By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Breaking News: Boston bomber tells victims he's sorry as judge formally sentences him to death

 

What do you think of the death sentence?

Well deserved! 201 56.46%
 
He showed remorse; he sho... 73 20.51%
 
I am undecided 12 3.37%
 
see results 70 19.66%
 
Total:356
McDonaldsGuy said:
Never said:

I'm glad he's shown remorse. Of course that won't bring anyone back. As for the death penalty I'm opposed to it.

You (the state) have him caught and imprisoned and completely vulnerable there is no pride that could be taken in killing him now.

I didn't vote in the poll because I don't want the death penalty in any case regardless of whether or not he showed remorse.


He's not showing remorse, he's playing the game and you've been played.

Sociopaths love playing people like you.

Wherether he felt remorse or not we will never know. He did however express remorse and for me that's good.

As i said it would have no baring on what I think his punichment would be so nobodies being played one way or another.



Around the Network
McDonaldsGuy said:


He's not showing remorse, he's playing the game and you've been played.

Sociopaths love playing people like you.

I'm not scared to be played by a sociopath, I'm scared of society being so afraid of monsters, that it doesn't even realize when it turns into a monster itself.



Never said:
McDonaldsGuy said:


He's not showing remorse, he's playing the game and you've been played.

Sociopaths love playing people like you.

Wherether he felt remorse or not we will never know. He did however express remorse and for me that's good.

As i said it would have no baring on what I think his punichment would be so nobodies being played one way or another.

He's not expressing remorse.



I think the piece of **** deserve's to die. Generally I disagree with capital punishment, but this person is an exception. After what he did, I'm glad to see the conclusion its come to.



Lawlight said:
Areym said:
He deserves to lose every limb in his body, just like some of his victims lost theirs, and then left to rot.


That's inhumane. We're not in Game of Thrones. Put him to rest so that he's not a waste of taxpayers' money.

That fucker ain't human. 



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
A_C_E said:
Nuvendil said:
The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument faces an obvious issue: all forms of punishment are actions that are wrong on their own without the justification of punishing someone for a criminal act. Is it not wrong to throw someone in a cage for decades? Is it not wrong to restrict their liberties? Is it not every form of punishment wrong outside the context of punishment? Justice is punishment for the evil, protection for the law abiding. The punishment should fit the crime. Oh and sentencing someone to multiple life sentences *is* killing them, essentially. Slowly.

As for this guy, not only has he been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he even admitted he did it. Under the law, that is sufficient for me to be comfortable with his sentence considering the heinousness of his crime.

But your causing the issue of saying its wrong to lock someone away as if its on the same level as killing someone. It just depends on an individuals psycopathy levels. People are ok with convicted criminals being confined to a jail cell with access to books, workout equipment, jobs/duties and other rights. When it comes to ending another person's life is where I do not consider myself equal in respect to most people in USA.

In no way does this mans existence hinder anybody else outside of the confinements perimeter. What this means is that the only way for this subject to have affect on anyone would be emotionally/mentally. Human beings LOVE to jump to conclusions without reasonable thought and base their knowledge off an emotional standing. Epistemologically speaking this does not make any sense and therefore most likely will not lead to a sensible conclusion, which is why the death penalty still exists today and we kill people who kill other people. Throwing someone in jail is wrong on account of innocence, but when someone is guilty - of anything - top security confinement and life without parole should be the highest conviction served by a court.

Convicting a person then throwing them in jail is offering society the not the piece of mind but the actual assurance of safety. When you kill a convicted murderer you're mearly offering peace of mind; killing someone for peace of mind sounds kind of religious to me, sorry.

Not just that. Death definally reassures that person can't do it again. Attempt a jail break. Can't infulence anyone that is gonna get released. Or try to get others to do their dirty work. And if you want to go deeper. Have a good time in jail. By abusing in-mates. Loving to rape people. Or having sex themselves.



archer9234 said:
A_C_E said:
Nuvendil said:
The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument faces an obvious issue: all forms of punishment are actions that are wrong on their own without the justification of punishing someone for a criminal act. Is it not wrong to throw someone in a cage for decades? Is it not wrong to restrict their liberties? Is it not every form of punishment wrong outside the context of punishment? Justice is punishment for the evil, protection for the law abiding. The punishment should fit the crime. Oh and sentencing someone to multiple life sentences *is* killing them, essentially. Slowly.

As for this guy, not only has he been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he even admitted he did it. Under the law, that is sufficient for me to be comfortable with his sentence considering the heinousness of his crime.

But your causing the issue of saying its wrong to lock someone away as if its on the same level as killing someone. It just depends on an individuals psycopathy levels. People are ok with convicted criminals being confined to a jail cell with access to books, workout equipment, jobs/duties and other rights. When it comes to ending another person's life is where I do not consider myself equal in respect to most people in USA.

In no way does this mans existence hinder anybody else outside of the confinements perimeter. What this means is that the only way for this subject to have affect on anyone would be emotionally/mentally. Human beings LOVE to jump to conclusions without reasonable thought and base their knowledge off an emotional standing. Epistemologically speaking this does not make any sense and therefore most likely will not lead to a sensible conclusion, which is why the death penalty still exists today and we kill people who kill other people. Throwing someone in jail is wrong on account of innocence, but when someone is guilty - of anything - top security confinement and life without parole should be the highest conviction served by a court.

Convicting a person then throwing them in jail is offering society the not the piece of mind but the actual assurance of safety. When you kill a convicted murderer you're mearly offering peace of mind; killing someone for peace of mind sounds kind of religious to me, sorry.

Not just that. Death definally reassures that person can't do it again. Attempt a jail break. Can't infulence anyone that is gonna get released. Or try to get others to do their dirty work. And if you want to go deeper. Have a good time in jail. By abusing in-mates. Loving to rape people. Or having sex themselves.

Of course death reassures that person can't do it again. Its relatively well known that alot of jails need tuning up and higher security. Nobody is denying that low-tier and mid-teir jails need more financing but that doesn't mean end another life just for piece of mind because that sounds too religious. People are plauding the fact that he is being put to death but they disagree with the deaths he caused before hand. Our society is so hypocritical when people complain about death then induce it themselves. You can argue the little things all you want but death is death. People just think that if society deems it necessary then poof...its necessary, without any clear cut thought put into it.

Just a bunch of emotional decisions by clouded individuals who can only see things through one perspective without acknowledging that another perspective is offering a much more futuristic and less childish rebuttal. The reason I use the word childish is because the death penalty won't be around forever, because through natural progression the rest of society will learn that there are better methods of justice than to just stoop to someone elses psycopthic levels of thought.

Also, it doesn't matter what they are doing in jail so long as the public are kept safe from criminals then that's all you need. It doesn't matter that some criminal is playing basketball for an hour a day, you're still going to be the exact same person you were yesterday. The **** does this guys life in jail have to do with anyone else outside of the jails perimeter? And please don't mention conspiracy theories.



McDonaldsGuy said:
palou said:
I do not believe that punishment should be, in any way or form, goal of the justice system. The goal of all forms of government should be to search ideal life conditions for all people, including criminals. Punishing purely for revenge is counterproductive to this, and for me, is higly unmoral.

I do not believe that a death sentence would impede other individuals of committing similar acts, over a life sentence, quite the contrary, in fact. Many religious extremists consider death to be more honourable than being captured; anyone afraid of death awould not participate in these activities in the first place, considiring the high risk (and examples of this risk, such as the other brother.)

I thus believe the death sentance to be both unethical and counterproductive.


This really made me angry - you just basically said his victims mean nothing. It's "immoral" to kill him yet perfectly OK for him to place a bomb near an 8 year old to blow up. Unreal.

Why form your arguement by putting words into peoples mouth's? Just because its immoral to kill him doesn't mean its ok for him to place a bomb near anyone. Are you actually stupid enough to think he was pointing out that it was ok to place bombs near people or are you just acting stupid because you have zero arguement and have to rely on putting words into people's mouth?



remorse doesn't change his actions

the death penalty is not an act of revenge but a penalty appropriate for certain crimes. there are certain tiers of crimes. someone who brutally rapes another, as terrible as that is, should not get the same punishment (life in prison vs. death) as someone who blows up tons of people and damages who knows how many families minds and sense of peace

hopefully the death penalty deters others from committing crimes like this, and regardless of it does we can be certain that it doesn't ENCOURAGE said actions

we can't just house every insanely evil person and feed and clothe them. what example is that setting? also I feel as if that sort of mindset (never executing extreme evil doers) is not balanced. I think there needs to be some degree of balance in the world. not out revenge, but out of fairness.

if you murder a score of people for absolutely no reason it's pretty clear that you are not going to give back or add anything to society in the future. why should society house a member who is destructive and gives nothing back? its simple logic



Areym said:
Lawlight said:


That's inhumane. We're not in Game of Thrones. Put him to rest so that he's not a waste of taxpayers' money.

That fucker ain't human. 

Even so. Do you want to be the one torturing him?