

you condone what they did then. now were getting somewhere.

Carnacalla wrote: »

(Only in extreme cases should it be used, and this is one of them. A single murder doesn't warrant an execution.)

why only in "extreme" cases. how come one murder doesn't deserve the death penalty? you claim to be so sickened by murder that you believe it should equal the death penalty, yet a person who kills one person doesn't deserve to be executed.

end of the road

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

death penalty and death within 1 year would send out intent to others

wrong. rubbish. untrue. do we have to explain this again? it. does. not. work. end. of

end of the road

crockholm wrote: »

Without being facetious,the answer would be a judge.A judge watching footage of a murder.There will Always be "slam-dunk" cases-it is now a question of ethics as what best to do next.
I f people can be incarcerated due to their case being "beyond a reasonable doubt" perhaps if the evidence is yet more damming and conclusive a case could be made for the Death penalty?

no amount of evidence will ever be enough for the death penalty

the_syco

Carnacalla wrote: »

For him, the only punishment I would find acceptable is a slow painful torture.

Not a gang member, young looking, in an American prison.

I'd say death will be his only escape.

JCX BXC

end of the road wrote: »

so the people who's lives they took deserved it then also. if you support the death penalty, that is what your saying.

In what logic does that make sense? My god that's a odd thing to say. Your opinion is one of these modern backwards one who sees the world as dasies and roses.

Until you back up your points, I will not respond to any of your points as they are quite senseless.

Lt J.R. Bell

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Let him rot in prison knowing that he'll never get out. No martyrdom, nothing.

No, why should the tax payers pay for his up keep. We demand blood.? Death to the parasite

I see the terrorist supporter is dominant on this thread again lol (not you Fr)

topper75

seamus wrote: »

Rights by definition, cannot be forfeit. They are inalienable.

This is essential for obvious reasons - making it so a right can be "forfeit" under arbitrary conditions means that the right doesn't exist at all.

"arbitrary conditions" - we are talking about the Boston bombings, are we not?

Remember - the actions of Tsarnaev led to the forfeit, not that actions of the people of the U.S.

seamus

crockholm wrote: »

Without being facetious,the answer would be a judge.A judge watching footage of a murder.

A judge who is human and can make mistakes. Or can be bribed, or otherwise coerced. Like that judge in the US who sent hundreds of juveniles to private prisons because he was taking backhanders.
What if the judge was taking backhanders in exchange for agreeing to the death penalty?
In order to guarantee that no innocent person will be executed, your method of assessing guilt has be infallible.

Lt J.R. Bell

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

The death penalty would only make a 'martyr' of him,his lot love that sh1t.Not much of a punishment either

He will be forgotten about very quickly. Sure he is a "martyr" already

If Timothy McVeigh got a needle, this guy must also meet his doom

Lt J.R. Bell

seamus wrote: »

A judge who is human and can make mistakes. Or can be bribed, or otherwise coerced. Like that judge in the US who sent hundreds of juveniles to private prisons because he was taking backhanders.
What if the judge was taking backhanders in exchange for agreeing to the death penalty?
In order to guarantee that no innocent person will be executed, your method of assessing guilt has be infallible.

This man was found guilty by a jury. The judge only referees what evidence is put before the court and then decide the punishment

Unless you can proof that this chap didn't get a fair trial, cease the waffle

seamus

topper75 wrote: »

"arbitrary conditions" - we are talking about the Boston bombings, are we not?

Remember - the actions of Tsarnaev led to the forfeit, not that actions of the people of the U.S.

Yeah, but who decides the conditions on which one forfeits your rights?

If a country can define in law that "You lose your right to life in the following circumstances...", then such a right is meaningless since lawmakers can redefine the nature of forfeiture at will.

seamus

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

This man was found guilty by a jury. The judge only referees what evidence is put before the court and then decide the punishment

Unless you can proof that this chap didn't get a fair floral, cease the waffle

We're talking in the general sense. But even in this case, there are plenty of scenarios in which he is in fact completely innocent. For example if himself and his brother were patsies, set up in some way.
Crazy nonsense? Yes it is, but not completely outside the realms of possibility.

Which is why the death penalty is always the wrong choice. I do believe the guilty verdict is perfectly safe, but even so sentencing him to death would be a complete mistake for several reasons.

Lt J.R. Bell

seamus wrote: »

We're talking in the general sense. But even in this case, there are plenty of scenarios in which he is in fact completely innocent. For example if himself and his brother were patsies, set up in some way.
Crazy nonsense? Yes it is, but not completely outside the realms of possibility.

Which is why the death penalty is always the wrong choice. I do believe the guilty verdict is perfectly safe, but even so sentencing him to death would be a complete mistake for several reasons.

Nothing more hilarious than a poster saying oh I was "talking in the general sense"

That translates to "I'm talking bollox". Stick up the facts of this case

The laws in this jurisdiction are clear, you kill, you could face the death penalty. Who are you or I to suggest to another jurisdiction what penalties they should use?

You made slanderous remarks about the judiciary, in particular the judiciary in the Boston area.

List 3 scenarios from this case where the chap was "in fact completely innocent", based on the offenses that he was charged with.


You got proof that these lads were "set up"? Did the accussed even raise that argument?

You accept that the guilty verdict was secure, yet contradicting yourself in proclaiming that. Why would death penalty be a mistake?

seamus

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Nothing more hilarious than a poster saying oh I was "talking in the general sense"

That translates to "I'm talking bollox". Stick up the facts of this case

The laws in this jurisdiction are clear, you kill, you could face the death penalty. Who are you or I to suggest to another jurisdiction what penalties they should use?

You made slanderous remarks about the judiciary, in particular the judiciary in the Boston area.

List 3 scenarios from this case where the chap was "in fact completely innocent", based on the offenses that he was charged with.


You got proof that these lads were "set up"? Did the accussed even raise that argument?

You accept that the guilty verdict was secure, yet contradicting yourself in proclaiming that. Why would death penalty be a mistake?

Go back and read the thread there like a good lad before you go flying in on your bald eagle and making wild accusation of slander.

I see you're having difficulty separating what's an abstract discussion from what's not. Again, I suggest reading the thread again from an earlier point will probably help.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but who decides the conditions on which one forfeits your rights?

If a country can define in law that "You lose your right to life in the following circumstances...", then such a right is meaningless since lawmakers can redefine the nature of forfeiture at will.

I think indiscriminately murdering large groups of people would be a good place to start.

Lt J.R. Bell

seamus wrote: »

Go back and read the thread there like a good lad before you go flying in on your bald eagle and making wild accusation of slander.

I see you're having difficulty separating what's an abstract discussion from what's not. Again, I suggest reading the thread again from an earlier point will probably help.

I read the posts. You were talking ****e

It is bad enough that you come on here, with your pathetic amateur legal discussion, and conspiracies that have NO bearing on the facts of this case. Then you made slanderous remarks based on unquoted alleged claims about bribery

Now you start lying. You are a spoofer!

topper75

seamus wrote: »

If a country can define in law that "You lose your right to life in the following circumstances...", then such a right is meaningless since lawmakers can redefine the nature of forfeiture at will.

OK, but in this case Tsarnaev commited multiple murders. It's not like that crime was thrown in under a closing chamber door like Indiana Jones' hat by scheming lawmakers at the last minute!

Is the right to freedom inalienable also or can it be forfeit? If both the rights to life and freedom (which everybody starts out with) are inalienable and cannot be forfeit, then perpetrators walk and a society cannot punish the crime of murder. That would be simply absurd.

Taking away the people of the U.S.'s right to execute Tsarnaev for his crimes because of some hypothetical potential for execution to be used on a whim by hypothetical lawmakers isn't really a convincing argument.

end of the road

topper75 wrote: »

"arbitrary conditions" - we are talking about the Boston bombings, are we not?

Remember - the actions of Tsarnaev led to the forfeit, not that actions of the people of the U.S.

maybe their actions in his mind lead to them forfeiting their lives? if he is to forfeit his, then what makes his actions wrong. either murder is wrong or its right. just because the state is the state, doesn't mean their actions are always right. one can't forfeit their lives, so therefore him potentially having to forfeit his suggests the state condones what he did

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

maybe their actions in his mind lead to them forfeiting their lives? if he is to forfeit his, then what makes his actions wrong. either murder is wrong or its right. just because the state is the state, doesn't mean their actions are always right. one can't forfeit their lives, so therefore him potentially having to forfeit his suggests the state condones what he did

a state execution is not murder if it is performed according to the laws of the state.

end of the road

topper75 wrote: »

OK, but in this case Tsarnaev commited multiple murders. It's not like that crime was thrown in under a closing chamber door like Indiana Jones' hat by scheming lawmakers at the last minute!

Is the right to freedom inalienable also or can it be forfeit? If both the rights to life and freedom (which everybody starts out with) are inalienable and cannot be forfeit, then perpetrators walk and a society cannot punish the crime of murder. That would be simply absurd.

Taking away the people of the U.S.'s right to execute Tsarnaev for his crimes because of some hypothetical potential for execution to be used on a whim by hypothetical lawmakers isn't really a convincing argument.

it very much is . the US doesn't deserve the right to execute this man. hopefully he will die before they get the chance if it has to come to it. execution is murder, and it condones the crime. life cannot ever be forfeit. even in war life technically isn't forfeit, but its a case of self defence, kill or be killed.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think indiscriminately murdering large groups of people would be a good place to start.

but if the state execute him then what makes his actions wrong. you cannot murder to show murder is wrong.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

it very much is . the US doesn't deserve the right to execute this man. hopefully he will die before they get the chance if it has to come to it. execution is murder, and it condones the crime. life cannot ever be forfeit. even in war life technically isn't forfeit, but its a case of self defence, kill or be killed.



but if the state execute him then what makes his actions wrong. you cannot murder to show murder is wrong.

a state execution is not murder if it is performed according to the laws of the state.

wes

I have no sympathy for this guy, but I always find it amusing that people support the death penalty for a guy who would see it as martyrdom. The life sentences would be far worse for him, seeing as he wants to die in anyways. So I don't see how giving him what he wants is a punishment, but that is just me.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a state execution is not murder if it is performed according to the laws of the state.

it is murder. it is saying the actions of the person being executed were exceptable and right and legitimate. if the law says that one can't kill, but then says that the state can if someone does it, that means the state is happy to condone murder when it suits it

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

it is murder. it is saying the actions of the person being executed were exceptable and right and legitimate. if the law says that one can't kill, but then says that the state can if someone does it, that means the state is happy to condone murder when it suits it

buy yourself a dictionary.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

it is murder. it is saying the actions of the person being executed were exceptable and right and legitimate. if the law says that one can't kill, but then says that the state can if someone does it, that means the state is happy to condone murder when it suits it

Aaaaaand another thread gets ruined by EOTR's constant screams of


LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAA I CAN'T HEARRRRRRRR YOUUUUUUUUJU

lertsnim

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

buy yourself a dictionary.

You know you have lost an argument when you retort with that. Seeing as you are on about a dictionary, you should have started your sentence with a capital letter.

ohnonotgmail

lertsnim wrote: »

You know you have lost an argument when you retort with that. Seeing as you are on about a dictionary, you should have started your sentence with a capital letter.

How can i have lost when EOTR hasnt even bothered to present an argument to counter?

Murder is killing somebody unlawfully. how can a state kill somebody unlawfully if they law provides for the death penalty.

end of the road

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

If Timothy McVeigh got a needle, this guy must also meet his doom

why. because one got something doesn't mean the other should.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

This man was found guilty by a jury. The judge only referees what evidence is put before the court and then decide the punishment

Unless you can proof that this chap didn't get a fair trial, cease the waffle

what "waffle" the only one i can see waffling is your good self. actually in this case the jury decide the punishment i believe.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Nothing more hilarious than a poster saying oh I was "talking in the general sense"

That translates to "I'm talking bollox". Stick up the facts of this case

you'd know all about that. what facts of what case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The laws in this jurisdiction are clear, you kill, you could face the death penalty. Who are you or I to suggest to another jurisdiction what penalties they should use?

one will state what laws a place should use if one wants to. this is a discussion board where people discuss. if you don't like it, leave. and when a country uses a backward punishment that is the same as the crime being punished, then its right to call that country out on it

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You made slanderous remarks about the judiciary, in particular the judiciary in the Boston area.

quote where he did as such. he didn't so you won't be able to. grand so. saying a judge can make mistakes or be bribed is not slanderous as it has happened before. nothing to do with this particular case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You accept that the guilty verdict was secure, yet contradicting yourself in proclaiming that. Why would death penalty be a mistake?

actually, he hasn't done any of that. the death penalty would be a mistake because no evidence is fool proof, and it is the same as the actions he caried out. meaning the state condones his actions

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I read the posts. You were talking ****e

really?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is bad enough that you come on here, with your pathetic amateur legal discussion, and conspiracies that have NO bearing on the facts of this case. Then you made slanderous remarks based on unquoted alleged claims about bribery

seriously, what are you on about? have you a comprehension problem or something? there were no slanderous remarks made, his posts have no conspiracies just facts. and as for "pathetic amateur legal discussion," non existant.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Now you start lying. You are a spoofer!

what lies. quote them for us all to see. if anyone around here is the spoofer its your good self. insults, lies, and the rest.

Lt J.R. Bell

wes wrote: »

I have no sympathy for this guy, but I always find it amusing that people support the death penalty for a guy who would see it as martyrdom. The life sentences would be far worse for him, seeing as he wants to die in anyways. So I don't see how giving him what he wants is a punishment, but that is just me.

Why should the tax payers pay for his up keep? Get rid of him now. He will be forgotten about in the long run

crockholm

seamus wrote: »

A judge who is human and can make mistakes. Or can be bribed, or otherwise coerced. Like that judge in the US who sent hundreds of juveniles to private prisons because he was taking backhanders.
What if the judge was taking backhanders in exchange for agreeing to the death penalty?
In order to guarantee that no innocent person will be executed, your method of assessing guilt has be infallible.

I can't help but feel that you are ignoring my Point about video/surveillence evidence directly implicating a suspect,or a confession backed up by forensic evidence.
Not some fictional supposition about a judge being bribed by advocates of Death.