Boston Bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev ought to be declared an "enemy combatant" because "My God, they were
107 replies, posted
[quote]
In addition to Graham, Republicans Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, joined by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, commended investigators for not reading Tsarnaev the Miranda rights but said they were concerned investigators would soon do so.[/quote]
Seriously? Concerned.......
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40370408]This is what awaits him if they declare him an enemy:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCUzHnVeI10[/media][/QUOTE]
So much penis.....
Talk about extreme sadism
Ponder this logic:
This man had every intention of killing innocent spectators lives at the boston marathon, and succeeded at killing 3 of them. One of which was a 8 y/o boy.
Did those three deserve to die? Certainly they "deserved" to live.
Them him and his brother go to MIT and shoot up that school, assassinating a police officer in his car.
Did he deserve to die because he wore a uniform? Certainly he "deserved" to live.
They shoot a transit officer who is currently [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1263090]fighting for his life[/url] because of him.
Does that officer deserve to face death because of one man? Certainly he "deserves" to live.
The bomber then shoots at the police, runs over his brother (killing him) and then flees to watertown where he gets into another gun battle with the police.
Do those police officers deserve to live? Do they deserve to be shot at? Do they wish for this to happen to their city? Certainly all these police officers "deserve" to live.
Then comes him. The bomber. He willfully and intentionally killed three people while trying to kill many more, assisting in killing a federal employee, and then attempted to kill many other police officers.
Is the killing of one man thoughtfully weighed against the emotional and physical damage that he has caused? Would society benefit greater in his death than keeping him alive? Is it truly worth keeping a US citizen alive after he willingly violated the rules of our society with no chance of being reintroduced into it?
Or do you look at the social cost of his death? The costs of killing him? His family's burden? The lack of information gained? No sense of justice? You feel that its the cheater way of getting out of a crime? Cruel and unusual?
--
This is the debate. Morals vs. Society.
Its not a lapse of critical thinking. Its a person speaking their morals against yours. He believes that this man has committed crimes against society that are deemed unforgivable in which he will pay with his life, while you see that this man has also committed crimes against society that are deemed unforgivable, but would rather see him alive in the federal prison for the rest of his young life.
Two different viewpoints. There is no right answer.
[QUOTE=areolop;40385681]Morals Vs. Society[/QUOTE]
It's more the belief that the government in a free and diverse country should not take any moral stand at all. The function of law enforcement and the legal system should be utilitarian, not righteous - To preserve life and property, and put those who are at risk of re-offending in a place where they cannot do further harm. This isn't a matter of 'killing is always bad hence executing criminals is bad', it's the assertion that any government that executes people is not representing its population in an egalitarian manner, because executing people takes a particular moral stand and is an action under a particular moral framework.
Inaction - That is, choosing to do nothing but protect society from the criminal - cannot be classified as a 'moral' act, because it is the government's basic function according to democratic principles.
Certainly none of the victims of these criminals could be said to have 'deserved' their fate, as you pointed out. Still, in a republic or a democracy, vengeance is a matter for individuals, not governments, to settle, and those individuals must weigh the legal and social consequences of their actions for themselves.
Of course, were the United States a dictatorship, then executing prisoners would be entirely justified under that system of government, because it does not necessarily have to serve the people or even represent them.
[editline]23rd April 2013[/editline]
The cornerstone of my argument is that a government should be consistent.
If it claims to be egalitarian, it must be consistently egalitarian.
[QUOTE=areolop;40385681]Ponder this logic:
This man had every intention of killing innocent spectators lives at the boston marathon, and succeeded at killing 3 of them. One of which was a 8 y/o boy.
Did those three deserve to die? Certainly they "deserved" to live.
Them him and his brother go to MIT and shoot up that school, assassinating a police officer in his car.
Did he deserve to die because he wore a uniform? Certainly he "deserved" to live.
They shoot a transit officer who is currently [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1263090]fighting for his life[/url] because of him.
Does that officer deserve to face death because of one man? Certainly he "deserves" to live.
The bomber then shoots at the police, runs over his brother (killing him) and then flees to watertown where he gets into another gun battle with the police.
Do those police officers deserve to live? Do they deserve to be shot at? Do they wish for this to happen to their city? Certainly all these police officers "deserve" to live.
Then comes him. The bomber. He willfully and intentionally killed three people while trying to kill many more, assisting in killing a federal employee, and then attempted to kill many other police officers.
Is the killing of one man thoughtfully weighed against the emotional and physical damage that he has caused? Would society benefit greater in his death than keeping him alive? Is it truly worth keeping a US citizen alive after he willingly violated the rules of our society with no chance of being reintroduced into it?
Or do you look at the social cost of his death? The costs of killing him? His family's burden? The lack of information gained? No sense of justice? You feel that its the cheater way of getting out of a crime? Cruel and unusual?
--
This is the debate. Morals vs. Society.
Its not a lapse of critical thinking. Its a person speaking their morals against yours. He believes that this man has committed crimes against society that are deemed unforgivable in which he will pay with his life, while you see that this man has also committed crimes against society that are deemed unforgivable, but would rather see him alive in the federal prison for the rest of his young life.
Two different viewpoints. There is no right answer.[/QUOTE]
It's more than morals vs society as morals and society are both in need of definition for every scenario.
I can't write a perfect description of why a criminals rights should be inalienable as anyone elses are besides that it is unfair and wrong and is a violation of their rights. No crime, nothing should strip you of inalienable rights even if these are just government granted rights. There is no benefit to the murder of the criminal. There just isn't a benefit. You haven't done anything, you have accomplished what you already had done, removing that person from society so you haven't done anything.
It brings emotion into justice as well, which is unadmissable in my books and should be in any sort of actual justice system. Emotion and feelings cloud judgement, this is well known. So why, when it comes to issues of justice, should we revert to retribution rather than anything else? So why does that have a benefit?
I know there is no real "answer" but there are reasons behind each answer, and every answer can be broken down into those reasons and those reasons can be broken down and understood fuller.
To me, I've never, ever heard an argument for the death penalty that had reasons that could be broken down past emotionality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40385902]To me, I've never, ever heard an argument for the death penalty that had reasons that could be broken down past emotionality.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but your avatar is hilarious in the circumstances.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40386146]I agree, but your avatar is hilarious in the circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Shock images usually are
Goes to show that there's more than the surface
really the death penalty is leftover from a time when you couldnt fesably keep prisoners locked up without 100% certainty that they would never get out, i mean supermax prisons never really existed in the 1800s
that being said, im glad the authorities are following their own legal system for once, instead of side-stepping it by using the patriot act, from what i gather on the news though, they did interogate him immediatly because they had reason to believe there was another bomb plot, but what came out of that can't be used in court against him, and then he was read his rights
this guy may be a terrorist by the modern definition, but he still deserves the full weight of the american legal system, without fair due process, we're no better than iran or some 3rd world dictatorship
[QUOTE=areolop;40385681]Ponder this logic:[/QUOTE]
Can you explain to me, in detail, the net gain of killing this man?
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40386390]Can you explain to me, in detail, the net gain of killing this man?[/QUOTE]
He already gave you enough information!!!
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40386390]Can you explain to me, in detail, the net gain of killing this man?[/QUOTE]
No. I'm not. I staying neutral
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.