Talk Elections

Many believe that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should get life in prison, because otherwise he would get what he wanted from the beginning, and go to paradise. Many others believe that he should be put to death no matter his feelings toward it, as fairness to the law. You Decide, all of the options above are ones being discussed.

Life in prison with no parole.

If anyone should receive the death penalty, he should. That said, I don't care much which sentence he receives.

He wants to be a martyr, so no, let him rot.

Life in prison without parole.

One of the very few cases where a true life sentence with no chance of getting out is warranted.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases and I believe life in prison without parole would be much harsher punishment: no martyrdom and he'll be spending 23 hours each day in a small cell, as opposed to getting off easily.

By the way, if sentenced, he can only be executed by the lethal injection, as per federal law, so there other options are stupid.

Life imprisonment, because the class that runs the state has no moral authority to put anyone to death

Life in Prison with Parole after 20 years (which should be the maximum existing sentence IMO).

The guy is committed to killing people. I don't support the death penalty, but releasing him is just as insane as killing him in my view.

Agree with Antonio . I don't know the intricacies of the parole system, but I might raise first eligibility to 30 years if that's a thing. Probably doesn't matter too much though.

If he hasn't reformed after 20 years, then he won't be released. But every person, even the most supposedly "evil", can change, and should be given a fair chance to prove they have reformed.

I agree in >99% of cases, but after a certain point I don't believe it matters whether the person has reformed or not. There are certain crimes that simply merit actual life long punishment. I honestly restrict this to cases like Breivik or Tsarnaev, but I see no reason to care whether they've changed or not.

I guess I'm surprisingly very Christian in that regard, but I tend to believe that if anyone genuinely repents for their crime and actively try to do good, then they are deserving of forgiveness. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because I'm 100% sure Breivik will never repent, and probably Tsarnaev won't either. But, as a matter of principle, I think we must at least pay lip service to this possibility.

The only exception I would make is for crimes against humanity.

I tend to agree with this view. I don't believe everybody is fit to be released (such as Breivik and, probably, Tsarnaev), but everybody should get a chance to prove they're reformed, instead of contributing to overcrowding prisons. If not reformed and still dangerous, then parole should simply be denied (or, as in Norwegian law, period extended), as opposed to paroles granted in blanco, as in so many cases.

Some people just should stay locked up, but that's hardly a general rule.

Something this simple, where the system's preference is for parole but with an option to extend in extenuating circumstances rather than the other way around, would be a huge step in the right direction.

Inject him with Buh-Bye juice.   

He should be put to death by firing squad or guillotine.

I prefer a live sociopathic and imprisond manchild who de-legitimise his own cause to a dead martyr. But it's not like I don't understand USA if they execute him.

Well, a case could be made that a terrorist who kills 100 people should be put to death, but a terrorist who kills "only" 3 people is little different than a non-terrorist who shoots 3 people.

That's why the state maintains the power to end all life on earth, right? No authority to put anyone to death?

Agreed.  Indeed, the number who died is relevant to me. Killing one with calculated premeditation would be sufficient grounds in my view if we have the death penalty as an option.

Well, your class has no moral authority either.  And your classless ideal precludes moral authority to put anyone to death.

So why word it the way you did, self anointed Saint Just?

This seems like a weird position to me, to be honest.  If you actually think that life in prison would be appropriate in this case, *and* you think that it's a "much harsher" penalty than execution, then why wouldn't you support capital punishment for other cases, where the crime isn't quite as severe?  Yet you say that you oppose it "in all cases"?

Life in Prison (Parole)

I am beginning to think both capital punishment and life without parole are immoral.

Our current system—which amounts to a lottery for poor defendants—is immoral, but the death penalty per se is amoral.  It's all in how it is implemented, tho I'm doubtful that in the current social and political climate of the US that a non-immoral capital punishment system is possible.

I agree.  The real loonies can be in looney bins with adequate creature comforts.  The rest are rehabilitated.  

I just think a "life" sentence should be 21 years.  Then off to looneytown or home.  But even that doesn't work.  MN has done the looneytown approach with sex offenders who are deemed extra super dangerous by whichever judge is up for election soon and a prosecutor implored by a concerned mother...and now hundreds of men and one woman are serving de facto life sentences being treated by 'experts' who have never graduated one 'client' in 20 years... All this despite having served their full sentence in prison.  If that's not literal psychological torture, then I don't know what is.

So really we need to have a merciful max sentence or just kill them.  I go for the former.  Freedom and maintaining rights is messy and potentially dangerous.

The other side of the Reagan coin that was never quipped..

"Hi.  I'm from the government, and I'm here to protect you!"

Life imprisonment with parole. I shudder when I see others advocate revenge justice in the 21st century. Our objective must be rehabilitation; there is no evidence to suggest that this man will be forever incapable of re-integration into society. We're dealing with a human being. We have to look ahead and not hold onto animosity forever because of things that have passed.

For those who advocate the death penalty, just remember that the sword is not mightier than yourself.

I agree with Hifly.

Capital Punishment - Firing Squad (sane)

I'm kind of surprised of people voting for firing squad in Tsarnaev's case, given that it's transitionally considered an honorable death for military personnel.

Lol

It's funny how much of a liberal bubble Atlas is. I mean, like I said before, I don't support executing him because I don't trust the US government, but it's just really funny to see the opinions here vs. the average person, who would probably not bat an eye at the suggestion that we publicly execute rapists, let alone consider any kind of leniency toward terrorists like Tsarnaev.

Who gives a sh*t what the "average person" thinks?

Most of us who believe in democracy, I'd wager.

Says the guy whose views are further away from the American mainstream than almost everybody on this forum.

I have never denied that. But I think I have a more realistic view of how to take out the trash (hang rapists) than the red avatars saying that mass murderers can be 'reformed'. It doesn't matter if they can be 'reformed'. Some acts warrant nothing less than death.

Uh... good for you? Do you feel the need to tell everybody about how right you are and how wrong others are?

Life without parole.

There must be no sign of softness against terrorists, who are willing to kill many innocents.

The mere chance that this guy is released after 20 years and plots again and kills again is simply too high a risk.

Better lock them up for good.

Yeah exactly, life without parole is certainly "immoral" ... ::)

80% of people on the planet have a worse life than a murderer in prison in a Western country.

Breivik even wants to play the latest X-box games ... (at least, they didn't allow him - but his prison is basically a 1st class hotel).

Well fwiw, the parents of the kid killed in the bombings have explicitly asked that the death penalty not be given (and I voted yes).

He should get life without parole.

Warning: I intended this to be a short response but quickly began rambling on and on.


Immoral was probably a poor word choice. I don't have any authority to declare anything about morality. I will say that putting someone in prison without even the possibility of ever getting out doesn't seem to do anything positive.

Without the possibility of parole prisoners are more likely to commit more crimes in prison, having little left to lose.

The possibility of parole may help prevent crime within prison. If their behaviour continues to be negative, obviously they wouldn't be granted parole. But just because their behaviour may be positive, that doesn't mean they would necessarily ever be granted parole. This is important to keep in mind. And the public can rest easy knowing that truly horrible people will likely never be granted parole anyway. In the case of Breivik, I don't think he would ever be granted parole.

I also think it is wise to have another layer of oversight to correct for the overzealous actions of judges who may be campaigning to appear tough on crime (ugh) and juries that dish out ridiculous sentences.

Finally, keep in mind that I love shoes. I like to try on the shoes of the prisoner - I would certainly want to have the possibility of parole available. After all, what if I'm innocent? I need that hope that my life isn't over. The shoes of victims are also worth trying on. If I was killed by a terrorist, serial killer, or someone else, what punishment do I feel evens out the loss of the rest of my life? These shoes are closely related to those of the victim's family, friends, and community. What punishment would make me feel okay about the loss?

Where I arrive after I try on these shoes eventually leads me to believe that it doesn't matter what these people feel, because whatever punishment you choose will never truly satisfy. You cannot quantify someone's life into a number of years in prison. Putting someone else to death or taking away the rest of their life does not undo or equate to the original crime. Unfortunately the only way to make the friends, family, and community feel okay is time and grieving. It feels like it would satisfy them to take away the perpetrator's life, but it inevitably doesn't. No one wins.

What I'm left with is rather cold. It's just the question of what society ought to do with someone who has broken a rule. I think that this is a fairer way to look at things. It's informed by the realities of what happens in prisons. The goal now isn't necessarily rehabilitation as much as simply finding a calculated punishment that fits a crime, with systems in place to correct for any imbalances (such as parole, which also might serve to prevent more crime).


Uh, I don't quite get what your point is here. Shall we make prisoner's lives worse so that we feel better about poor people in developing countries? Wouldn't this make more sense as an argument for raising the amount foreign aid we offer? Or perhaps you think we should ship prisoners overseas to dry dusty islands on the ass end of the globe... ;)


You need to understand something about why things like this happen: distracted inmates mean fewer behavioural problems. Bored prisoners make their own entertainment, and when you mix together a toxic brew of personalities, a lot of that entertainment comes at the expense of other people.

I'm sure lots of people wake up every day exhilerated by the unfathomable potential that the freedom to play the latest video games offers.. when they're 14. Prisoners still are stuck in the same building, with the same people, bland food, strict schedule, lack of privacy and agency, and little contact with their loved ones.

I'm not saying you should feel sorry for them and so give them toys to play with. I'm saying that video games mean nothing substantial and make the lives of the prison staff easier.

Use the plight of the poor with undeveloped economies as an excuse to punish our prisoners more harshly...while advocating policies that keep the undeveloped economies undeveloped and poor.

In the words of George Carlin:  it's all bullsh**t, folks.  All of it.  And it's bad for you.

Life in prison (no parole)

Capital Punishment (Lethal Injection)

Accidentally voted for Life in Prison with Parole- meant w/o Parole.


Agreed. If we were going to execute him, I'd want it to be a short-drop hanging.

if that were true, why did he allow a Western, anti-death penalty legal all-star team to represent him?  he clearly prefers to continue to live.

^ which is utterly bizarre, given "to live" entails 23 hrs a day of solitary confinement at ADX Florence for 60+ years

He probably has/will have enough voices in his head to keep him company. 

He can still fap.

and hopefully read, receive and respond to mail, etc.  though many prisons do their best to crack down on even that simple stuff.

if I had the ability to write, a source of books (5-7 per week), paper to write plenty on, and access to a coin to decide simple probabilities I *might* be able to remain sane (or, sane enough not to have a psychotic break) for a long while, especially if I could correspond with professors, specialists, etc.  I'd try to write books, fiction and non fiction.

they might not allow all that, citing national security concerns... I'd take the safe route and die.  whatever happens, may Dzhokhar have minimal suffering and find peace w/his God.

btw, what's this fake fcking scandal where Dzhokhar flipped the bird to his security camera?  wtf would you do if you were videotaped 24/7?  the prosecution is actually sick enough to jump on this?  before God, I'd stike a friendship with a contract killer before a prosecutor.

Dead0man wants to be a martyr...so no, let him rot.

I went through the same doubts about my opinions of those things too. Used to be 100% for both of them. Now I'm 100% opposed to each.

Nice to know I'm not the only one. :)

Life without parole. Do you know what goes on in prison? Life without parole at his age is a much harsher punishment than death IMO.

I do not support the death penalty. In this case, I think the most appropriate punishment is life without parole at ADX Florence.

The problem with the climate is that any high-profile crime is likely to result in the public demanding that the laws be made tougher and the punishment more severe. The same applies to the list of capital crimes. It becomes dependent on the immediate desire of the electorate and once on the list is near impossible to remove without intervention by a supreme court.

Perhaps the only way to make the death penalty less subject to immediate cries for retribution is to require that those crimes eligible for the death penalty must be constitutionally defined. The constitution can still be amended, but it's a more onerous process that passage of a law.

what's wrong with the essentially common-law, judicial, case-by-case basis we have for this now?  at least in theory, the judiciary is more immune to public pressure than the legislature.  (I hope there are no instances where capital crimes are tried in courts where the judges are elected, but appeals from such cases are likely to be heard, I'd imagine)

Until 2011 when the death penalty was ended, capital crimes in IL were tried by elected judges and appealed to elected higher courts. The judges I know are good at avoiding public pressure, but the elections are real and can be expensive and highly negative (http://madisonrecord.com/issues/306-campaigns-elections/267185-spending-reaches-3-million-in-battle-for-the-illinois-supreme-court-here-we-go-again-critic-says). Interestingly, the fact that IL has an elected judiciary was never raised in the death penalty debate.

other:  slow burn tied to a stake of oil-soaked mahogany, but only after being subjected to a ten-minute soaking in a pool of 12 M sulfuric acid after the eyelids have been cut off.  With a pencil.

Well. I get on before I was about to sleep to see how my poll is doing and maybe see some enlightening comments and debates. I now am scared for my life, and will not sleep for weeks.

should be shot, obviously

Also an instance where I must reluctantly support the death penalty.

Can we kill him soon so I can stop reading articles about him and his whackjob family?

I'm against the death penalty unless it is administered at the scene of the crime while the gun/bomb is still smoking or in a shootout at a later time.

However, we could probably reach a workable compromise. Anyone who turns himself in and confesses to the crime should be excluded from capital punishment consideration, but also parole. If the suspect commits murder and then pulls a Tsarnaev, death penalty is on the table.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I also don't care to defend the rights of people who obviously want to forfeit their rights. The end goal is creating the right incentives. If you murder once, and you're eligible for the death penalty, why wouldn't you go on a killing spree and fight the authorities?

The people who don't go on a killing spree and attack cops are probably not the people who deserve the death penalty. If you take death penalty off of the table, people will turn themselves in and confess, which saves us time and money.