Obama-appointed Judges Vacate Boston Marathon Bomber Death Sentence

[easyt65]

Barry's affinity for terrorists still being felt...

Federal appeals court vacates Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence

A federal appeals court has vacated the death sentence of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, based on the opinion that the Judge in the case did not vet the jury property, with regard to possible bias stemming from pretrial publicity.

www.foxnews.com

Another terrorist attack that claimed American lives Obama could have stopped and failed to do so...

.

 

[kyzr]

Typical un-American radicals, Obama and his "judges".

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Barry's affinity for terrorists still being felt...

Federal appeals court vacates Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence

A federal appeals court has vacated the death sentence of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, based on the opinion that the Judge in the case did not vet the jury property, with regard to possible bias stemming from pretrial publicity.

www.foxnews.com

Another terrorist attack that claimed American lives Obama could have stopped and failed to do so...

.

ALL terrorists should be executed and that's International Terrorists AND Domestic Terrorists, take them outside and put a bullet in their heads. End of.

 

[The VOR]

Typical un-American radicals, Obama and his "judges".

Actually, one of the 3 judges was a Reagan appointee. But don't let that get in the way of a good RWNJ circle-jerk.

 

[occupied]

Guy probably deserves to die but making the prosecutors dot all the "I"s and cross the "T"s in a high profile case makes sure the desire for justice rather than vengeance is what gives the state the right to take your life.

 

[HenryBHough]

And so he lives to kill again.

 

[Pete7469]

Hopefully DOJ appeals it to SCOTUS and they overturn Bath House Barry's treasonous judge.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And so he lives to kill again.

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

The Constitution, you may have heard of it, mandates requirements for things like trials. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment come to mind as pertaining to this sort of thing. Now, those requirements are pretty strict when it comes to trials. An impartial jury is part of those requirements.

Better yet, let's give you a scenario to help you understand. Let's say I am a prosecutor. You are a cop who shot a man you believed had a gun. I charge you with manslaughter because I think I can get a conviction. We go to trial, and I have packed the Jury with members of the most radical anti cop people I can find. I pack the jury with Black Panthers as one example. You are a White Cop in this scenario. Can you get a fair trial? The Jury is certainly not impartial. What are the odds that they will judge you based upon the evidence in the trial? If they find you guilty, the very first thing your Lawyers are going to do is run, not walk, to the Appeals Court and file a motion to have the verdict overturned since you did not get a fair trial by an impartial jury. You may have heard about your right to a trial by a jury of your peers. In the centuries since that Amendment was ratified, we have determined it to mean that you are entitled to a trial by an impartial jury.

By not insuring that the Jury did not hold preconceptions, the Judge essentially created the image of just that sort of scenario. Do I think he is guilty? Yes. And I am honest enough, as were the Jurors, to admit that. Ten seconds after admitting that the Juror should have been excused and walking out of the courtroom.

Now, imagine that a Cop Killer is on trial. He murdered the cop. The Defense packs the Jury with people who have been brutalized and abused by the Police. The Prosecutor would object that the jury is not impartial, the odds for a conviction just went way down.

Would that be fair? No. It would not. Impartial means just what it sounds like. No feelings for or against the defendant. No feelings for or against the prosecution. You are willing to listen, and made a judgement based upon the evidence presented in court.

These are not new rules that someone pulled out of their ass last week. These are rules that have been in effect for decades and centuries in some cases. So why the outrage that someone is insisting that these old rules be applied to this case? Why not blame the Judge who did not insist on Impartial Jurors? Why not blame the Judge who broke the rules and screwed up the trial in the first place? He knew what the rules were, and he knew he was breaking them.

That's the thing. The Constitution has to apply to everyone, equally, every single time. Or it has no meaning for anyone, at any time. I don't know why you hate the Constitution.

 

[HenryBHough]

Maybe if the first prison guard this terrorist kills is black some of you liberals might rethink.......

 

[SavannahMann]

Maybe if the first prison guard this terrorist kills is black some of you liberals might rethink.......

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Unkotare]

"Possible bias from pretrial publicity"? You would have to have held the trial on the fucking moon to find a full set of jurors who didn't know what happened. The entire area was essentially under siege for days, and just about everyone knew someone affected by those worthless fucking animals.

 

[Orangecat]

Actually, one of the 3 judges was a Reagan appointee.

Which one dissented?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

Really? Sorry, but if he's in jail, he's not gonna kill innocents.

 

[Unkotare]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

Really? Sorry, but if he's in jail, he's not gonna kill innocents.

A C.O. just trying to do his job isn’t innocent?

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

Really? Sorry, but if he's in jail, he's not gonna kill innocents.

A C.O. just trying to do his job isn’t innocent?

So to make sure I understand your point, as weak as it is. If we execute the Boston Bomber, then the aforementioned Corrections Officer would face no dangers from any of the other prisoners?

You do realize that the idiot is at the Supermax in Colorado, where he spends 23 hours a day in a concrete cell. Before he leaves that cell, he is shackled and chained by teams of guards. So there is literally never a moment when one guard is present alone with the idiot. He is spending his life, essentially every minute of it, in a cell made of concrete without anything else to occupy his time.

What's life like in Supermax prison?

Now that Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, has been sentenced to death, his final destination will be in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

www.cnn.com

Amnesty International said that the Supermax made Guantanamo Bay seem cheerful and open by comparison. Think about that.

But hey, you want to see him die, instead of die a little every single day as his life passes him by. Give him life in that hell, and let him slowly die watching the lines in his face get clearer every day. Nothing but a few carefully selected TV programs, if he is allowed a basic black and white TV, and some carefully screened books. If he is allowed books. Meals slid under the door. His entire life in a concrete box unable to see the sky, or the outside world. No escape, no hope, nothing but a living death.

But that isn't cruel enough for you. Despite the fact that many people in it consider it worse than death. What do they know? In time, the Idiot will go insane inside that concrete box, and his world will be one of delusions, hallucinations, and paranoia. So even his faith will have been stripped from him.

You want to take his life, while that cell would take so much more from him. Which answer would be the most cruel? Which answer would cause him the most suffering? A needle in the arm, or being forgotten in a concrete box, for the rest of his life, never again seeing the sky? Never even glimpsing it.

 

[Unkotare]

... If we execute the Boston Bomber, then the aforementioned Corrections Officer would face no dangers from any of the other prisoners?
...

No one said anything like that.

 

[Unkotare]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

Really? Sorry, but if he's in jail, he's not gonna kill innocents.

A C.O. just trying to do his job isn’t innocent?

So to make sure I understand your point, as weak as it is. If we execute the Boston Bomber, then the aforementioned Corrections Officer would face no dangers from any of the other prisoners?

You do realize that the idiot is at the Supermax in Colorado, where he spends 23 hours a day in a concrete cell. Before he leaves that cell, he is shackled and chained by teams of guards. So there is literally never a moment when one guard is present alone with the idiot. He is spending his life, essentially every minute of it, in a cell made of concrete without anything else to occupy his time.

What's life like in Supermax prison?

Now that Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, has been sentenced to death, his final destination will be in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

www.cnn.com

Amnesty International said that the Supermax made Guantanamo Bay seem cheerful and open by comparison. Think about that.

But hey, you want to see him die, instead of die a little every single day as his life passes him by. Give him life in that hell, and let him slowly die watching the lines in his face get clearer every day. Nothing but a few carefully selected TV programs, if he is allowed a basic black and white TV, and some carefully screened books. If he is allowed books. Meals slid under the door. His entire life in a concrete box unable to see the sky, or the outside world. No escape, no hope, nothing but a living death.

But that isn't cruel enough for you. Despite the fact that many people in it consider it worse than death. What do they know? In time, the Idiot will go insane inside that concrete box, and his world will be one of delusions, hallucinations, and paranoia. So even his faith will have been stripped from him.

You want to take his life, while that cell would take so much more from him. Which answer would be the most cruel? Which answer would cause him the most suffering? A needle in the arm, or being forgotten in a concrete box, for the rest of his life, never again seeing the sky? Never even glimpsing it.

You are confused. I don't want anyone to suffer. That sick animal simply needs to be removed from this earth. The government has a responsibility to exact the most extreme punishment for the most extreme crimes.

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong. The appeals court held up all the charges that weren't related to the death penalty, so he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. But, because the original judge didn't properly vet the jurors during the death penalty phase, they are throwing those rulings out, and will have another trial for the death penalty phase.

And, chances are pretty good that he's gonna be sentenced to death again.

So long as he breathes he's able to kill again. OK, maybe to kill only prison guards or fellow inmates. But if that floats your boat...... Buit, out of curiosity, do you hate all law enforcement or just guards?

Really? Sorry, but if he's in jail, he's not gonna kill innocents.

A C.O. just trying to do his job isn’t innocent?

So to make sure I understand your point, as weak as it is. If we execute the Boston Bomber, then the aforementioned Corrections Officer would face no dangers from any of the other prisoners?

You do realize that the idiot is at the Supermax in Colorado, where he spends 23 hours a day in a concrete cell. Before he leaves that cell, he is shackled and chained by teams of guards. So there is literally never a moment when one guard is present alone with the idiot. He is spending his life, essentially every minute of it, in a cell made of concrete without anything else to occupy his time.

What's life like in Supermax prison?

Now that Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, has been sentenced to death, his final destination will be in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

www.cnn.com

Amnesty International said that the Supermax made Guantanamo Bay seem cheerful and open by comparison. Think about that.

But hey, you want to see him die, instead of die a little every single day as his life passes him by. Give him life in that hell, and let him slowly die watching the lines in his face get clearer every day. Nothing but a few carefully selected TV programs, if he is allowed a basic black and white TV, and some carefully screened books. If he is allowed books. Meals slid under the door. His entire life in a concrete box unable to see the sky, or the outside world. No escape, no hope, nothing but a living death.

But that isn't cruel enough for you. Despite the fact that many people in it consider it worse than death. What do they know? In time, the Idiot will go insane inside that concrete box, and his world will be one of delusions, hallucinations, and paranoia. So even his faith will have been stripped from him.

You want to take his life, while that cell would take so much more from him. Which answer would be the most cruel? Which answer would cause him the most suffering? A needle in the arm, or being forgotten in a concrete box, for the rest of his life, never again seeing the sky? Never even glimpsing it.

You are confused. I don't want anyone to suffer. That sick animal simply needs to be removed from this earth. The government has a responsibility to exact the most extreme punishment for the most extreme crimes.

Punishment is suffering. When you were a child, you were spanked. This used pain to teach you a lesson. Don't do this, or that. Punishment, was pain, and suffering. When you got older, you were grounded for breaking the rules. Denied the opportunity to go and enjoy time with friends, or events you wanted to attend. You suffered by being denied freedom.

When you started driving, and got a speeding ticket, you suffered the loss of the money for the fine. Either you learned to avoid the penalties, by not performing the action, or you suffered the loss of driving licenses. Punishment is always suffering. Even the death penalty is suffering. You suffer the ending of your life. You spend years thinking about it every single day. Lawyers and activists increase your suffering by offering you hope, slim hope they will tell you, as they try the various things they must to save your life.

There can be no punishment without suffering. If sentenced to prison for three years. You suffer the loss of freedom, you suffer the basic sustenance foods, and uncomfortable beds and all that. Punishment is always about suffering. Society is saying you broke the rules, and you should suffer in punishment.

Even my own approach in most cases, of rehabilitation, is part of the suffering. I am astonished by the Norwegian system which has an exceedingly low recidivism rate. While their system does not have the maximum control and restrictions ours does, there is suffering involved, and education to decrease the odds of an offender repeating.

So suffering is part of it. As you suffered as a child, when you misbehaved. Don't worry, we all misbehaved as children. People suffer as adults.

In the book Starship Troopers, it is said that punishment should be cruel and unusual. It should be cruel enough to serve as a lesson to the offender, and a warning to others. And unusual in that it does not happen very often. In a way, that is right. But punishment for those who will get out of Prison one day, should also be coupled with education, the rehabilitation that is not really present in our system.

The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. It does not frighten people so they do not commit crimes. It is not cruel, as it reduces the suffering, the punishment the offender could endure. It is not safer for the guards, Lifers are similarly restrained and the person with the Death Penalty has nothing to lose. What are you going to do to them? Kill them? If anything it is riskier for the guards. Anyone with literally nothing to lose is extremely dangerous. The old saying about the Cornered Rat comes to mind.

Whereas someone who is serving Life without Parole. They have a lot to lose, and more incentive to behave. If as at the SuperMax, they act up, they lose TV's, and books. The system is designed to minimize contact between the guards and the prisoners. Less chance for any contact, or any chance to attack and harm one. The guards always work in teams. Never alone.

So the prisoner throws a tray of food at the door, since he can't throw it at the guards. They shrug and note it and move on. A little later, he is restrained through the inner door, a traditional barred door. Once he is in full shackles, they come in and take the TV away. Now he has even less to occupy himself. Not even PBS. When he behaves for a while, say a few weeks, he gets a TV back.

He has learned. Not only is attacking the guards impossible, but the futile effort results in nothing but more suffering. He has something to lose, and he has an incentive to behave, and the guards are safer.