Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boston Bomber Found Guilty

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    It acts as a serious disincentive to people to commit these crimes
    No it doesn't. And it never has. I know it would disincentivise you, but then you don't plan on carrying out a bombing anytime soon, right?

    The death penalty never serves any useful purpose except to save some taxpayer money and satisfy the bloodlust of idiots. US states with the death penalty do not see lower rates of capital crimes than other states.

    In cases of terrorism, the death penalty is counter productive. It makes a martyr of the terrorist and strengthens the resolve of his allies.

    Look at Bobby Sands and how his death galvanised republican support in the North. No, he wasn't executed but many people think he was as good as executed because the British refused to bow to his demands.

    Barbarism, be that torture, death or any other form of suffering against a criminal who committed a crime of ideology, teaches his allies that what he did was good and right.


  • #33
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    He should serve the rest of his life in prison, the death penalty was needed in a time when prisons were not secure.
    It is not needed now.


  • #34
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    How come we are allowed talk about this case, he has been found guilty but not sentenced yet. Is it only Irish cases we cant talk about?


  • #35
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    As well as any other abjection I have to it, he'd probably want the martyrdom of death as well.


  • #36
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    How come we are allowed talk about this case, he has been found guilty but not sentenced yet. Is it only Irish cases we cant talk about?
    Yep. Different jurisdiction, different rules.

    Plus, as this is an Irish site, the odds of discussion of this case resulting in a US court proceeding from being undermined is minimal.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    seamus wrote: »
    Yep. Different jurisdiction, different rules.

    Plus, as this is an Irish site, the odds of discussion of this case resulting in a US court proceeding from being undermined is minimal.

    Thanks seamus, was there ever an explanation given after the closed thread in feedback?


  • #38
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I personally think life behind bars is the way to go here....I've never agreed with the death penalty because I don't like the idea that anyone should have the right to decide whether some-one else lives or dies.

    And with some-one like Tsarnaev death is the easy way out and makes him a martyr for those who agree with his cause....surely this is playing right into his hands?


  • #39
    Eircom_Sucks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭Eircom_Sucks


    prob take eternity on death row for him as per usual

    why sentence somebody to death to leave them wasting more tax payers money etc

    granted you may have a last ditch attempt for clemency etc

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

    this 40 years on death row is pathethic " we here by sentence you to death " by natural causes lol


  • #40
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    seamus wrote: »
    No it doesn't. And it never has. I know it would disincentivise you, but then you don't plan on carrying out a bombing anytime soon, right?

    The death penalty never serves any useful purpose except to save some taxpayer money and satisfy the bloodlust of idiots. US states with the death penalty do not see lower rates of capital crimes than other states.

    In cases of terrorism, the death penalty is counter productive. It makes a martyr of the terrorist and strengthens the resolve of his allies.

    Look at Bobby Sands and how his death galvanised republican support in the North. No, he wasn't executed but many people think he was as good as executed because the British refused to bow to his demands.

    Barbarism, be that torture, death or any other form of suffering against a criminal who committed a crime of ideology, teaches his allies that what he did was good and right.
    Looking at statistics re. states and the Death penalty,what you said is not entirely true,if it were,then Utah would have a higher homicide rate than Michigan-which is not true.
    Homicide rates tend to bunch geographically. Also,not all murderers that are convicted in Death penalty states are sentenced to Death.Judging how effective (or not) having the Death penalty would mean examining the conscience of everyone who held a gun and the consequences of their actions flashed Before them as the held the gun.We don't know how many lowered the gun on account of this.

    I'm not entirely sure where I stand regards the Death penalty,ought we allow the victims family decide? Does it deter even one potential murder?
    Ought a government have the Power of Life or Death over its Citizens?

    I Think it is probably Worth examining more rather than holding up Louisiana as proof of its failure.


  • #41
    walkingshadow
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 369 ✭✭walkingshadow


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    How come we are allowed talk about this case, he has been found guilty but not sentenced yet. Is it only Irish cases we cant talk about?

    Because Boards doesn't like anyone trying to tarnish the good name of any architects.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    crockholm wrote: »
    Looking at statistics re. states and the Death penalty,what you said is not entirely true,if it were,then Utah would have a higher homicide rate than Michigan-which is not true.
    I'm not sure really if that has anything to do with my point. My point is that there is no correlation between having the death penalty and the rate of homicides in a state. Some states have lower homicide rates with the death penalty, and some have lower homicide rates without it.
    I'm not entirely sure where I stand regards the Death penalty,ought we allow the victims family decide? Does it deter even one potential murder?
    Ought a government have the Power of Life or Death over its Citizens?

    I Think it is probably Worth examining more rather than holding up Louisiana as proof of its failure.
    The death penalty is a failure due to the large number of people who have been sentenced to death and subsequently acquitted.
    The law makes mistakes, that's a known and a given. Death is final and knowing that someone was innocent is little or no comfort for the fact that they have been murdered by the state.
    Life imprisonment is no basket of puppies, but at the very least there is the opportunity there to both fight for release and make reparations for the wrong done.

    You cannot release a man from death nor compensate his family for it.

    The death penalty only serves as revenge. And any justice system which places value on revenge belongs with the savages in the middle east and the dark ages. This is the same reason why families should have no input into sentencing.


  • #43
    Menas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    seamus wrote: »
    The death penalty only serves as revenge. And any justice system which places value on revenge belongs with the savages in the middle east and the dark ages. This is the same reason why families should have no input into sentencing.

    Completely agree. If some states want the death penalty then let those handing down, and implementing that sentence be on the hook for the death sentence themselves should the convicted ever get acquitted.
    You would pretty soon see no one willing to put people on death row.


  • #44
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Wayne Numerous Viewfinder wrote: »
    I hope they don't give him the death penalty. A high profile case like this one in particular wouldn't need to end so barbarically.

    How the hell can they give him the death penalty when he was convicted of murder in Massachusetts?


  • #45
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm not sure really if that has anything to do with my point. My point is that there is no correlation between having the death penalty and the rate of homicides in a state. Some states have lower homicide rates with the death penalty, and some have lower homicide rates without it.
    The death penalty is a failure due to the large number of people who have been sentenced to death and subsequently acquitted.
    The law makes mistakes, that's a known and a given. Death is final and knowing that someone was innocent is little or no comfort for the fact that they have been murdered by the state.
    Life imprisonment is no basket of puppies, but at the very least there is the opportunity there to both fight for release and make reparations for the wrong done.

    You cannot release a man from death nor compensate his family for it.

    The death penalty only serves as revenge. And any justice system which places value on revenge belongs with the savages in the middle east and the dark ages. This is the same reason why families should have no input into sentencing.

    With DNA testing and modern techniques perhaps perhaps we can determine better who is innocent and who is guilty.In some cases there will be "Slam dunks" while others will be quite the "whodunnit"-there would be no Point executing a man where there is still doubt in the judges mind as to his innocence.
    Whether the american taxpayers wish to pay for Tsarnaev breathing for the next 60 years,is up to them,which ever way it goes,I will respect their choice.
    All sentencing is revenge,it is just a matter of the severity and as for it being confined to the Dark ages,I recall it was used with abandon during our "Enlightenment",so......


  • #46
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Why should people who commit such sick and disgusting crimes be treated humanely? 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.

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

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

    I think you need some counselling.


  • #47
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,924 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Egginacup wrote: »
    How the hell can they give him the death penalty when he was convicted of murder in Massachusetts?

    He was convicted of federal not state crimes so he can be given the death penalty


  • #48
    Menas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    Egginacup wrote: »
    How the hell can they give him the death penalty when he was convicted of murder in Massachusetts?

    Federal conviction, not state.


  • #49
    jamesoneill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭jamesoneill


    When is George Bush going on trial for mass murder and crimes against humanity?


  • #50
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    crockholm wrote: »
    With DNA testing and modern techniques perhaps perhaps we can determine better who is innocent and who is guilty.In some cases there will be "Slam dunks" while others will be quite the "whodunnit"-there would be no Point executing a man where there is still doubt in the judges mind as to his innocence.
    We all know this is technically true, but at the end of the day, you have to draw a line between what is a "slam dunk" and what is not.
    And if you have a dig into that thought, you find it's basically impossible to define a difference between "definitely guilty" and "most probably guilty", without a margin of error.

    In short, there is no way you can have a death penalty and not accidentally execute an innocent person. There is no way to define a set of criteria that ensures that you always only execute people who definitely carried out the act they were convicted for.


  • #51
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    A lot better than leaving him in prison and costing €10,000. It acts as a serious disincentive to people to commit these crimes and finally they deserve it. They should know their victims pain.


    How about burning at the stake or hung, drawn and quartered?

    How about the rack?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Reference to this?

    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?

    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*? The very least they should get is the death sentence. (Only in extreme cases should it be used, and this is one of them. A single murder doesn't warrant an execution.)


    One common streak I notice about people of your ilk is this disturbingly unhealthy and fetishistic fixation with anal rape and sodomy.


  • #53
    lertsnim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,916 ✭✭✭lertsnim


    jamesoneill wrote: »
    When is George Bush going on trial for mass murder and crimes against humanity?

    While I would like to see it happen I don't see what it has to do with this.


  • #54
    topper75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    We all recognise the right to life.

    Where the liberals and anti-death penalty people fall down is they fail to recognise that the right can be forfeit.

    If Tsarnaev's actions don't forfeit that right, I don't know what would.


  • #55
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,514 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    crockholm wrote: »
    With DNA testing and modern techniques perhaps perhaps we can determine better who is innocent and who is guilty.In some cases there will be "Slam dunks" while others will be quite the "whodunnit"-there would be no Point executing a man where there is still doubt in the judges mind as to his innocence.
    Whether the american taxpayers wish to pay for Tsarnaev breathing for the next 60 years,is up to them,which ever way it goes,I will respect their choice.
    All sentencing is revenge,it is just a matter of the severity and as for it being confined to the Dark ages,I recall it was used with abandon during our "Enlightenment",so......
    DNA evidence will never be good enough for the death penalty. nothing will. anyone who carys out such an outdated failed punishment to satisfy their savagery doesn't deserve respect. by sentencing this man to death, the jury, and the government, will be admitting that they condone what he is guilty of and they believe it to be legitimate

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #56
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    topper75 wrote: »
    We all recognise the right to life.

    Where the liberals and anti-death penalty people fall down is they fail to recognise that the right can be forfeit.
    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.


  • #57
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,514 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    topper75 wrote: »
    We all recognise the right to life.

    Where the liberals and anti-death penalty people fall down is they fail to recognise that the right can be forfeit.

    If Tsarnaev's actions don't forfeit that right, I don't know what would.
    and where the pro death penalty fall down is they fail to realize the right to life can't be forfeited. if you believe it can, then you condone and legitimize the crime that was the reason for it being forfeited. maybe the person whos life you believe should be forfeited felt the same about others. what makes him wrong but you right. the death penalty is a sign of condoning the crimes its implemented for

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #58
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,514 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    allthedoyles wrote: »
    they need to send out the right message to other would-be / home-grown jihadists , so life in prison is best .
    nothing is going to send out any message. one will either do, or they won't do of their own accord

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #59
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    seamus wrote: »
    We all know this is technically true, but at the end of the day, you have to draw a line between what is a "slam dunk" and what is not.
    And if you have a dig into that thought, you find it's basically impossible to define a difference between "definitely guilty" and "most probably guilty", without a margin of error.

    In short, there is no way you can have a death penalty and not accidentally execute an innocent person. There is no way to define a set of criteria that ensures that you always only execute people who definitely carried out the act they were convicted for.

    I understand your Point,and you make it well,but surely video evidence or an admission of guilt and certain forensic evidence can insure that a person is guilty.


  • #60
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    crockholm wrote: »
    I understand your Point,and you make it well,but surely video evidence or an admission of guilt and certain forensic evidence can insure that a person is guilty.
    Where's the line though? Who decides that there is enough video evidence and enough forensic evidence? Who decides that a guilty admission is 100% truthful and correct and not being made due to coercion or mental illness?

    Ultimately a person needs to declare that a a verdict is "safe", which means ultimately mistakes can and will be made.

    Our justice systems at present convict beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond all doubt. Because that's impossible. Until you find a way to convict beyond all doubt (including off-the-wall theories), then the death sentence will result in innocent deaths.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    seamus wrote: »
    Where's the line though? Who decides that there is enough video evidence and enough forensic evidence? Who decides that a guilty admission is 100% truthful and correct and not being made due to coercion or mental illness?

    Ultimately a person needs to declare that a a verdict is "safe", which means ultimately mistakes can and will be made.

    Our justice systems at present convict beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond all doubt. Because that's impossible. Until you find a way to convict beyond all doubt (including off-the-wall theories), then the death sentence will result in innocent deaths.

    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?


Advertisement