This is why I will not go into more detail. There are people that respect other people's opinions and there are people that want everyone to think the same way as they do. I just thought I'd give my opinion like everyone else.
Honestly, I could not care more right now.. with all the crap going on in the world, it ain't funny. People do realise that they can't stop people from doing this stuff, right? The death penalty does really NOTHING, yea ok, the guy dies but so? there are many more people like that out there too that could easily do just as much damage as this man has caused. It's not going to stop them, as much as we enforce new laws, more security, bigger fines, ect, its not going to stop them. As much as we want them to, it's really not going to. They have been told the laws, and their consequences that come within them. If they want to cause trouble, they will cause trouble, they want to go to prison? that's their choice, THEY. WANT. TO. GO. TO. PRISON. it really can't be any clearer than that. All we can really do is tell kids that any sort of criminal behaviour is disgusting and it won't be tolerated. But other than that, we really can't do anything, but then I guess it all comes down to how the child was raised too, so...yea.. Not really going to take a side on this thread. Though, I do also just have one concern about this thread that others have mentioned as well that I would like to bring up concerning the appropriateness of this thread, seeing this is a family friendly server, we could have kids 10 years and younger looking at this thread.. Or is it just me? oh and excuse any bad grammar, currently 12 AM and I haven't slept yet ^-^ I'll edit this post if necessary in the morning.
My "parenting style" may be different than others, but I don't feel like sheltering children from world news does them any good in teaching them about the real world. My son (who is 7) enjoys watching the news and reading newspapers. I could understand someone waiting until they're older though, but I just personally don't see the point in it.
Thank you for your opinion. Everyone raises there child(ren) differently. And it's not like they come with an instruction manual or something either xP
Correct. It is wrong that Tsarnaev murdered people. However, it does not justify his execution. The only justification for ending the life of another human being is to prevent them from taking the lives of other human beings. That's the reason I support airstrikes against the Islamic State (in conjunction with humanitarian action). We can rehabilitate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; at worst, we can keep him imprisoned for life. Either method will ensure he poses no further harm to another human. But to take his life is immoral. I'm unconcerned with what anyone in this thread says. If you support the death penalty, you are against human rights. One key aspect of human rights is that they are inalienable. You cannot lose them. That's basically the option we all face. We either have humanity's back and support the rights of every individual within our species, or we do not. I know my choice.
And I know mine, I hate that everyone thinks that I am a horrible person without compassion, But you don't understand just how horrible what he did was. I had 4 friends in that race. One of them took a ball bearing to the face and will never see again. Another held that small boy as he cried for his mother? This person has done away with any rights he had.
That isn't going to happen. He will never be a free man again, the part that is still being determined is whether or not the death sentence should be carried out.
If there is a death penalty then he would certainly qualify. The morality of the death penalties' existence is a different matter. He will get it due to its existence and the acts that he perpetrated.
As far as appropriateness goes, everything here is PG. The death penalty is something I learned about deliberately from my third grade teacher. (Yes in third grade). There is nothing above PG in this thread. Even if it was, there is a reason commercials for online games targeted at children have to say "Ask your parents before going online." Legally, no one under the age of 13 should be on the Internet at all without parent approval (in the U.S., which is where he served is based) I know EMC is a family friendly server, but everything here is what the administration considers "PG." PG in movies means that parents are recommended to supervise their children while watching. Just to let anyone with questions know. Please let's not get too off topic.
It can't happen legally. He was convicted of multiple charges that are the equivalent of capital murder. In fact, the only difference between many of the charges and capital murder legally is that his actions were the direct result of a terroristic act. There's only two sentences available to the jury: death by lethal injection or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Problem is being let out in a few years would open more opportunities for domestic radicalization and put the country at risk of future attacks. Tsarnev has personally given me no reason to believe he won't try to pull these types of stunts again if he should be released, therefore he remains a public risk and can't be released. Whether he dies in an 8x10 cell or by lethal injection is up to the jury, but they would be fools to give him an out even if they have an option.
He knows that, he just doesn't believe either should be done. To let a man who has caused that much carnage walk free, even for the dwindling years of his life would be irresponsible. He is clearly a danger to himself and those around him, and would likely commit another atrocity as soon as he is released. Maybe we would be making his life miserable, but not for the reasons you think. He would be miserable not because he is in jail, as prison is not exactly nice, but not really bad either. He would be miserable because he didn't die "with glory" as he wishes he could. He will suffer knowing that his memory and legacy in the world will get smaller and smaller, until eventually he will be nothing more than an old man trapped in a dark room. He will only be miserable over the fact that he couldn't produce more death; both for himself, and for those around him.
But as a counter BK, we would be paying for his food, housing, utilities, entertainment (reading, whatever movies he sees, etc.), transportation, hospital trips, even laundering his clothes for the next fifty or so years minimum. We're looking at several million dollars potentially spent on a convicted terrorist that killed three people and had a pretty good shot at sending almost 200 more with those three. That is way too much luxury. We can certainly hope he'll regret and be tormented by his actions for the rest of his life (a sentence far worse than death), but we're hedging millions on that assumption which could be redirected towards reducing debt and boosting the economy. And even if he didn't go down as a martyr on his terms, he still dies for his actions either way - and that's the entire point.
No, killing him would simply be hypocritcal. He doesn't deserve to die, giving him a lethal injection would just be an escape for him. The only way to make him suffer, without being totally immoral, would be lifetime imprisonment.
This is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, a human cannot lose their human rights. But, when one willingly abandons their humanity and decides to emulate another form, then they lose their human rights, because they are not human anymore. That does not mean that they should be treated like dirt though. http://time.com/3740552/boston-bombing-trial-evidence-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/ There is some of the evidence used in the trial, nothing I would consider inappropriate. If this was some sort of conspiracy or setup, they (the brothers) sure as hell were ready for it.
I agree with the death penalty in certain cases, but if you're speaking strictly about the cost of each, it is actually more expensive to give someone the death penalty than to have them locked up indefinitely. That is evidence that a bombing occured. None of that links anything to those two, exept the fact that they (among many others) happened to be wearing backpacks that day.
