Parents and sister of Boston murder victims: "Drop the death penalty"

[HenryBHough]

Non-entity^^^

 

[Pogo]

^^ Non starter ^^

 

[whitehall]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

 

[Esmeralda]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

People are strange because they aren't vengeful? Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?


I think you people are making this far too complicated. Simply revoke the death penalty, on a national level. You'll save millions with not having people on death row for decades doing appeals. Life w/o parole. Simple.

The real problem is why US prisons are so full, why there are so many of them. Prisons are band aids. Go to the source. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison instead of putting so much effort into thinking about what to do with prisoners.

 

[emilynghiem]

Most in Massachusetts Oppose Death Sentence for Boston Marathon Bomber - Yahoo News

"Fewer than 20 percent of Massachusetts residents think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should receive a death sentence for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing, according to a poll by The Boston Globe.

n Boston itself, the number is even lower, with 15 percent favoring Tsarnaev’s execution and 66 percent supporting life imprisonment for the convicted domestic terrorist.

Overall support for executing Tsarnaev decreased over the course of his trial. “To voters, it would seem death is too easy an escape,” was pollster Frank Perullo’s interpretation of the results.

Some bombing survivors say they support life imprisonment for Tsarnaev in order to head off the appeals that could come with a death sentence and force them to relive the terrible day for years to come. ..."

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

People are strange because they aren't vengeful? Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?


I think you people are making this far too complicated. Simply revoke the death penalty, on a national level. You'll save millions with not having people on death row for decades doing appeals. Life w/o parole. Simple.

The real problem is why US prisons are so full, why there are so many of them. Prisons are band aids. Go to the source. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison instead of putting so much effort into thinking about what to do with prisoners.

Dear Esmeralda
While I am against the death penalty, I don't believe in banning the choice.
Like abortion, this can be prevented by free choice without necessarily banning it.

I believe keeping the death penalty on the books as an option
provides leverage to compel defendants to comply and cooperate with authorities in order to merit a life sentence.

As long as people who support the choice agree to pay the costs,
I don't see a problem with keeping the choice on the books.

But if people DON'T agree to pay those costs, then no, it isn't fair to dump those
costs on people who believe in funding more effective deterrence and consequences.

Honestly, if the option was offered to cut such prison costs in order to pay for health care,
instead of federal insurance mandates, maybe more people would support abolition to save
billions of dollars and redirect more of the state budgets to pay for health care instead.

 

[HenryBHough]

Shouldn't the decision to kill, in a case like this, be made by a doctor and the proposed "victim's" mother?

Hey it works for one kind of killin'......

 

[Unkotare]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

 

[Unkotare]

. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison ...

Oh, is that all? What a brilliant idea...

 

[Pogo]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

It is if you don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

 

[Impenitent]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

People are strange because they aren't vengeful? Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?


I think you people are making this far too complicated. Simply revoke the death penalty, on a national level. You'll save millions with not having people on death row for decades doing appeals. Life w/o parole. Simple.

The real problem is why US prisons are so full, why there are so many of them. Prisons are band aids. Go to the source. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison instead of putting so much effort into thinking about what to do with prisoners.

Dear Esmeralda
While I am against the death penalty, I don't believe in banning the choice.
Like abortion, this can be prevented by free choice without necessarily banning it.

I believe keeping the death penalty on the books as an option
provides leverage to compel defendants to comply and cooperate with authorities in order to merit a life sentence.

As long as people who support the choice agree to pay the costs,
I don't see a problem with keeping the choice on the books.

But if people DON'T agree to pay those costs, then no, it isn't fair to dump those
costs on people who believe in funding more effective deterrence and consequences.

Honestly, if the option was offered to cut such prison costs in order to pay for health care,
instead of federal insurance mandates, maybe more people would support abolition to save
billions of dollars and redirect more of the state budgets to pay for health care instead.

Keeping the death penalty as ' leverage' to get cooperation from the accused is, again, compelling a person to self-incriminate, just like your other idea of revoking citizenship of those less-than-cooperative defendants.

I suppose we should keep water boarding 'on the books' for the same reason.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

People are strange because they aren't vengeful? Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?


I think you people are making this far too complicated. Simply revoke the death penalty, on a national level. You'll save millions with not having people on death row for decades doing appeals. Life w/o parole. Simple.

The real problem is why US prisons are so full, why there are so many of them. Prisons are band aids. Go to the source. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison instead of putting so much effort into thinking about what to do with prisoners.

Dear Esmeralda
While I am against the death penalty, I don't believe in banning the choice.
Like abortion, this can be prevented by free choice without necessarily banning it.

I believe keeping the death penalty on the books as an option
provides leverage to compel defendants to comply and cooperate with authorities in order to merit a life sentence.

As long as people who support the choice agree to pay the costs,
I don't see a problem with keeping the choice on the books.

But if people DON'T agree to pay those costs, then no, it isn't fair to dump those
costs on people who believe in funding more effective deterrence and consequences.

Honestly, if the option was offered to cut such prison costs in order to pay for health care,
instead of federal insurance mandates, maybe more people would support abolition to save
billions of dollars and redirect more of the state budgets to pay for health care instead.

Keeping the death penalty as ' leverage' to get cooperation from the accused is, again, compelling a person to self-incriminate, just like your other idea of revoking citizenship of those less-than-cooperative defendants.

I suppose we should keep water boarding 'on the books' for the same reason.

That's why I would specify that citizens of a state agree to these terms in advance.

It's already forcing them to self-incriminate with the current use of plea bargaining.
I'm trying to take the pressure off by setting up signed agreements IN ADVANCE.

NOT WAITING until after abuses or crimes occur to start teaching rights or bargaining with them. That's already abridging the right to due process if you don't start with an even slate
and teach and agree what rights or laws or procedures are going to be applied IN ADVANCE.

Since criminal justice involves beliefs, it would HELP TREMENDOUSLY
to have citizens sign agreement in advance. And clarify if they believe in restorative justice, retributive justice, punishing drug offenders or not, etc.

Set it up in advance, make sure people only pay for and agree to systems they
AGREE TO COMPLY WITH and maybe we'd have an educated public
that agrees to pay the cost of crime or else not commit such crimes if they
don't agree who is going to pay for what consequences!

BY AGREEING IN ADVANCE. that's my point Impenitent
to have a CONSENSUS ON LAW. All my posts are on the theme of
AGREEING IN ADVANCE where people enforce laws by CONSENT NOT COERCION.

 

[Unkotare]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

It is if you don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

No, not then either.

 

[Esmeralda]

The death penalty does nothing positive.

Because of the death penalty, innocent people are likely executed--this is based on the fact that year after year, The Innocence Project is finding those accused of capital crimes to be innocent due to new evidence, most often DNA evidence.

All studies on the issue have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime: it has no effect on those who murder, abuse children or rape.

While prisoners sit on death row, often for decades, launching appeal after appeal, the State spends far more money on them than on other prisoners. It is far cheaper to give someone a life without parole sentence that to put them to death.

The idea that the death penalty should be waved in someone's face, one who has been convicted of murder, in order to get them to cooperate somehow or to tell where bodies might be buried is a ludicrous reason for keeping the death penalty in place. It didn't work with Ted Bundy, for example, who hung on to life for some time with the promise of telling all, but in the end he told little and the ruse didn't work.

The death penalty is vengeance and nothing more. It lowers the State and all the people of the State to the level of the murderer: we become murderers as well. We become the lowest of the low.

America has a myriad amount of social problems. The education of our people suffers because of them. We have an overwhelming amount of crime due to our social problems. Solve the problems of poor education, crime and high prison populations by solving social problems.

...the United States spends practically ten times more than Western European countries on protection providers, arrest, incarceration and parole, while those countries devote similar quantities on subsidized employment and training.

Many men and women think that educating our youth is the response that will break the cycle of poverty, crime and medication. "Educating our youth is the foundation for prosperity.... Financial problems, in flip, exacerbate social difficulties such as crime, drug abuse, gangs, reliance on government help, and loves ones break-ups. To ameliorate these weaknesses in social material, public money that may well in any other case go toward productive investment are invested rather on crime management, drug treatment and earnings assist programs," says Schweke. "Education positively has an effect on earnings distribution."

Kristin Gabriel, 2011Oxford University Press

In essence, we should be spending our money, time, and effort on preventing crime through education, training programs, and fixing social problems rather than on prisons and the death penalty.

 

[Impenitent]

Is it even possible to waive appeal rights for the next fifty years for a prisoner doing life? Did anybody research it? Frankly I doubt it. The sister of the Police Officer who was murdered by these monsters doesn't want the death penalty either? Commonwealth Mass. people are strange indeed.

People are strange because they aren't vengeful? Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?


I think you people are making this far too complicated. Simply revoke the death penalty, on a national level. You'll save millions with not having people on death row for decades doing appeals. Life w/o parole. Simple.

The real problem is why US prisons are so full, why there are so many of them. Prisons are band aids. Go to the source. Fix the societal problems that cause so many to end up in prison instead of putting so much effort into thinking about what to do with prisoners.

Dear Esmeralda
While I am against the death penalty, I don't believe in banning the choice.
Like abortion, this can be prevented by free choice without necessarily banning it.

I believe keeping the death penalty on the books as an option
provides leverage to compel defendants to comply and cooperate with authorities in order to merit a life sentence.

As long as people who support the choice agree to pay the costs,
I don't see a problem with keeping the choice on the books.

But if people DON'T agree to pay those costs, then no, it isn't fair to dump those
costs on people who believe in funding more effective deterrence and consequences.

Honestly, if the option was offered to cut such prison costs in order to pay for health care,
instead of federal insurance mandates, maybe more people would support abolition to save
billions of dollars and redirect more of the state budgets to pay for health care instead.

Keeping the death penalty as ' leverage' to get cooperation from the accused is, again, compelling a person to self-incriminate, just like your other idea of revoking citizenship of those less-than-cooperative defendants.

I suppose we should keep water boarding 'on the books' for the same reason.

That's why I would specify that citizens of a state agree to these terms in advance.

It's already forcing them to self-incriminate with the current use of plea bargaining.
I'm trying to take the pressure off by setting up signed agreements IN ADVANCE.

NOT WAITING until after abuses or crimes occur to start teaching rights or bargaining with them. That's already abridging the right to due process if you don't start with an even slate
and teach and agree what rights or laws or procedures are going to be applied IN ADVANCE.

Since criminal justice involves beliefs, it would HELP TREMENDOUSLY
to have citizens sign agreement in advance. And clarify if they believe in restorative justice, retributive justice, punishing drug offenders or not, etc.

Set it up in advance, make sure people only pay for and agree to systems they
AGREE TO COMPLY WITH and maybe we'd have an educated public
that agrees to pay the cost of crime or else not commit such crimes if they
don't agree who is going to pay for what consequences!

BY AGREEING IN ADVANCE. that's my point Impenitent
to have a CONSENSUS ON LAW. All my posts are on the theme of
AGREEING IN ADVANCE where people enforce laws by CONSENT NOT COERCION.

So you believe constitutional guaranties can be waived for a lifetime, rather than for each specific instance?

How ironic it would be if this agreement somehow became law (I can see that happening in Texas, where it was deemed prudent to openly carry weapons in the classroom.) , naturally you would become one of the first to sign up! What if later you were wrongfully accused, and you lost both your life, and your citizenship, for failing to cooperate fully in your own conviction?

 

[Pogo]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

It is if you don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

No, not then either.

What a sad little fart. Its only purpose in life being to run onto the internet, post "no it isn't" and run away.
Here he's trying to tell me -- as usual courageously without any basis at all -- that I can't define my own term.
What a fucking loser.

 

[Unkotare]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

It is if you don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

No, not then either.

What a sad little fart. Its only purpose in life being to run onto the internet, post "no it isn't" and run away.
Here he's trying to tell me -- as usual courageously without any basis at all -- that I can't define my own term.
What a fucking loser.

Words have meanings. Too damn bad if that bothers you, idiot.

 

[martybegan]

why? Fry the little prick.

Because you don't have the right to do that, that's why. And neither does the State.

Yes it does. And if the people think the State doesn't punish criminals adequately, they go back to, and reserve the right to, take justice into their own hands.

 

[Pogo]

why? Fry the little prick.

Because you don't have the right to do that, that's why. And neither does the State.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. If a citizen doesn't have that right, then the State -- an agency created by the citizenry -- certainly doesn't.
When the State becomes the entity that creates life, come back and revisit. Until then ... ciao.

And if the people think the State doesn't punish criminals adequately, they go back to, and reserve the right to, take justice into their own hands.

Pure anarchist lynch mob mentality. That should go over big.

 

[Pogo]

Because they don't want to stoop low and be murderers too?

....

Capital punishment is not "murder."

It is if you don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

No, not then either.

What a sad little fart. Its only purpose in life being to run onto the internet, post "no it isn't" and run away.
Here he's trying to tell me -- as usual courageously without any basis at all -- that I can't define my own term.
What a fucking loser.

Words have meanings. Too damn bad if that bothers you, idiot.

Kinda adventurous territory for you isn't it, pooper? I mean considering you don't know what the word "noon" means... maybe you should start there and work your way up.