Boston bomber to be executed

No, they are people with valid opinions that happen to be different from yours.
You do know that there can be opinions other than yours and they can be right don't you?

When you think what awaits him in an American prison I would think a death sentence was the more humane option.

I'm not sure what the state law in Massachusetts is, but in some US states judges are only allowed to impose the death penalty if jurors recommend death instead of life in prison. That seems like too much power in the hands of the jury to me. Cases like this drive people's passions and emotions so that extreme options become the more appealing ones, despite most likely not being the moral or ethical choices. What Tsarnaev and his brother did was terrible, but what does the death penalty achieve? Closure? Hardly. All those hundreds of people still have to live with their trauma and rehabilitation. The families of those three people killed won't get their loved ones back. All sentencing him to death achieves is essentially 'getting our own back' - and it hardly even achieves that in reality.

No, they are people with valid opinions that happen to be different from yours.
You do know that there can be opinions other than yours and they can be right don't you?

When you think what awaits him in an American prison I would think a death sentence was the more humane option.

What will be achieved by giving him the death penalty?
Absolutely nothing, I suspect.
If anything it will make him a hero and encourage others like him.

I was just reading about the fact that the death penalty is not used in Massachuetts (and hasn't been since 1984). But the guy was tried in Indiana - does anybody know why?

He'll be dead and wont be bombing anyone else

I'm not sure what the state law in Massachusetts is, but in some US states judges are only allowed to impose the death penalty if jurors recommend death instead of life in prison. That seems like too much power in the hands of the jury to me. Cases like this drive people's passions and emotions so that extreme options become the more appealing ones, despite most likely not being the moral or ethical choices. What Tsarnaev and his brother did was terrible, but what does the death penalty achieve? Closure? Hardly. All those hundreds of people still have to live with their trauma and rehabilitation. The families of those three people killed won't get their loved ones back. All sentencing him to death achieves is essentially 'getting our own back' - and it hardly even achieves that in reality.

Good.

I was just reading about the fact that the death penalty is not used in Massachuetts (and hasn't been since 1984). But the guy was tried in Indiana - does anybody know why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32757790


Justified?

The death penalty is state murder.

Why's that?



I think he's been tried in a federal court in Massachusetts. I'm not sure how they're justifying moving him across to Indiana, but perhaps federal courts have that ability. Wouldn't surprise me given the speed at which Americans are happy to shift 'suspect terrorists' off to Guantanamo. I'll try and find some more info.

yes. i think its a suitable punishment.




no its not.

no its not.

I think the death penalty is a suitable punishment.

The prison in Indiana is where the death row is for federal crimes.

I think the death penalty is a suitable punishment.

The prison in Indiana is where the death row is for federal crimes.

Because he's really going to bomb someone from prison.

How is it not murder? You're killing someone.

I disagree, you are making someone die which is murder.
an eye for an eye makes the whole word blind

Killing is not the same as murder

What does it achieve exactly?

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Does a crime become federal when it involves people from multiple states rather than just the one, i.e. Massachusetts?