Boston Bomber Found Guilty

Lt J.R. Bell

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Wrong decision, should have let him rot for life. Do we need more martyrs ?

He will be forgotten about, even by his pals

Lt J.R. Bell

My name is URL wrote: »

And where do you think the money comes from in order to carry out the death penalty, with all the appeals and other costs that go with it?

It's more expensive to sentence and execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for 25+ years.

Anyone got any stats for that? From proper sources?

SummerSummit

My name is URL wrote: »

The amount of sheer idiocy in this thread is unbelievable even for AH :rolleyes:

How many of the IRA terrorist bombers are still in jail?

My name is URL

SummerSummit wrote: »

How many of the IRA terrorist bombers are still in jail?

I didn't realise your man was in the IRA

You'd have to be one dense fucker to believe he'd be out of jail by the time he turned 30 if he committed the crime in Ireland

Ardent

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Anyone got any stats for that? From proper sources?

They don't because it's complete made up bullsh!t.

Mesrine65

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31614

end of the road

SummerSummit wrote: »

How many of the IRA terrorist bombers are still in jail?

the IRA heroes were political prisoners.

end of the road

Ardent wrote: »

They don't because it's complete made up bullsh!t.

they do because its fact, and it all has been posted to death on this forum

My name is URL

Ardent wrote: »

They don't because it's complete made up bullsh!t.

No it isn't. A cursory search will give you countless studies and reports which prove it's more expensive.

I'm not going to waste my time providing a load of links that the likes of yourself will just ignore anyway, but here's one to get you started if you want to do some research yourself.

Consequently, while cost is not the only factor to be considered, when it comes down to an argument regarding the benefits of the death penalty to society, the argument that it is cheaper to execute someone than keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives is utterly wrong.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31614

Lt J.R. Bell

Arsemageddon wrote: »

....am I the only person in the world who thinks the Boston bombing was a pretty minor event in the greater scheme of things?

Yeah, but since America, was the "victim" all the rules change.

Sure, when it happened, you watched all their sports events etc, you'd swear their people thought, "why us, never thought that would happen", despite retaliatory stuff like this happening all the time elsewhere

Lt J.R. Bell

My name is URL wrote: »

No it isn't. A cursory search will give you countless studies and reports which prove it's more expensive.

I'm not going to waste my time providing a load of links that the likes of yourself will just ignore anyway, but here's one to get you started if you want to do some research yourself.



http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31614

You and your pals, are the ones that are making the arguments. Not us. You and your pals have been called to prove your argument.That's how discussions go. I have asked for sources, I won't ignore them

So, by all means let ye produce the goods. As you say,it shouldn't be hard (I note you have put up on article)

My name is URL

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You and your pals, are the ones that are making the arguments. Not us. You and your pals have been called to prove your argument.That's how discussions go. I have asked for sources, I won't ignore them

So, by all means let ye produce the goods. As you say,it shouldn't be hard

You've already ignored the sources provided ffs

Lt J.R. Bell

My name is URL wrote: »

You've already ignored the sources provided ffs

I edited my post BEFORE you typed your recent response. The edit acknowledged your one source. Ffs

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

as they are planning to butcher him in revenge for killing others, yes . if they condemn it, they would lock him up in prison for life instead.



i might as well not, as i only have sympathy for the fact he will be butchered by the state for blood lust revenge to satisfy wild animals. killing one to show killing is wrong legitimizes killing. nothing to do with sympathy. i have sympathy for anyone being butchered by the state. have none for those simply locked up for life.

Absolute hyperbole. That language is ridiculous. ISIS, they're butchers. A regulated lethal injection is 100 times more humane than a crude nail bomb obliterating an innocent 8 year old child. Have your opinion by all means, but your OTT wording just diminishes it.

Jimoslimos

Omackeral wrote: »

Absolute hyperbole. That language is ridiculous. ISIS, they're butchers. A regulated lethal injection is 100 times more humane than a crude nail bomb obliterating an innocent 8 year old child. Have your opinion by all means, but your OTT wording just diminishes it.

Complains about ridiculous OTT language....then uses an appeal to emotion a few sentences later. Obliterated?

weldoninhio

end of the road wrote: »

can't be done, its against international and human rights law. rightly so

I'm sure the U.S. govt do a lot of things that are against the law. More power to them.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm sure the U.S. govt do a lot of things that are against the law. More power to them.

i'm sure they do. not more power to them at all. countries need to be forced into obeying human rights law.

Billy86

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He will get exactly what he deserves for his sick crimes, personally think they should burn people like him at the stake.

That would work a wonder against stopping other young men taking up Islamic extremism, alright!

DamagedTrax

Billy86 wrote: »

That would work a wonder against stopping other young men taking up Islamic extremism, alright!

someday people will realise the irony of the america/isis connections.

shame no-one seems to be rushing to burn the CIA ops that most likely talked the brothers into this.. islamic extremism my hole. CIA funded terrorism more like.

PeteFalk78

end of the road wrote: »

Obviously they are happy with what he did otherwise they wouldn't kill him as well.

So you think that a death penalty is more humane than a life sentence?

Hans Bricks

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Complains about ridiculous OTT language....then uses an appeal to emotion a few sentences later. Obliterated?

Pedantic really. Three people were actually killed by two crude pressure cooker bombs. Hence the pointing out of the crap analogy by EOTR and his usual nonsense like "butchery".

end of the road wrote: »

as they are planning to butcher him in revenge for killing others, yes . if they condemn it, they would lock him up in prison for life instead.


i might as well not, as i only have sympathy for the fact he will be butchered by the state for blood lust revenge to satisfy wild animals. killing one to show killing is wrong legitimizes killing. nothing to do with sympathy. i have sympathy for anyone being butchered by the state. have none for those simply locked up for life.

So euthanasia then, that legitimizes killing, turning off life support for those in vegetative states & comas ? You say killing without putting any thought into the word.

Emotive language doesn't diminish stupid points. I may not agree with the death penalty, but calling it butchery or more humane than life long confinement and mental breakdown in federal prison is naive.

end of the road

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Pedantic really. Three people were actually killed by two crude pressure cooker bombs. Hence the pointing out of the crap analogy by EOTR and his usual nonsense like "butchery".



So euthanasia then, that legitimizes killing, turning off life support for those in vegetative states & comas ? You say killing without putting any thought into the word.

Emotive language doesn't diminish stupid points. I may not agree with the death penalty, but calling it butchery or more humane than life long confinement and mental breakdown in federal prison is naive.

who said it was more humain then prison? it is butchery. it is taking the life of someone against their will. so yes its premeditated murder

Hans Bricks

end of the road wrote: »

who said it was more humain then prison? it is butchery. it is taking the life of someone against their will. so yes its premeditated murder

What do they take a cleaver and dice them into mince meat in front of horrified onlookers ? :rolleyes: The process of lethal injection is humane whether you would admit it or not.

Premeditated murder is legal jargon. Much like 1st degree, 2nd degreee, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, lawful killing ...

Do try keep up.

end of the road

Hans Bricks wrote: »

What do they take a cleaver and dice them into mince meat in front of horrified onlookers ? :rolleyes: The process of lethal injection is humane whether you would admit it or not.

Premeditated murder is legal jargon. Much like 1st degree, 2nd degreee, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, lawful killing ...

Do try keep up.

the lethal injection used to murder people against their will for this backward punishment that belongs back in the stone age like isis and their ideals is inhumain

Hans Bricks

end of the road wrote: »

the lethal injection used to murder people against their will for this backward punishment that belongs back in the stone age like isis and their ideals is inhumain

The wheels' still spinning but the hamster is dead.

Stheno

end of the road wrote: »

the lethal injection used to murder people against their will for this backward punishment that belongs back in the stone age like isis and their ideals is inhumain

That sentence makes no sense at all

end of the road

Stheno wrote: »

That sentence makes no sense at all

it very much does. the lethal injection used is inhumain. the death penalty belongs back in the stone age along with isis and their ideas.

Omackeral

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Complains about ridiculous OTT language....then uses an appeal to emotion a few sentences later. Obliterated?

Yeah, as in blasted nails from a bomb ripped through his 8 year old body and tore him to bits. Pretty much a definition there.

My name is URL

Omackeral wrote: »

Yeah, as in blasted nails from a bomb ripped through his 8 year old body and tore him to bits. Pretty much a definition there.

Doesn't change the fact that you're being overly emotive in what you say and use as arguments.

Even that kid's parents opposed the death sentence in the trial... but what does their opinion or experience matter over those who are unattached in any way and thousands of miles away from it all? /s

Parents of Youngest Boston Marathon Victim Oppose Death Penalty for Tsarnaev

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/us/martin-richard-boston-marathon-bombing.html

We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul. We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

Hans Bricks

My name is URL wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that you're being overly emotive in what you say and use as arguments.

Even that kid's parents opposed the death sentence in the trial... but what does their opinion or experience matter over those who are unattached in any way and thousands of miles away from it all? /s



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/us/martin-richard-boston-marathon-bombing.html



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

I think Omackeral's point is that EOTR labeling a lethal injection as "butchery" more than undermines the serious injuries inflicted on Bostonians from the very fucker he claims has been "murdered" by the state.

end of the road

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I think Omackeral's point is that EOTR labeling a lethal injection as "butchery" more than undermines the serious injuries inflicted on Bostonians from the very ****er he claims has been "murdered" by the state.

i didn't "claim" he will be murdered by the state, i gave the fact that he will be murdered by the state

Omackeral

That's right, I was taking umbrage (great word) with the word butchery and how it was nonchalantly being used, as it stirs up images of gruesome beheadings and machete wielding nutters like ISIS and Boko Haram.

As for the word obliterate? I stand by that. It's defined in the Oxford dictionary as 'to totally destroy'. That's what bombs do by their nature. So I wasn't being emotive. Descriptive, perhaps.

For the record, I never stated one way or the other on this tread whether I was pro or anti death penalty. In general, I'm against it.

Hans Bricks

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't "claim" he will be murdered by the state, i gave the fact that he will be murdered by the state

Except for the simple, simple, simple fact that murder is a legal definition. Do you deliberately try and make an utter fool of yourself or something ?

You'd be great on a debating platform. "Eh... eh..eh..eh what he said is completely false. I have no reason or justification as to why that is, but it's fact, you'll just have to blindly trust me on it".

end of the road

the death penalty is a planned murder of a citizen by the state, or in americas case whoever it feels like. it is premeditated and has no legitimacy. it does not show murdering or any crime is wrong, and in actual fact i believe it shows condonation for the crime its implemented for. if your against a crime your against the death penalty

Lt J.R. Bell

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't "claim" he will be murdered by the state, i gave the fact that he will be murdered by the state

If we are going to get pedantic on the use of terms, how about refraining from the use of the word, "murder". The use of the term is inaccurate

Murder is the unlawful killing of another

In parts of America, who have voluntarily retained the old law, it is very much legal. No International Court can over rule it, not that America would paid heed to such a ruling anyway

The use if the term is incorrect and an abuse of the term

end of the road

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

In parts of America, who have voluntarily retained the old law, it is very much legal.

it has no legitimacy. these parts of america are usually filled with religious nuts anyway so its not surprising they still have the old backward stone age rules.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No International Court can over rule it, not that America would paid heed to such a ruling anyway

of course. paying heed to international court rulings is for everyone else. america and a certain other country are exempt from doing what they are told.

Irish Praetorian

end of the road wrote: »

of course. paying heed to international court rulings is for everyone else. america and a certain other country are exempt from doing what they are told.

Rrrright....only America and friends violate international law, no other country in the world would be so super DUPER evil...

end of the road

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Rrrright....only America and friends violate international law, no other country in the world would be so super DUPER evil...

of course they do. however its only america britain israel and a couple of others that bitch about countries doing this and that while doing the exact same. the rest get on with what they are doing

Manic Moran

end of the road wrote: »

it has no legitimacy. these parts of america are usually filled with religious nuts anyway so its not surprising they still have the old backward stone age rules.

California is filled with religious nuts? We had a referendum on capital punishment only a couple of years ago, we voted to keep it. And many of the votes against were on the pragmatic grounds that the State was broke, and capital punishment is really expensive in its current format.

States like Oregon, Washington and Delaware are hardly red, religious-right States either.

zeffabelli

Manic Moran wrote: »

California is filled with religious nuts? We had a referendum on capital punishment only a couple of years ago, we voted to keep it. And many of the votes against were on the pragmatic grounds that the State was broke, and capital punishment is really expensive in its current format.

States like Oregon, Washington and Delaware are hardly red, religious-right States either.

California is full of secular nuts. :P

The US has become so acclimated to violence it is hardly a surprise they approve the death penalty and things torture.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/why_americans_support_torture_we_accept_the_abuse_and_cruel_punishment_of.html

Brancott

I'd call myself a liberal but I've find no fault in the process here, guy was a terrorist, it doesn't make me a better person by showing them compassion.

In the same week ISIS or Boku Harem assassinate half a village but because the media isn't focusing on that far greater horror we end up debating a much lesser case.
The fact there is a public legal process seems to empower liberals, they somehow feel responsible for the choices made.
Meanwhile in China they've taken a guy around the back & shot him in the back of the head 5 days after his 20 minute trial.
The world is a nasty place but it will change in it's own time, worrying about injustice is a fruitless pastime.

Lt J.R. Bell

end of the road wrote: »

it has no legitimacy. these parts of america are usually filled with religious nuts anyway so its not surprising they still have the old backward stone age rules.



of course. paying heed to international court rulings is for everyone else. america and a certain other country are exempt from doing what they are told.

Says who?That's your view. No International Court have or can, rule that the death penalty is not legal.

Doubt this recent decision is based on religious views either. Oh, bye the bye most of our Western Laws can be sourced from various religious teachings, including human rights laws...

Why on earth would America do what it's told? They are not the only country either

end of the road

Brancott wrote: »

I'd call myself a liberal but I've find no fault in the process here, guy was a terrorist, it doesn't make me a better person by showing them compassion.

In the same week ISIS or Boku Harem assassinate half a village but because the media isn't focusing on that far greater horror we end up debating a much lesser case.
The fact there is a public legal process seems to empower liberals, they somehow feel responsible for the choices made.
Meanwhile in China they've taken a guy around the back & shot him in the back of the head 5 days after his 20 minute trial.
The world is a nasty place but it will change in it's own time, worrying about injustice is a fruitless pastime.

worrying about injustice is not a fruitless pastime. the isis like loonies who support the likes of the death penalty will be forced to stop believeing in it eventually.

end of the road

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Doubt this recent decision is based on religious views either.

no, probably their bloodlust for slaughter. its something murika loves. violence.

pmasterson95

end of the road wrote: »

worrying about injustice is not a fruitless pastime. the isis like loonies who support the likes of the death penalty will be forced to stop believeing in it eventually.

Really? So if you want terrorists dead you are an ISIS-like loony.

Even by your standards thats hard to believe.

ISIS kill anyone normally innocents, scum like that don't deserve to live. So they get whats coming to them.

BUT

When it comes for the terrorists punishment for their crimes of killing innocents. If you kill the murdering scum you believe thats somehow the same as them killing innocents?

end of the road

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Really? So if you want terrorists dead you are an ISIS-like loony.

Even by your standards thats hard to believe.

ISIS kill anyone normally innocents, scum like that don't deserve to live. So they get whats coming to them.

BUT

When it comes for the terrorists punishment for their crimes of killing innocents. If you kill the murdering scum you believe thats somehow the same as them killing innocents?

nobody has the right to take a life. not the state not anyone

Just Be Yourself

end of the road wrote: »

nobody has the right to take a life. not the state not anyone

In self defence you do.

pmasterson95

end of the road wrote: »

nobody has the right to take a life. not the state not anyone

But why do you think murderers deserve better care than a percentage of citizens? Say the homeless?

end of the road

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

In self defence you do.

not deliberately. if it happens by accident so be it but you don't have a "right"

Just Be Yourself

end of the road wrote: »

not deliberately. if it happens by accident so be it but you don't have a "right"

So you're saying if someone is trying to kill me or someone I care about I don't have the right to kill them?