Breaking: Boston Marathon Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death - Polidicks

Thankfully prison homicides have declined massively over the years too I'm more worried about threats like him killing other prisoners I suppose, but thankfully, it's unlikely he'd ever be grouped with normal criminals

[QUOTE=Forumaster;47737084]It's hard to imagine that people will actually commit mass murder in this day and age.[/QUOTE] Yes it is, like USA is doing right now. How many people have USA murdered through state sanctioned murder so far?

[quote="Bumrang"]Pretty much everything[/quote] I hope you realize how obnoxious you're being in this whole argument. I'm not going to step in the argument because I've established my stance on the death sentence several times on these forums before, but your entire debate structure revolves around asking for a simple thing (ie "give me a thing which deserves death penalty") and upon getting a reasonable response you act like it's not enough even though the other poster is being [I]perfectly clear[/I] along with having a perfectly valid, receivable point. When people point out your bullshit, you start throwing names of logical fallacies like that makes you right (pointing out logical fallacies to validate your point/invalidate an opposing point [I]is a fallacy[/I] in its own right). There's no point in saying anything regarding your opinion if all you're going to do is plug your ears whenever anything remotely valid is said to counter your own arguments. Nobody's asking you to stop believing in your opinions but not demeaning the shit out of other opinions is kind of required if you don't want to sound and look like an ass.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47738238]I hope you realize how obnoxious you're being in this whole argument. I'm not going to step in the argument because I've established my stance on the death sentence several times on these forums before, but your entire debate structure revolves around asking for a simple thing (ie "give me a thing which deserves death penalty") and upon getting a reasonable response you act like it's not enough even though the other poster is being [I]perfectly clear[/I] along with having a perfectly valid, receivable point. When people point out your bullshit, you start throwing names of logical fallacies like that makes you right (pointing out logical fallacies to validate your point/invalidate an opposing point [I]is a fallacy[/I] in its own right). There's no point in saying anything regarding your opinion if all you're going to do is plug your ears whenever anything remotely valid is said to counter your own arguments. Nobody's asking you to stop believing in your opinions but not demeaning the shit out of other opinions is kind of required if you don't want to sound and look like an ass.[/QUOTE] rofl no, just read what i posted again im not asking for examples for what should be punished by death, im asking for what line does someone cross between killing X amount of people to get punished by death the fact that none of u can give me an answer really says something

[QUOTE=J!NX;47737688]I really feel it's not ok to execute unless they did something that is a very serious threat to a huge number of people and 100% confirmed guilty (he absolutely was wasn't he, yes?)[/QUOTE] There's no such thing as being '100% confirmed guilty'. What if he was set up? Even a confession isn't a surefire way to ensure guilt. What if he's taking the fall for the perpetrators? What if they threatened to give him a slow and painful death and he'd rather be sentenced to death? A lot of suspects who were 'confirmed 100% guilty' were revealed to be innocent people after they were put to death. [QUOTE]I'm not 100% against the death sentence but if it's used in a case where someone tried to murder a huge crowd of people he's too much of a threat to really let live there's being a pedo, there's being a rapist, there's even being a murderer, and then there's bombing crowds of people. It's far more extreme than what "usual" criminals do. What if he escapes? Wouldn't prisoners who find out absolutely destroy this guy in prison? Even if he's in the best prison with 0 chance of escape and even if the death sentence is unreasonably expensive he's not your usual criminal.[/QUOTE] How likely is he to escape? Can you refer to past cases in countries which abolished the death sentence where a criminal who was convicted to a life sentence escaped and committed more murders? Being a terrorist doesn't make someone an expert in evasion. If anything terrorist organisations would rather send more disposable minions to do their bidding than train their fanatics to escape high-security prisons. So I don't really see how that's a likely scenario. In the end what you're doing is trying to balance things out, but given the US track record of innocents sentenced to death I wouldn't trust them with ensuring the guilt of a suspect instead of being cautious and give them a life sentence, all that because of an unlikely risk that he escapes. There's a reason Europe stopped supplying the US with chemicals used in the death poison.

I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, the crime committed was indefensible and dramatically affected/ended many lives. On the other, I just don't see the death penalty as a legitimate form of justice. I was discussing this with my father and we both agree that, arguably, it would be of greater benefit if he was given life in prison, BUT during his time there he was put into some kind of work program designed to help the community/nation he harmed. Could be roadwork, manufacturing, whatever, let the prison system be something more than just someone rotting in a cell. Find a way to have them give back to society in some way. In my opinion, that's far more "justice" than the system we have now.

Im against the death penalty, but why do people argue against the death penalty by saying life in prison is a worse punishment? Wouldn't that be more bloodthirsty and cruel than simply killing him? It just seems like flawed reasoning to me

[QUOTE=CrucialSeBBi;47739018]Im against the death penalty, but why do people argue against the death penalty by saying life in prison is a worse punishment? Wouldn't that be more bloodthirsty and cruel than simply killing him? It just seems like flawed reasoning to me[/QUOTE] I think life in prison is better because I actually think murder is wrong. When you have such a big margin of error as 4 % of innocent people getting murdered by the state, then how can you possibly defend having murder as a punishment around still? Please someone explain to me how you can defend murder as a form of punishment when so many people are innocent.

[QUOTE=gastyne;47738222]Yes it is, like USA is doing right now. How many people have USA murdered through state sanctioned murder so far?[/QUOTE] There haven't been too many executions this year for us, actually. There was Andrew Brannan, the guy who [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU]murdered Deputy Kyle Dinkheller[/url]. John Kormondy. He and two friends broke into a banker's house, Gary McAdams, shot him in the back of the head, and then proceeded to rape his wife Cecilia again and again. She survived. Charles Warner, for killing the 11-month-old baby girl of his at the time girlfriend by shaking it until it died. And for rape; he raped the baby before he killed her. Arnold Prieto, for murdering three people-- a 90-year-old woman, a 72-year-old man, and his 62-year-old wife-- with a combination of a screwdriver, an icepick, and a knife following a botched robbery. He and his two brothers only got away with some jewelry and $300. Warren Hill, for killing his cell mate, Joseph Handspike, by beating him to death with a nail-studded board. He was serving a life sentence at the time for murdering his 18-year-old girlfriend by shooting her to death (shot her 11 times). Robert Ladd, for sexually assaulting and murdering Vicki Garner after he burglarized her home. He'd been in prison for 16 years previously for murdering another woman and her two children after he set their apartment on fire. Donald Newbury, one of the Texas Seven. He was serving a prison sentence for robbery, escaped with six other men, and shot an officer to death when they were caught robbing a sporting goods store. They shot Officer Aubrey Hawkins to death and crushed the body with a car by driving over it repeatedly. Even took the officer's gun. Walter Storey, for breaking into his neighbor's home, Jill Frey, and murdering her by slitting her throat with a knife. After he beat her and broke six of her ribs, that is. He almost cut her head off when he slit her throat. Manuel Vasquez, for murdering 51-year-old Juanita Ybarra by beating and strangling her to death. He was a hitman for the Mexican mafia; Juanita was selling drugs and owed money. Cecil Clayton. He killed Deputy Chris Castetter here in Missouri after Castetter responded to a report of a domestic disturbance. Kent Sprouse. Killed two men at a gas station in Texas with a shotgun: 38-year-old Pedro Moreno and 28-year-old Harry Steinfeldt (a cop who managed to return fire at Sprouse but died from his injuries). Andre Cole, who attempted to murder his wife Terri in the middle of a divorce and her friend Anthoy Curtis. He successfully stabbed Curtis to death, but his wife survived the attack. Manuel Garza, for killing 37-year-old Officer John Riojas. Garza was stealing shit, Officer Riojas attempted to apprehend him, and after a chase, Garza took Riojas' gun off him and shot him in the head, because he had outstanding warrants for property crimes and "didn't want to go to jail". This dumb bastard blamed Riojas for his own death too. And finally, just four days ago, we executed Derrick Charles for murdering three people: his 15-year-old girlfriend Myiesha Bennett, her 44-year-old mother Brenda, and her 77-year-old grandfather Obie. [editline]17 May 2015[/editline] It's scary to think just how many people there are alive right now out there who don't realize just how dangerous and hateful of a world it is we live in, as this list illustrates. But I guess it's easy to condemn the executions of shit human beings when you don't have to have anything to do with them, and when the gorey details of their crimes aren't laid out for you. "Just rehabilitate them; I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about, and I have the naive mindset of a child, but I'm right and you're wrong". It's awesome that we don't listen to people like you.

Just my own preference, if I were [B]guilty[/B] of a crime that would warrant the death penalty or life in prison without parole (if there were even a choice), I personally would go with the death penalty and get it over with. I don't think there would be anything worth living for in prison.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/Vm8NVZB.jpg[/t] i'm glad we continue standing among such bastions of justice like china and saudi arabia. thankfully, we continue moving ahead of the backwards areas of south america, russia, almost all of africa and europe.

[QUOTE=gudman;47736848]What? That doesn't even make any sense.[/QUOTE] When someone commits a crime against humanity, I'm pretty sure they've already thrown out their humane thoughts and as such, are inhuman and thus removes their human rights. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;47736892]I'm certain those exact words were used by a Nazi sometime during World War II.[/QUOTE] Unless you have sources, I'm gonna call bullshit on that.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;47738630]rofl no, just read what i posted again im not asking for examples for what should be punished by death, im asking for what line does someone cross between killing X amount of people to get punished by death the fact that none of u can give me an answer really says something[/QUOTE] so basically you're asking for examples I already gave you exactly my examples on the topic. What else do you want from me? a blood sample? urine? Hair? you aren't actually arguing anything, you're just making odd blanket statements that make no sense and asking vaguely for specific answers that should already be there. I genuinely have no idea what you actually [I]want[/I] from me [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;47738827]There's no such thing as being '100% confirmed guilty'. What if he was set up? Even a confession isn't a surefire way to ensure guilt. What if he's taking the fall for the perpetrators? What if they threatened to give him a slow and painful death and he'd rather be sentenced to death? A lot of suspects who were 'confirmed 100% guilty' were revealed to be innocent people after they were put to death.[/QUOTE] You got me, fair enough I'm sure you can respect the idea that execution out of fear is reasonable enough. of course, justice out of fair usually becomes unreasonable and even worse than out of revenge

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47739789][t]http://i.imgur.com/Vm8NVZB.jpg[/t] i'm glad we continue standing among such bastions of justice like china and saudi arabia. thankfully, we continue moving ahead of the backwards areas of south america, russia, almost all of africa and europe.[/QUOTE] You forgot Japan. And for what issues the United States criminal justice system has, acceptance and use of capital punishment is not one of those issues. Overcrowding is an issue. State and federal waste and inefficiency are issues. The circus of the appeals process is an issue. The legitimacy and integrity of lawyers, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, are issues. Questionability of past convictions prior to DNA testing and modern forensic science, and as well limited instances of incompetence amongst forensic investigators have been issues as well. But reservation of death as a punishment for persons guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of crimes especially heinous and cruel, and widespread in their damage, is not and should not be considered an issue. Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence is not an issue. He is guilty of his crimes, he is a dangerous individual, and he will be executed for what he did. And that's that. There is no reason to feel upset over this man dying for what he did. Did you cry this much when Tamerlan was shot down by cops and run over accidentally by his brother after the bombing?

And if he's locked away in a Supermax prison without parole for the rest of his life that's different from executing him how? (except being more humane and not killing him). Like, I think the Boston Bomber is one of the most despicable people, but that doesn't mean I have to stoop to his level and kill him. It accomplishes nothing other than just killing someone else. I'm against the death penalty in any case.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47738827]There's no such thing as being '100% confirmed guilty'.[/quote] Yes there is. Either he did it, or he didn't do it. Either he was involved, or he wasn't involved. He did it. He was involved. And he was found guilty and sentenced to death because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves he did it and was involved. [quote=_Axel;47738827]What if he was set up? Even a confession isn't a surefire way to ensure guilt. What if he's taking the fall for the perpetrators? What if they threatened to give him a slow and painful death and he'd rather be sentenced to death? A lot of suspects who were 'confirmed 100% guilty' were revealed to be innocent people after they were put to death.[/QUOTE] Oh hey, the "what-if" hypotheticals game. What if Tamerlan set his brother up and faked his death? What if Osama bin Laden faked his death and was actually behind the attack all along? What if it was an inside job by the government to fight the capital punishment abolitionist crowd? Your hypotheticals have no basis in reality. You are making shit up, not providing any proof for your possibles, and that's why you shouldn't be taken seriously here. This isn't how the justice system works. Evidence has proven Tsarnaev is guilty, as was his brother. Rather than play the what-if game with you, let me ask you simply: why are you going to such extraordinarily ridiculous lengths to oppose the execution of a confirmed terrorist and murderer? If it was any other case where exoneration might be possible and the right thing to do because of doubt of guilt, I'd likely agree, but that isn't the case here. He did it. He is guilty. And he will die for it. And that's how simple it is. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;47740075]And if he's locked away in a Supermax prison without parole for the rest of his life that's different from executing him how? (except being more humane and not killing him). Like, I think the Boston Bomber is one of the most despicable people, but that doesn't mean I have to stoop to his level and kill him. It accomplishes nothing other than just killing someone else. I'm against the death penalty in any case.[/QUOTE] Whether or not it is more humane is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. I would actually disagree that it's more humane keep him caged up like an animal for the rest of his life; I would rather see him killed and have it be done with than leave him to suffer and languish for years and years. [i]That[/i] would be more inhumane. But that's the problem with trying to turn this into a strictly moral issue: morals are relative. So is the aspect of whether or not you're "stooping to his level" by killing him. It's a matter of opinion. At least when it comes to this aspect however, it can at least be argued that we aren't actually "stooping to his level" on the basis that he killed innocent people and injured many more innocent people-- whereas we are killing a guilty man, not an innocent one. Therefore, we are not as bad as he is; actually, we're still better than he is. In the first place, you're missing the point of capital punishment. Human civilization hasn't used capital punishment for thousands of years just on the premise it accomplishes anything for us necessarily from a scientific point of view (like lower crime rates or whatnot, although this is debatable; if you examine countries like Iran and Singapore and Saudi Arabia, when it comes to capital offenses, they have some of the lowest offending rates in the world; I've argued before that harsh punishments can work and used these countries as a basis for it; my problem with them lies in the absurd amount of corruption and the backwards laws they adopt, especially in the theocratic cases of Iran and Saudi Arabia). We have used it as a means to remove those who are dangerous from those who are not, and to assert the dominance of our moral and ethical principles and of our laws-- these three things of which form the basis of our societies. And we have also used it as a means to assert that human life has value. I know this might seem paradoxical, but the idea behind it, and it is a sound idea, is that the death penalty actually strengthens the value of human life. The penalty is harsh, and it is harsh because the crimes we apply it to (murder especially) are serious. If we lower the harshness of the punishment, as we would by abolishing it, then we cheapen the seriousness of the crimes it was reserved for previously and casualize them. It is by prescribing the highest penalty for the taking of human life, death, that we assert the value of human life to be as high as it is. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again until this stops being an issue: not all human life has value. Especially when it comes to a life that has unjustly stolen another's life. This is what Dzhokar Tsarnaev and his brother did, this is what Andrew Brannan did to Kyle Dinkheller, this is what Charles Warner did to his girlfriend's 11-month-old baby girl, it's what Arnold Prieto did, etc. It was for this reason especially these people all deserved to die for what they did, all other acceptable reasons aside, and it is for this reason that Dzhokar Tsarnaev will inevitably die. It is legal, it has been deemed morally and ethically acceptable, he has been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and so die he shall.

[QUOTE=Skeggr;47735275]As a Muslim, I disagree. He's not a Martyr. He's nothing more or less than a criminal who killed innocent people. And as Allah stated; Killing ONE innocent human is like killing the whole humanity. I /DO/ condone people to do some REAL research based on their OWN instead of listening to others.[/QUOTE] This is such a garbage line from the Quran. Every ideology holds the exact same principal: innocents should not be killed. The entire point of disagreement is the criteria which determines innocence. For example, all Americans might be judged criminal by the two bombers, so by that standard they weren't killing innocents. Political dissidents were not innocents under Stalin's rule.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47740075]And if he's locked away in a Supermax prison without parole for the rest of his life that's different from executing him how? (except being more humane and not killing him). Like, I think the Boston Bomber is one of the most despicable people, but that doesn't mean I have to stoop to his level and kill him. It accomplishes nothing other than just killing someone else. I'm against the death penalty in any case.[/QUOTE] well I mean, for one, he'll simply be wasting away in a cell forever, waiting to die with no chance of escape, stuck inside his own mind, utterly and totally oblivious of anything other than the room he's in but at least it's not expensive

[QUOTE=J!NX;47740928]well I mean, for one, he'll simply be wasting away in a cell forever, waiting to die with no chance of escape, stuck inside his own mind, utterly and totally oblivious of anything other than the room he's in but at least it's not expensive[/QUOTE]So because the conditions in our prisons are poor, one is better off dead? It seems terribly backwards to argue for what one believes to be the better outcome for the prisoner when the end result is them no longer being alive. Perhaps instead you should be endeavor to achieve better prison conditions rather than execution as the preferred alternative.

[QUOTE=iAmaNewb;47739884]When someone commits a crime against humanity, I'm pretty sure they've already thrown out their humane thoughts and as such, are inhuman and thus removes their human rights. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [/QUOTE] The nature of a right is that it is immune to any other action or event happening. It's called human right, not human privilege.

It's much better that he just gets executed with a bullet to the head that cost's a few dollars than have him sit in a prison for the rest of his life while the government pays for his food and everything else Fuck terrorists

[QUOTE=Hendo;47741381]It's much better that he just gets executed with a bullet to the head that cost's a few dollars than have him sit in a prison for the rest of his life while the government pays for his food and everything else Fuck terrorists[/QUOTE] Death penalty costs far more than a life sentence due to the unlimited number of appeals available to them, in addition to the higher quality of evidence needed for such a conviction.

[QUOTE=Govna;47740028] But reservation of death as a punishment for persons guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of crimes especially heinous and cruel, and widespread in their damage, is not and should not be considered an issue. Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence is not an issue. He is guilty of his crimes, he is a dangerous individual, and he will be executed for what he did. And that's that. There is no reason to feel upset over this man dying for what he did. Did you cry this much when Tamerlan was shot down by cops and run over accidentally by his brother after the bombing?[/QUOTE] The Lord God Govna has spoken. There is no argument to be had. Everyone go to bed.

[QUOTE=Govna;47739254]It's scary to think just how many people there are alive right now out there who don't realize just how dangerous and hateful of a world it is we live in, as this list illustrates. But I guess it's easy to condemn the executions of shit human beings when you don't have to have anything to do with them, and when the gorey details of their crimes aren't laid out for you. "Just rehabilitate them; I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about, and I have the naive mindset of a child, but I'm right and you're wrong". It's awesome that we don't listen to people like you.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Govna;47740028]You forgot Japan. And for what issues the United States criminal justice system has, acceptance and use of capital punishment is not one of those issues. Overcrowding is an issue. State and federal waste and inefficiency are issues. The circus of the appeals process is an issue. The legitimacy and integrity of lawyers, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, are issues. Questionability of past convictions prior to DNA testing and modern forensic science, and as well limited instances of incompetence amongst forensic investigators have been issues as well. But reservation of death as a punishment for persons guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of crimes especially heinous and cruel, and widespread in their damage, is not and should not be considered an issue. Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence is not an issue. He is guilty of his crimes, he is a dangerous individual, and he will be executed for what he did. And that's that. There is no reason to feel upset over this man dying for what he did. Did you cry this much when Tamerlan was shot down by cops and run over accidentally by his brother after the bombing?[/QUOTE] saying that someone's a smelly hippy who doesn't know "the gorey details" is how conservatives tell you to check your privilege

[QUOTE=J!NX;47739988]You got me, fair enough I'm sure you can respect the idea that execution out of fear is reasonable enough. of course, justice out of fair usually becomes unreasonable and even worse than out of revenge[/QUOTE] I understand the concept, but we would need to have actual information on the likelihood of both possibilities to come to a conclusion. Right now we don't have any, so it just boils down to opinion. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;47740082]Yes there is. Either he did it, or he didn't do it. Either he was involved, or he wasn't involved. He did it. He was involved. And he was found guilty and sentenced to death because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves he did it and was involved.[/QUOTE] And how exactly can you be certain he is guilty of this crime? Can you somehow have access to absolute truth? There is no such thing as undeniable evidence. [QUOTE]Oh hey, the "what-if" hypotheticals game. What if Tamerlan set his brother up and faked his death? What if Osama bin Laden faked his death and was actually behind the attack all along? What if it was an inside job by the government to fight the capital punishment abolitionist crowd?[/QUOTE] What if Joe Arridy, a mentally disabled man who [I]fucking confessed[/I] to raping and murdering a 15-year-old schoolgirl in Pueblo, Colorado, and was executed in 1939, wasn't even in Pueblo at the time of the crime and was coerced into confessing? What if Jesse Tafero, who was put to death by electric chair in 1990, didn't actually commit the crime he was sentenced for, and a recreation of the scene of the crime showed that it was committed by another person? What if Johnny Garett, who was executed in 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun, was actually not the murderer and DNA analysis on an apparently unrelated crime scene made it more plausible that the murder was actually committed by another person, Leoncio Rueda? What if Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for allegedly killing [I]his own three fucking children[/I] by arson, didn't actually start the fire? What if national fire investigator Gerald Hurst confirmed it was accidental? Surely these are totally made-up assumptions, with no decent evidence to back it up, right? Wait a minute, those assumptions were actually all true! However, they were only proven after the wrong person was executed.[I] Whoopsie![/I] But no, there's nothing wrong with casting any doubt away when a man's life is at stake. Let's just kill him quickly so that the case can be closed and not investigated any further. That way we'll never know if he was actually innocent and we can sleep sound without questioning the consequences of our own actions! [QUOTE]Your hypotheticals have no basis in reality. You are making shit up, not providing any proof for your possibles, and that's why you shouldn't be taken seriously here. This isn't how the justice system works. Evidence has proven Tsarnaev is guilty, as was his brother.[/QUOTE] I'll tell you what has absolutely no basis in reality : Believing that something can be undeniably proven without the shadow of a doubt. If you actually found a way to construct an absolute proof to describe a physical phenomenon, be my guest : Share your secrets with scientists - You know, those people who make very accurate models of reality but are ready to question them if they don't correlate with practice? - and assuming they don't outright laugh at you, perhaps you could be the key to an incredible revolution in the realm of science! [QUOTE]Rather than play the what-if game with you, let me ask you simply: why are you going to such extraordinarily ridiculous lengths to oppose the execution of a confirmed terrorist and murderer? If it was any other case where exoneration might be possible and the right thing to do because of doubt of guilt, I'd likely agree, but that isn't the case here. He did it. He is guilty. And he will die for it.[/QUOTE] Because only people like you believe that juridical judgement is absolutely objective, and want to go against further investigations by quickly getting rid of whoever they think is guilty to satisfy whatever passes for justice in their eyes. [QUOTE]And that's how simple it is.[/QUOTE] And that's how simple-minded you are.

[QUOTE=Darth Hater;47740982]So because the conditions in our prisons are poor, one is better off dead? It seems terribly backwards to argue for what one believes to be the better outcome for the prisoner when the end result is them no longer being alive. Perhaps instead you should be endeavor to achieve better prison conditions rather than execution as the preferred alternative.[/QUOTE] way to turn it into something else

[QUOTE=J!NX;47743426]way to turn it into something else[/QUOTE] Well I saw it as a strange line of reasoning to go down. What I understood from your quote, correct me if I'm wrong, is "Our prisons are deplorable, and thus death would be a mercy." To even mention the quality of our prisons as something so undesirable that one who is faced with such a situation could reasonable ask to die as an alternative, implies you care somewhat for the people we send there. Care at the very least for them as human beings that is. If you care at all for the people we send there then killing them seems to be an unintuitive way of improving their lives.