Boston Mayor does not support death penalty, but supports it for Boston bomber

[New_Conservative]

http://videos.masslive.com/republican/2014/01/video_boston_mayor_marty_walsh_1.html

Isn't that a huge contradiction?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

You would think, but I am sure many people have the same views.

[New_Conservative]

You would think, but I am sure many people have the same views.

I know, but if you believe that just admit you are in favor of the death penalty in extreme circumstances.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Agreed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I oppose the existence of the death penalty because I don't trust the system not to railroad the innocent. I do not oppose the death penalty morally, especially not for clearly-guilty terrorists.

[New_Conservative]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

As for the death penalty, you should either support it or oppose it.  There should never be a one-person or one-case exception to apply a sentence that normally isn't given.  Offense variables are one thing, but a whole different sentence leads to issues.

[muon2]

A simple revision is to reserve the death penalty to those who are convicted of murders that took place on two separate days. The Boston bomber falls into this category as do serial killers. It also resolves the question of what to do with a prisoner serving a life sentence who kills a prison guard.

[New_Conservative]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

As for the death penalty, you should either support it or oppose it.  There should never be a one-person or one-case exception to apply a sentence that normally isn't given.  Offense variables are one thing, but a whole different sentence leads to issues.

I believe that abortion is murder and wrong, but with the rape exception I don't think I have the right to tell a women after she got raped that she has to keep the baby.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

http://videos.masslive.com/republican/2014/01/video_boston_mayor_marty_walsh_1.html

Isn't that a huge contradiction?

Yes it is. Either the mayor supports state-sponsored revenge or he doesn't.

[Badger]

A simple revision is to reserve the death penalty to those who are convicted of murders that took place on two separate days. The Boston bomber falls into this category as do serial killers. It also resolves the question of what to do with a prisoner serving a life sentence who kills a prison guard.

How does the Boston Bomber fit this category? Regardless, it creates a glaring and unfair contradiction. A bomber who kills 20 people instantaneously isn't subject to capital punishment, but a shooter who hits two people, one of whom dies directly while the other one hangs on until 12:01 am the next morning, is subject to potential execution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

As for the death penalty, you should either support it or oppose it.  There should never be a one-person or one-case exception to apply a sentence that normally isn't given.  Offense variables are one thing, but a whole different sentence leads to issues.

I believe that abortion is murder and wrong, but with the rape exception I don't think I have the right to tell a women after she got raped that she has to keep the baby.

If abortion is murder, how is a murder justified by avoidance of mental anguish (albeit potentially severe)?  If necessity to preserve one's own life is not a justification for murder (which you may disagree with, but the law does not), how is avoidance of severe mental anguish a justification?  Surely avoidance of death ranks higher than personal suffering?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

A simple revision is to reserve the death penalty to those who are convicted of murders that took place on two separate days. The Boston bomber falls into this category as do serial killers. It also resolves the question of what to do with a prisoner serving a life sentence who kills a prison guard.

How does the Boston Bomber fit this category? Regardless, it creates a glaring and unfair contradiction. A bomber who kills 20 people instantaneously isn't subject to capital punishment, but a shooter who hits two people, one of whom dies directly while the other one hangs on until 12:01 am the next morning, is subject to potential execution.

Hasn't Tsarnaev been implicated in an unrelated triple-murder from a year earlier?

[Lief 🗽]

A lot of people oppose the death penalty in general because in practice it leads to a lot of innocent but poor and black men being killed. This guy is clearly guilty, so who cares.

[Vosem]

Massachusetts (and the other states without it) really ought to bring back the death penalty at the statewide level, too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Massachusetts (and the other states without it) really ought to bring back the death penalty at the statewide level, too.

To what end?

[Vosem]

Massachusetts (and the other states without it) really ought to bring back the death penalty at the statewide level, too.

To what end?

To the end of not supporting murderers (and, while this wouldn't happen, in an ideal world perpetrators of other sufficiently severe crimes, such as child or serial rapists, who will never be rehabilitated) until the end of their lives and to the end of the dispensation of justice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Massachusetts (and the other states without it) really ought to bring back the death penalty at the statewide level, too.

To what end?

To the end of not supporting murderers (and, while this wouldn't happen, in an ideal world perpetrators of other sufficiently severe crimes, such as child or serial rapists, who will never be rehabilitated) until the end of their lives

To the extent that one of the State's core interests is in the continued bodily existence of its citizens, I'm of the opinion that this should be applied in as comprehensive a manner as possible, even if nothing else is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a definition of justice that generally inclines at least slightly more towards the restorative than does that seen in Westerns and samurai films, and I'd like to see it kept that way.

[IceSpear]

The world would be such a better place if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler could play poker together and read novels with their taxpayer funded meals and taxpayer funded healthcare until they died from old age. Isn't no exceptions absolutism grand (unless it's being pushed by Republicans in regards to gun control/abortion, that is)?

[muon2]

A simple revision is to reserve the death penalty to those who are convicted of murders that took place on two separate days. The Boston bomber falls into this category as do serial killers. It also resolves the question of what to do with a prisoner serving a life sentence who kills a prison guard.

How does the Boston Bomber fit this category? Regardless, it creates a glaring and unfair contradiction. A bomber who kills 20 people instantaneously isn't subject to capital punishment, but a shooter who hits two people, one of whom dies directly while the other one hangs on until 12:01 am the next morning, is subject to potential execution.

I was referring to their killing of the MIT police officer 3 days after the bombing. I wasn't trying to be so precise about two separate calendar days. My intent is to separate those who intentionally kill on two or more separate occasions. From my perspective the act of murder is when the fatal wound is delivered, not when the victim dies.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

It's not logically inconsistent Inks.  There is a logically coherent defense of that position, even if you disagree with it.  We debated that last year in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167705.msg3594597#msg3594597

[Middle-aged Europe]

http://videos.masslive.com/republican/2014/01/video_boston_mayor_marty_walsh_1.html

Isn't that a huge contradiction?

Let's be honest about it: The mayor of Boston is going to get a lot of approval and not much disapproval from his voters because of his "opinion" on the matter.

[muon2]

http://videos.masslive.com/republican/2014/01/video_boston_mayor_marty_walsh_1.html

Isn't that a huge contradiction?

Yes it is. Either the mayor supports state-sponsored revenge or he doesn't.

A lot of people oppose the death penalty in general because in practice it leads to a lot of innocent but poor and black men being killed. This guy is clearly guilty, so who cares.

It is unfortunate that some governments do use the death penalty to mete out state-sponsored revenge. I think it is that usage that it has the significantly disparate impact on certain groups - particularly seen in the impact on the black population. I don't think it has to be that way.

The Declaration of Independence declares that the unalienable rights are those of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights reserves due process to life, liberty, and property. What I see in these lines is a natural hierarchy of justice. For the least crimes the state punishes an individual by denying pursuit of happiness or property in the form of a fine. For more severe crimes the state denies the right to liberty by imprisonment. The natural sequence of this hierarchy for the state to punish the worst of all crimes by denying the right to life.

There's no question that as it has been applied many wrongfully convicted people have been sentenced to death. The error rate is small, but nonzero, and in looking at the cases the error is typically associated with a single, highly emotional crime. I suggest the application of the death penalty for this type of crime is consistent with the claim of its use for revenge - to assuage the public when emotions are running high.

However, the researched cases of wrongful death penalties do not involve homicides from two separate killings well separated in time. The error rate becomes negligible, and that is why I suggest the two separate killings rule is a good way to identify the most severe of crimes where justice can be consistent with the denial of the right to life. That does not mean that all multiple murderers of this sort should be put to death, but just that justice may consider the death penalty in only those cases.

[Franzl]

I've still not quite understood why you want to go to all this trouble to justify the state killing people? Particularly when I've never heard a credible argument for what the United States gains by maintaining the death penalty.

I have trouble believing that the country is so unique that it wouldn't get by without as most other civilzed countries do.