Nidan1 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Dzhokhar Tsarnev is sentenced to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Dzhokhar Tsarnev is sentenced to death. He should have gotten life, let him live with what he did and suffer in a 10x10 cell for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 He should have gotten life, let him live with what he did and suffer in a 10x10 cell for the rest of his life. Does it really matter? I think that what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. No punishment, be it death or life imprisionment, will bring back the dead or let lost limbs grow back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Does it really matter? I think that what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. No punishment, be it death or life imprisionment, will bring back the dead or let lost limbs grow back. Well that's what I mean, let him serve out the rest of his life in prison, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my previous post. Obviously nothing will bring back the dead or heal the wounded, but like you said it will segregate him from society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Personally the difference between life imprisonment is with imprisonment, he still gets what he took away from those he killed. The ability to interact however constrained with other human beings, to laugh, smile, feel the sun etc etc. I don't feel any particular need to pay his keep for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Copied from elsewhere: I think it's weird and sad that so many people believe the point of a justice system is to exact revenge. The idea that when someone commits a wrong, they must suffer a comparable wrong, to balance out some cosmic scale or something, as if the only point of being here were to participate in some zero-sum game. It's sad because it's such a low bar. I want a justice system which actually seeks to repair the social fabric, to heal damage and prevent future wrongs. But nobody really believes that this so-called justice system can or will do anything like that. So we just settle for making someone suffer for their crimes. It's like being ruled by warlords or something. And ... http://www.theonion.com/graphic/tsarnaev-death-penalty-warning-any-other-religious-50451 Edited May 16, 2015 by JonS 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Its sad that in this day and age we still view justice and law the same way ancient peoples did thousands of years ago. Its like we've moved on from things like straw huts and slavery but for some reason we still need to satisfy a childish innate urge for petty vengeance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Just exactly what do you propose? What would you consider justice for such a horrible act and how do you differentiate that behavior from vengeance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Well that's what I mean, let him serve out the rest of his life in prison, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my previous post. Obviously nothing will bring back the dead or heal the wounded, but like you said it will segregate him from society. I do not think that vengeance or the suffering of the offender is the point of justice. That' s where i disagree with your first post. Just exactly what do you propose? It does not make a difference. As i said, what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. What would you consider justice for such a horrible act and how do you differentiate that behavior from vengeance? I find death or life imprisionment both equally just in the case of Tsarnaev. There is no way he can undo the damage he did nor that he can ever again contribute to society in a positive way. The difference between justice and vengeance is a difficult question. I think the purpose of justice is to ensure that as many people as possible can live and work peacefully in a state. That' s the goal. The tool by which this goal achieved is (besides many others, such as education etc) to force people to submit to a commonly accepted code of conduct by threatening them with punishment. If someone still commits a crime, the tool by which justice achieves its goal is to -a minimize the damage and -b punish the offender is such a way he wont do any more damage in the future. The punishment though must to be porportional to the crime committed and the future threat the offender might pose. There is no point in, for example, executing a pickpocket, because this would do much more damage than good. Vengeance, on the other hand, does not have the well beeing of anyone in mind and just serves the satisfaction of the victims emotional needs. Edited May 16, 2015 by agusto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I do not think that vengeance or the suffering of the offender is the point of justice. That' s where i disagree with your first post. It does not make a difference. As i said, what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. I find death or life imprisionment both equally just in the case of Tsarnaev. There is no way he can undo the damage he did nor that he can ever again contribute to society in a positive way. The difference between justice and vengeance is a difficult question. I think the purpose of justice is to ensure that as many people as possible can live and work peacefully in a state. That' s the goal. The tool by which this goal achieved is (besides many others, such as education etc) to force people to submit to a commonly accepted code of conduct by threatening them with punishment. If someone still commits a crime, the tool by which justice achieves its goal is to -a minimize the damage and -b punish the offender is such a way he wont do any more damage in the future. The punishment though must to be porportional to the crime committed and the future threat the offender might pose. There is no point in, for example, executing a pickpocket, because this would do much more damage than good. Vengeance, on the other hand, does not have the well beeing of anyone in mind and just serves the satisfaction of the victims emotional needs. Oh I see, I did use the word suffer in my first post, it was a poor choice as I don't feel as if I need vengeance against him, I suppose I got caught up in the "emotions" so to speak of what was going on. I am against the death penalty and I largely agree with what you have been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Just exactly what do you propose? What would you consider justice for such a horrible act and how do you differentiate that behavior from vengeance? Why the false dilemma to begin with? The entire premise of this question is predicated on the assumption that some physical need must be fulfilled by carrying out a punishment. Will his death really improve the world and society in some way? Will terrorism and fear stop tomorrow because of this verdict? It's all just goes nowhere, and solves nothing. Potentially creates more problems even. I just think we need to understand that justice is a very narrow concept, essentially just the concept of deterrent (ie: fear of retribution for criminal acts), and more options need to be considered to deal with people who want to lash out at society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Why should taxpayers pay his upkeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 Why the false dilemma to begin with? The entire premise of this question is predicated on the assumption that some physical need must be fulfilled by carrying out a punishment. Will his death really improve the world and society in some way? Will terrorism and fear stop tomorrow because of this verdict? It's all just goes nowhere, and solves nothing. Potentially creates more problems even. I just think we need to understand that justice is a very narrow concept, essentially just the concept of deterrent (ie: fear of retribution for criminal acts), and more options need to be considered to deal with people who want to lash out at society. Like what? When a person serves notice on any society that he/she is not willing to live within the rules/laws that that society has put in place and accepted, what can be done with them. Human nature being what it is, there will always be predatory individuals who will seek to do harm to others in order to satisfy some need that they have which cannot be satisfied any other way. What other options are out there that have not been tried already? Imprisonment, mental health facilities, lobotomys, shock treatments, hanging, firing squads. I can go on and on because this is a dilema that has plagued humankind for centuries. The law does its best to make the punishment fit the crime, we are fallible beings, but there is a need for a society to be able to protect itself from criminal behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Like what? When a person serves notice on any society that he/she is not willing to live within the rules/laws that that society has put in place and accepted, what can be done with them.Something other than killing them maybe? I don't get this leap in logic people come to. You don't have any ideas on how to deal with extremists. So clearly the solution is just kill them? Human nature being what it is, there will always be predatory individuals who will seek to do harm to others in order to satisfy some need that they have which cannot be satisfied any other way. What other options are out there that have not been tried already? Imprisonment, mental health facilities, lobotomys, shock treatments, hanging, firing squads. I can go on and on because this is a dilema that has plagued humankind for centuries.Your listing punishments, not solutions. You'd think that since you are aware that this is a dilemma that has plagued mankind for so long it might also occur to you that the above clearly doesn't work for every problem. So why do we use them so liberally? The law does its best to make the punishment fit the crime, we are fallible beings, but there is a need for a society to be able to protect itself from criminal behavior.Which literally no one argues with. I can't imagine where the leap comes from that since the law has a problem clearly I must be saying their is no use for it. How does that come about? Why should taxpayers pay his upkeep?It's really, really sad that your value for human life is this low. Edited May 16, 2015 by CaptHawkeye 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 A man commits an act of terrorism and I am the one that is callous. Yeah, put him in a prison. Rehabilitate him. Make him a better person. Such things only work in textbooks for students of law and nowhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 That you are so confident about feeling that way essentially means no one could explain to you how divorced from reality your perceptions are. I could present an unlimited number of arguments on humanism and empathy penned from a myriad of authors from the Renaissance to this day and you simply would not understand. Responding to the comment "what can be done better about how we as a society see law and order" with "why should I pay for prison meals" is missing the point so tremendously that I cannot describe the gulf between us with the geometry of Euclid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Where was Dzokhar's empathy when he committed the act? When he planed it? Those arguments you could have presented may work on classic forms of criminal behavior (although they don't explain a 70% rate of recidivism in a prison near my home town). The fact that he was willing to blow up random strangers with no motives other than political gain he hoped to achieve tells me that he cannot be a member of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. The corollary is that it takes a society to nurture a criminal, and that's why "you" have to pay for his upkeep. Just exactly what do you propose? What would you consider justice for such a horrible act and how do you differentiate that behavior from vengeance? as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Legal_proceedings (or, more generally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway ) or this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people Nidan1: Human nature being what it is, there will always be predatory individuals who will seek to do harm to others in order to satisfy some need that they have which cannot be satisfied any other way. What other options are out there that have not been tried already? Imprisonment, mental health facilities, lobotomys, shock treatments, hanging, firing squads. I can go on and on because this is a dilemma that has plagued humankind for centuries. I assume you're talking about the people responsible for the global financial crisis here? I agree they should be segregated from society, and find it frankly astonishing that instead of any of them going to prison they instead have been punished by being handed billions in "bailouts". But, yeah, let's focus instead on the few hundred thou it will cost to maintain a murderer in prison. Edited May 16, 2015 by JonS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Why should taxpayers pay his upkeep? Isnt a death penalty in the US more expensive than life imprisionment due to the obligatory multiple appeals etc? I have heard so, but i am no expert on american law. Personally the difference between life imprisonment is with imprisonment, he still gets what he took away from those he killed. The ability to interact however constrained with other human beings, to laugh, smile, feel the sun etc etc. Actually his life in prision will most likely be very depressing and terrible. There wont be much similing and - depending on the prision he will be held at- not more than 1 an hour of sun each week. High profile criminals like him are usually kept isolated due to the danger other prisioners pose to them, so there will be next to no human interaction for him. In general the conditions in US supermax prisions are nothing to feel envy for, in some cases i think the conditions are even close to torture. It's really, really sad that your value for human life is this low. What value does Tsarnaevs life have? How will his future existence contribute to society and how has he contributed to society in the past? Not only did he not contribute, he did great damage, both immaterial and material, and every day he continues to exist he will continue to do more damage, both to society and to the innocent survivors and victims, even if he is imprisoned. It is very unfortunate and sad that a young man threw his life away like that and that he took so many others with him, but he has chosen this path consciously and willingly. He must be permanently removed. Why the false dilemma to begin with? The entire premise of this question is predicated on the assumption that some physical need must be fulfilled by carrying out a punishment. Will his death really improve the world and society in some way? It's all just goes nowhere, and solves nothing. Potentially creates more problems even. Well there is definately some thing to be done if someone blows up a crowd of innocent civillians out of sheer political extremism. For one, the offender needs to be removed from society so he cant do any more damage. Secondly, the damage he did must be minimized as much as possible. Will his death improve the world and society in some way? It wont. But his continued existence will do even more damage. I think killing him as part of trying to minimize the damage he did is legitimate. I dont think it makes much of a difference when compared to life imprisonment, but i think it' s legitimate. Will terrorism and fear stop tomorrow because of this verdict? It is irrational to ask this question in this context because terrorism and fear exist independent of Tsaranev and this verdict. ...and more options need to be considered to deal with people who want to lash out at society. On this i agree with you. I dont think putting a teenage pickpocket in prison will help make him a better man in the future. I dont think that smoking weed in public or possesing small amount of drugs is an offense worth of even a single day in prison, particularily in the case of first time offenders or youths. But there is a certain point where "lashing out at society" becomes an euphemism, and this point is when people start getting killed or injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. The corollary is that it takes a society to nurture a criminal, and that's why "you" have to pay for his upkeep. We went so far down that "society nurtures a criminal" road in college that some people actually argued that there is no free will (as in I want to blow up those people). It's an absurd idea to say that society nurtures criminals. Society is a contributing factor but not the source of criminal behavior, you still have to make a choice to commit a crime. As for the other part of your post, it is an interesting one. My opinion is that prisons don't have to be hotels, but that we as a society should look at ex-convicts differently, give them chance when they get out of prison to find a job. But that would require successful rehabilitation and frankly with the majority of the convicted that is a "bridge too far". As some of the inspectors I talked too have said, they are just broken (FUBAR). Also, Norway and US can't really be compared. One has the issues that the other doesn't and vice versa. Edited May 17, 2015 by Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. The corollary is that it takes a society to nurture a criminal, and that's why "you" have to pay for his upkeep. as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Legal_proceedings (or, more generally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway ) or this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people I assume you're talking about the people responsible for the global financial crisis here? I agree they should be segregated from society, and find it frankly astonishing that instead of any of them going to prison they instead have been punished by being handed billions in "bailouts". But, yeah, let's focus instead on the few hundred thou it will cost to maintain a murderer in prison. You are really stretching here, you could probably take any group in a society and plug them into a category of doing "harm" But honestly do you equate the financial "wizards" and politicians who made decisions that made them rich, but ruined a lot of others financially, with people who seek to physically harm, maim or kill innocent people? And if you had any children (and I dont know if you do) you would realize that parents must raise their children, so that they can be productive members of the village. Not the other way around. We don't live in prehistoric tribal situations anymore, but maybe you and Hillary Clinton think we still do. You are right about a society paying for the upkeep of those we incarcerate, otherwise we would be headed back to the prehistoric tribal societies, and either banish or kill offenders. outright. Edited May 17, 2015 by Nidan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) You are really stretching here, you could probably take any group in a society and plug them into a category of doing "harm" But honestly do you equate the financial "wizards" and politicians who made decisions that made them rich, but ruined a lot of others financially, with people who seek to physically harm, maim or kill innocent people? No, no. Of course not. One set of people we demonise and throw into prison for ruining the lives of hundreds. The other set we lionise and handsomely reward as they ruin the lives of millions. The two sets are obviously completely different. you would realize that parents must raise their children, so that they can be productive members of the village. Not the other way around. Yes, but you can't - and shouldn't try to - do it on your own. Society has an active role to play, and in interest in the outcome. They aren't disinterested bystanders. Edited May 17, 2015 by JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Heh heh funny how these conversations go. Nidan1, I'd actually vote for Hillary and at the same time I think the death penalty for this guy is appropriate. JonS - As to the Norwegian example - We do have our own here. http://judithclark.org/ http://judithclark.org/docs/harriet.pdf Judy Clark has now been in prison for well over 30 years. She actually didn't kill anyone however she was an unapologetic participant in an act that took the lives of 3 men. She got 3 consecutive 25 year sentences. In all likelihood she will never be released. Part of the difference with Tsarnaev is I think Americans are pretty tired of being the target of Islamic terrorism. Not that that should weigh in at all, no more than Judy Clark's politics should have caused a far greater sentence than a comparable strictly criminal robbery would have. It is however how folks react, there is a context to the crime beyond just the crime itself. We Americans do feel a sense of being at war with a callous, heartless, captive beheading enemy. I knew Judy Clark. I think she has served enough time for her crime and she has, even from behind bars become a contributing member of society. Probably contributing more than most of us average folks do. Executing her would have served nothing other than vengeance and the positive contributions she has been able to make since would never have occurred. I get what you are saying. However the Brinks Robbery did not have as it's intent to harm anyone. The goal was to rob a bank. Tsarnaev on the other hand had a much simpler goal, to kill, maim and terrorize as many innocent civilians as he could. To me it is a different scale and there is a basis for society to say that kind of behavior warrants a step further than simply imprisonment. Edited May 17, 2015 by sburke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 No, no. Of course not. One set of people we demonise and throw into prison for ruining the lives of hundreds. The other set we lionise and handsomely reward as they ruin the lives of millions. The two sets are obviously completely different. Yes, but you can't - and shouldn't try to - do it on your own. Society has an active role to play, and in interest in the outcome. They aren't disinterested bystanders. Ah! Jon the sarcasm is quite palpable There is a difference, the hedge fund managers and politicians created ruin in a legal framework, hence what they were doing turned out to affect many people in a bad way, but it was not against the law. As far as being lionized, that has not been the case generally here in the US. President Obama delights in ragging on the so called one percenters that supposedly control all of the wealth. Murder has been frowned upon in human societies for thousands of years, and has been punished. The closest thing in the 10 Commandments to rigging the housing market would probably be the 9th. Murder comes in at number 7. There is a place for society at large, I agree, but when children are very young and just starting to form their awareness of things outside of themselves, a parents guidance and involvement is paramount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Part of the difference with Tsarnaev is I think Americans are pretty tired of being the target of Islamic terrorism. Not that that should weigh in at all, no more than Judy Clark's politics should have caused a far greater sentence than a comparable strictly criminal robbery would have. It is however how folks react, there is a context to the crime beyond just the crime itself. We Americans do feel a sense of being at war with a callous, heartless, captive beheading enemy. I don't want to start any drama here, especially since I have absolutely no remorse for the treatment of Tsarnaev brothers... but I can't help pointing out that a person who makes bold and unsubstantiated claims that the terrorist bombings in Russia (that have taken many more lives than these two scumbags) were carried out by Russian government and not Chechen terrorists, is so fired up and vindictive about two Chechen terrorists that have carried out an act of terror on our soil... Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Edited May 18, 2015 by DreDay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts