Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Sentenced To Death

A jury in Massachusetts has sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death. The seven-woman, five-man jury revealed their decision on Friday evening. The 21-year-old naturalised American citizen now faces execution by lethal injection.

"This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev —unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged," prosecutor Nadine Pellegrin said.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death_n_7293992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk



The only reasons I have grave reservations for the death penalty, is where an innocent is wrongly executed.
In this case, there is not a need to concern myself on that matter, as he is scum and as guilty as sin.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:A jury in Massachusetts has sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death. The seven-woman, five-man jury revealed their decision on Friday evening. The 21-year-old naturalised American citizen now faces execution by lethal injection.

"This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev —unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged," prosecutor Nadine Pellegrin said.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death_n_7293992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The only reasons I have grave reservations for the death penalty, is where an innocent is wrongly executed.
In this case, there is not a need to concern myself on that matter, as he is scum and as guilty as sin.

So, you are in favor of the death penalty as long as it's someone you want to kill?

How do you feels about guns?  I mean, as long as they kill the right person...how can that be a bad thing?

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:A jury in Massachusetts has sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death. The seven-woman, five-man jury revealed their decision on Friday evening. The 21-year-old naturalised American citizen now faces execution by lethal injection.

"This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev —unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged," prosecutor Nadine Pellegrin said.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death_n_7293992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The only reasons I have grave reservations for the death penalty, is where an innocent is wrongly executed.
In this case, there is not a need to concern myself on that matter, as he is scum and as guilty as sin.

So, you are in favor of the death penalty as long as it's someone you want to kill?

How do you feels about guns?  I mean, as long as they kill the right person...how can that be a bad thing?

Hi Quill

Your assumption not mine. I stated clearly I have reservations about the death penalty due to the problem of innocent people being executed. Here, this case is beyond doubt. So I do not support the death penalty for the reason there can and has been mistakes, but this reasoning does not apply here as he is guilty as seen. So where guilt is beyond any doubt like this case, me reasoning becomes redundant, where guilt is conclusive.
So I certainly am not going to lose any sleep over the fact he has been given the death sentence and he deserves it, because:


Prosecutors portrayed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an equal partner in the attack, saying he was so heartless he planted a bomb on the pavement behind a group of children, killing an 8-year-old boy. To drive home their point, prosecutors cited the message he scrawled in the dry-docked boat where he was captured: "Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop." And they opened their case in the penalty phase with a startling photo of him giving the finger to a security camera in his jail cell months after his arrest.
"This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev —unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged," prosecutor Nadine Pellegrin said.


So where I  say the death penalty is not something I support which is very true, because of a reason, avalid one on a miscarriage of justice. In this instance this reasoning does not apply, hence he deserves everything he gets.


Have no idea why you are going on about guns, when this is a punishment for an appalling crime he committed. Of there is the flip side to this as he will now been seen to be a martyr to the extremist. So does him been seen as martyr sway me to be against the decision of execution?
No, fuck him. The reason we face an uphill struggle in this battle with Islamic extremism, is we fight with one hand tied behind our backs and they see any act of mercy on our part as weak. They are not in fear of what happens to them, as the ultimate wish of any extremist Muslims is to die fighting for jihad.

The Prophet said: "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again in Allah’s cause." (Bukhari, Jihad, nos. 2795, 2797; cf. nos. 36, 97, 2795, and 2817).

A hadith again and one  of the many problems in Islam, but here as seen they wish is to die, as they fulfill to them their deities wish dying for Allah. We are on the other hand in the west tread on egg shell where there is a substantial amount of people afraid of an attack. I do not fear them, but they are winning the psychological warfare on this. You do not understand the Islamist resolve, it does not matter to them if they die, so they have very little fear. In fact when it comes to committing the most appalling acts, they have no fear at all for carrying them out. So what is the point is wasting money on keeping him alive in jail, he is as guilty as sin, his ultimate wish is to die, as this life to them is insignificant compared to the next, so lets grant his wish and waste no more time on the matter..

Like I say, I have zero sympathy here for him and as far as I am concerned, fuck him. He was 19, indoctrinated with hate clearly also very aware of his actions, so he can now die by hate.

+ 1000000000000

nicko wrote:+ 1000000000000

Have a heart felt "thanks" given back in return Nicko

The trouble is that any guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt ...

Raggamuffin wrote:The trouble is that any guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt ...

Morning Rags

I think this case is beyond reasonable doubt.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The trouble is that any guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt ...

Morning Rags

I think this case is beyond reasonable doubt.

As should any guilty verdict be. I don't how how a system of capital punishment can depend on one verdict being more sound than another.

Anyway, I don't have time right now to discuss it, but it's an interesting point. Later maybe.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Morning Rags

I think this case is beyond reasonable doubt.

As should any guilty verdict be. I don't how how a system of capital punishment can depend on one verdict being more sound than another.

Anyway, I don't have time right now to discuss it, but it's an interesting point. Later maybe.

Here is how they decide Rags:



In deciding on the death penalty, the jury had to fill out a detailed, 24-page worksheet in which they tallied up the so-called aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The possible aggravating factors cited by the prosecution included cruelty of the crime, the killing of a child, the amount of carnage inflicted, and any lack of remorse. The possible mitigating factors included his age, the possible influence of his brother and his turbulent, dysfunctional family.
The jury agreed with the prosecution on 11 of the 12 aggravating factors they cited, including a lack of remorse. In weighing possible mitigating factors, only three of the 12 jurors found he acted under the influence of his brother. Tsarnaev did not take the stand at his trial, and he slouched in his seat through most of the case, a seemingly bored look on his face. In his only flash of emotion during the months-long case, he cried when his Russian aunt took the stand

Sometimes there is just no real reason to allow someone to live, especially as has been stated, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty of a heinous crime that has killed and destroyed lives in a purposeful manner.

The mam is scum. He's lucky he's dying in a relatively painless manner, unlike his victims.

Lets see now, I'm not taking a stance for or against, but would like to point out that the injuries and death he inflicted is done by the USA everday on civilians with the use of drones in many countries. Perhaps they should be held to account as well?

risingsun wrote:Lets see now, I'm not taking a stance for or against, but would like to point out that the injuries and death he inflicted is done by the USA everday on civilians with the use of drones in many countries.  Perhaps they should be held to account as well?  

Why stop there Sassy, How about Saudi, Iran, North Korea being held to account for human rights violations?
American foreign policy maybe poor to say the least but its intent is not to deliberately kill civilians, who sadly are in the cross fire of them. There is rules and conventions governing conflicts and terrorism even. If Muslims really think America should be held accountable, why is it the US can only operate with some Muslim nations being in cooperation? So there is vast difference from intending to take out a terrorist, who's sole goal is to die as a martyr. Who if not taken out could easily themselves take out several hundred civilians as a suicide bomber. You then have to factor in how many lives they have actually saved by taking out so many terrorists and not directly killed unintentionally through bad intelligence.

The US is the only country that has been killing civilians with drone strikes in multiple countries for years and it is ongoing.

How many people have been killed in strikes?

The precise number isn’t known, but some estimates peg the total around 3,000.

A number of groups are tracking strikes and estimating casualties:

· The Long War Journal covers Pakistan and Yemen.

· The New America Foundation covers Pakistan.

· The London Bureau of Investigative Journalism covers Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, as well as statistics from on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan.

How many of those killed are have been civilians?

It’s impossible to know.

There has been considerable back-and-forth about the tally of civilian casualties. For instance, the New America Foundation estimates between 261 and 305 civilians have been killed in Pakistan; The Bureau of Investigative Journalism gives a range of 475 - 891. All of the counts are much higher than the very low numbers of deaths the administration claims. (We’ve detailed inconsistencies even within those low estimates.) Some analyses show that civilian deaths have dropped proportionally in recent years.

The estimates are largely compiled by interpreting news reports relying on anonymous officials or accounts from local media, whose credibility may vary. (For example, the Washington Post reported last month that the Yemeni government often tries to conceal the U.S.’ role in airstrikes that kill civilians.)

The controversy has been compounded by the fact that the U.S. reportedly counts any military-age male killed in a drone strike as a militant. An administration official told ProPublica, “If a group of fighting age males are in a home where we know they are constructing explosives or plotting an attack, it's assumed that all of them are in on that effort.” It’s not clear what if any investigation occurs after the fact.

Columbia Law School conducted an in-depth analysis of what we know about the U.S.’s efforts to mitigate and calculate civilian casualties. It concluded that the drone war’s covert nature hampered accountability measures taken in traditional military actions. Another report from Stanford and NYU documented “anxiety and psychological trauma” among Pakistani villagers.

This fall, the U.N. announced an investigation into the civilian impact – in particular, allegations of “double-tap” strikes, in which a second strike targets rescuers.

http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes

Again that is not addressing my points of which this one plays off those who sadly died but fails to understand how many have been saved by talking out terrorists

Every action has consequences, so when you take out a terrorist murdering butcher, you have thus saved lives in the future, that would been lost if they lived. We are talking about terrorists here who's goal is terror itself in the form of murder.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:Again that is not addressing my points of which this one plays off those who sadly died but fails to understand how many have been saved by talking out terrorists

Every action has consequences, so when you take out a terrorist murdering butcher, you have thus saved lives in the future, that would been lost if they lived. We are talking about terrorists here who's goal is terror itself in the form of murder.

Exactly right. He set out to kill civilians. No problem with the death penalty.

Code:

Raggamuffin wrote:The trouble is that any guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt ...

Yes, quite, exactly what I was going to say...

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:Here, this case is beyond doubt. So I do not support the death penalty for the reason there can and has been mistakes, but this reasoning does not apply here as he is guilty as seen. So where guilt is beyond any doubt like this case, me reasoning becomes redundant, where guilt is conclusive.

Hi D.  Maybe it’s a bit philosophical, but how are you so sure he is guilty?  I would imagine everyone who is sentenced to death is, of a certainty, guilty.  That’s why they were given such a severe sentence.  Yet, we keep finding these guys who are innocent…or later proven innocent.

My criticism is not of the death penalty.  I don’t find it as offensive as y’all in the UK.  Consider that whenever we (whichever country) declare war, we sentence lots of presumably innocent people to the death penalty.  In fact, when the US went to war in Iraq, some 4,400 Americans died…and on memorial day they held a parade.  Go figure.  So, sentencing someone to death is not the harsh thing you might think.

My criticism is with the other side of the equation.  When someone says, I’m against the death penalty but in this case I make an exception. Huh?  I’m seeing someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too.  It’s hypocrisy.

Eds and I have discussed this on another thread.  A man and a woman are discussing prostitution:

Woman: “I would never do such a thing!”  
Man: “You mean you wouldn’t sleep with me for £10-million?”
Woman: “Wellll…I mean, who wouldn’t for that much?”
Man: “So, would you sleep with me for £2?
Woman: “What do you think I am?”
Man: “We’ve already established that, now we are on to negotiating the price.”

You can’t take both sides.

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:Here, this case is beyond doubt. So I do not support the death penalty for the reason there can and has been mistakes, but this reasoning does not apply here as he is guilty as seen. So where guilt is beyond any doubt like this case, me reasoning becomes redundant, where guilt is conclusive.

Hi D.  Maybe it’s a bit philosophical, but how are you so sure he is guilty?  I would imagine everyone who is sentenced to death is, of a certainty, guilty.  That’s why they were given such a severe sentence.  Yet, we keep finding these guys who are innocent…or later proven innocent.

My criticism is not of the death penalty.  I don’t find it as offensive as y’all in the UK.  Consider that whenever we (whichever country) declare war, we sentence lots of presumably innocent people to the death penalty.  In fact, when the US declared war in Iraq, some 4,400 Americans died…and on memorial day they held a parade.  Go figure.  So, sentencing someone to death is not the harsh thing you might think.

My criticism is with the other side of the equation.  When someone says, I’m against the death penalty but in this case I make an exception. Huh?  I’m seeing someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too.  It’s hypocrisy.

Eds and I have discussed this on another thread.  A man and a woman are discussing prostitution:

Woman: “I would never do such a thing!”  
Man: “You mean you wouldn’t sleep with me for £10-million?”
Woman: “Wellll…I mean, who wouldn’t for that much?”
Man: “So, would you sleep with me for £2?
Woman: “What do you think I am?”
Man: “We’ve already established that, now we are on to negotiating the price.”

You can’t take both sides.

Quill,when you want to go from A to B,do you go via ZCFGHLOP ?

Shady wrote:Quill,when you want to go from A to B,do you go via ZCFGHLOP ?

Are you asking me if the world is flat?

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As should any guilty verdict be. I don't how how a system of capital punishment can depend on one verdict being more sound than another.

Anyway, I don't have time right now to discuss it, but it's an interesting point. Later maybe.

Here is how they decide Rags:



In deciding on the death penalty, the jury had to fill out a detailed, 24-page worksheet in which they tallied up the so-called aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The possible aggravating factors cited by the prosecution included cruelty of the crime, the killing of a child, the amount of carnage inflicted, and any lack of remorse. The possible mitigating factors included his age, the possible influence of his brother and his turbulent, dysfunctional family.
The jury agreed with the prosecution on 11 of the 12 aggravating factors they cited, including a lack of remorse. In weighing possible mitigating factors, only three of the 12 jurors found he acted under the influence of his brother. Tsarnaev did not take the stand at his trial, and he slouched in his seat through most of the case, a seemingly bored look on his face. In his only flash of emotion during the months-long case, he cried when his Russian aunt took the stand

So when you say you're fine with the death penalty as long as there's no reasonable doubt, do you mean as long as there's no doubt that the person actually did it, or that there are no mitigating circumstances?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



Here is how they decide Rags:



In deciding on the death penalty, the jury had to fill out a detailed, 24-page worksheet in which they tallied up the so-called aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The possible aggravating factors cited by the prosecution included cruelty of the crime, the killing of a child, the amount of carnage inflicted, and any lack of remorse. The possible mitigating factors included his age, the possible influence of his brother and his turbulent, dysfunctional family.
The jury agreed with the prosecution on 11 of the 12 aggravating factors they cited, including a lack of remorse. In weighing possible mitigating factors, only three of the 12 jurors found he acted under the influence of his brother. Tsarnaev did not take the stand at his trial, and he slouched in his seat through most of the case, a seemingly bored look on his face. In his only flash of emotion during the months-long case, he cried when his Russian aunt took the stand

So when you say you're fine with the death penalty as long as there's no reasonable doubt, do you mean as long as there's no doubt that the person actually did it, or that there are no mitigating circumstances?

As stated before my reservation about the use of the death penalty is based on a miscarriage of justice.
Like I said before, I do not need to worry about that in this instance.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So when you say you're fine with the death penalty as long as there's no reasonable doubt, do you mean as long as there's no doubt that the person actually did it, or that there are no mitigating circumstances?

As stated before my reservation about the use of the death penalty is based on a miscarriage of justice.
Like I said before, I do not need to worry about that in this instance.

As in they convicted the wrong person?

Going back in time a bit, what do you think about the execution of Ruth Ellis, for example? There's no doubt she killed David Blakely, and there's no doubt that she planned it in advance.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


As stated before my reservation about the use of the death penalty is based on a miscarriage of justice.
Like I said before, I do not need to worry about that in this instance.

As in they convicted the wrong person?

Going back in time a bit, what do you think about the execution of Ruth Ellis, for example? There's no doubt she killed David Blakely, and there's no doubt that she planned it in advance.

Ruth Ellis would is an interesting point.
I would have to also back also then the bases for using the death penalty as they did here, but I doubt this case would have been seen as first degree murder today due to the violence in her relationship and would be seen as more of a crime of passion.
She also pleaded guilty, which today would be a mitigating factor to save her from execution.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As in they convicted the wrong person?

Going back in time a bit, what do you think about the execution of Ruth Ellis, for example? There's no doubt she killed David Blakely, and there's no doubt that she planned it in advance.

Ruth Ellis would is an interesting point.
I would have to also back also then the bases for using the death penalty as they did here, but I doubt this case would have been seen as first degree murder today due to the violence in her relationship and would be seen as more of a crime of passion.
She also pleaded guilty, which today would be a mitigating factor to save her from execution.

So it's not the issue of whether or not a person actually committed a crime, it's the seriousness of the crime and possible mitigating factors which would justify the death penalty or not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Ruth Ellis would is an interesting point.
I would have to also back also then the bases for using the death penalty as they did here, but I doubt this case would have been seen as first degree murder today due to the violence in her relationship and would be seen as more of a crime of passion.
She also pleaded guilty, which today would be a mitigating factor to save her from execution.

So it's not the issue of whether or not a person actually committed a crime, it's the seriousness of the crime and possible mitigating factors which would justify the death penalty or not?

No the first point of call is still the reservation on whether there would be a miscarriage of justice.
The second point of call would be on the mitigating circumstances.
Like I say, Ruth Elis would not have been charged in the first placed with first degree murder. If she had, I would right in my reservations of a miscarriage of justice would I not?

I get your point Rags, and like I say I am not a real advocated of the death penalty, but where there is like here a case of complete malice, no remorse with children being deliberately murdered, my stance is always going to lessen on being opposed to the death penalty in this instance

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So it's not the issue of whether or not a person actually committed a crime, it's the seriousness of the crime and possible mitigating factors which would justify the death penalty or not?

No the first point of call is still the reservation on whether there would be a miscarriage of justice.
The second point of call would be on the mitigating circumstances.
Like I say, Ruth Elis would not have been charged in the first placed with first degree murder. If she had, I would right in my reservations of a miscarriage of justice would I not?

I get your point Rags, and like I say I am not a real advocated of the death penalty, but where there is like here a case of complete malice, no remorse with children being deliberately murdered, my stance is always going to lessen on being opposed to the death penalty in this instance

It depends what you mean by miscarriage of justice. That could mean that the wrong person entirely was convicted, or it could mean that the right person was convicted but that mitigating circumstances were not taken into account.

I don't know about Ruth Ellis. She certainly intended to kill David Blakely, and she certainly planned it with malice.

There was the recent case of Jodi Arias in the US, who escaped the death penalty by a whisker. Do you think she should have been given the death penalty?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


No the first point of call is still the reservation on whether there would be a miscarriage of justice.
The second point of call would be on the mitigating circumstances.
Like I say, Ruth Elis would not have been charged in the first placed with first degree murder. If she had, I would right in my reservations of a miscarriage of justice would I not?

I get your point Rags, and like I say I am not a real advocated of the death penalty, but where there is like here a case of complete malice, no remorse with children being deliberately murdered, my stance is always going to lessen on being opposed to the death penalty in this instance

It depends what you mean by miscarriage of justice. That could mean that the wrong person entirely was convicted, or it could mean that the right person was convicted but that mitigating circumstances were not taken into account.

I don't know about Ruth Ellis. She certainly intended to kill David Blakely, and she certainly planned it with malice.

There was the recent case of Jodi Arias in the US, who escaped the death penalty by a whisker. Do you think she should have been given the death penalty?

Miscarriage of justice is based on the crime, look at Ruth Ellis, where it was clearly a crime of passion and there is no reason to believe she planned it with malice.. Okay, I will add another factor here to when I would only allow the small occasion for using the death penalty when guilt was beyond doubt. They would have to be mass murders, intented multiple murders or those who intended to murder children

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends what you mean by miscarriage of justice. That could mean that the wrong person entirely was convicted, or it could mean that the right person was convicted but that mitigating circumstances were not taken into account.

I don't know about Ruth Ellis. She certainly intended to kill David Blakely, and she certainly planned it with malice.

There was the recent case of Jodi Arias in the US, who escaped the death penalty by a whisker. Do you think she should have been given the death penalty?

Miscarriage of justice is based on the crime, look at Ruth Ellis, where it was clearly a crime of passion and there is no reason to believe she planned it with malice.. Okay, I will add another factor here to when I would only allow the small occasion for using the death penalty when guilt was beyond doubt. They would have to be mass murders, intented multiple murders or those who intended to murder children

Crime of passion? Well her motive was anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge, but I don't know if that counts as a crime of passion. She did plan it with malice - she went to the pub intending to shoot him.

What happens in the US if someone is sentenced to death but doesn't want to appeal? How quickly is it carried out? One of the things I don't like is the length of time it all takes - years and years usually.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



Miscarriage of justice is based on the crime, look at Ruth Ellis, where it was clearly a crime of passion and there is no reason to believe she planned it with malice.. Okay, I will add another factor here to when I would only allow the small occasion for using the death penalty when guilt was beyond doubt. They would have to be mass murders, intented multiple murders or those who intended to murder children

Crime of passion? Well her motive was anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge, but I don't know if that counts as a crime of passion. She did plan it with malice - she went to the pub intending to shoot him.

In your opinion it was malice, where again you are discounting she was a victim of domestic violence.
You would have to factor in battered person syndrome.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Crime of passion? Well her motive was anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge, but I don't know if that counts as a crime of passion. She did plan it with malice - she went to the pub intending to shoot him.

In your opinion it was malice, where again you are discounting she was a victim of domestic violence.
You would have to factor in  battered person syndrome.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

I would reject that argument as she could have walked away from him at any time, and I think she was motivated by anger and a desire for revenge because he rejected her.

The verdict was murder so the jury believed she acted out of malice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


In your opinion it was malice, where again you are discounting she was a victim of domestic violence.
You would have to factor in  battered person syndrome.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

I would reject that argument as she could have walked away from him at any time, and I think she was motivated by anger and a desire for revenge because he rejected her.  

The verdict was murder so the jury believed she acted out of malice.

It is irrelevant what you reject, what is relevant is where there is clearly a case for this to be considered a crime of passion. The point of domestic violence was never brought up in the trial, so it would have mattered greatly in today's court cases, of which you cannot deny. So the Jury was denied all the evidence of the case. Big case for a claim of a miscarriage of justice if I ever saw one

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would reject that argument as she could have walked away from him at any time, and I think she was motivated by anger and a desire for revenge because he rejected her.  

The verdict was murder so the jury believed she acted out of malice.

It is irrelevant what you reject, what is relevant is where there is clearly a case for this to be considered a crime of passion. The point of domestic violence was never brought up in the trial, so it would have mattered greatly in today's court cases, of which you cannot deny. So the Jury was denied all the evidence of the case. Big case for a claim of a miscarriage of justice if I ever saw one

It's not irrelevant at all. I've said I'm opposed to capital punishment altogether, and you have said that you are OK with it in certain circumstances. The problem is that what you see as mitigating circumstances are not necessarily the same as what someone else might think.  I don't see how you can support the death penalty sometimes and not other times.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


It is irrelevant what you reject, what is relevant is where there is clearly a case for this to be considered a crime of passion. The point of domestic violence was never brought up in the trial, so it would have mattered greatly in today's court cases, of which you cannot deny. So the Jury was denied all the evidence of the case. Big case for a claim of a miscarriage of justice if I ever saw one

It's not irrelevant at all. I've said I'm opposed to capital punishment altogether, and you have said that you are OK with it in certain circumstances. The problem is that what you see as mitigating circumstances are not necessarily the same as what someone else might think.  I don't see how you can support the death penalty sometimes and not other times.

It is irrelevant, because as she was a victim to domestic violence of the actually person she murdered.
This was denied to the jury, which would very much make in this day and age the case being classified as a crime of passion. I gave you the two exceptions I would allow for the death penalty, you do not have to agree. So I will make some exceptions, just as we make exceptions on other criminal laws

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not irrelevant at all. I've said I'm opposed to capital punishment altogether, and you have said that you are OK with it in certain circumstances. The problem is that what you see as mitigating circumstances are not necessarily the same as what someone else might think.  I don't see how you can support the death penalty sometimes and not other times.

It is irrelevant, because as she was a victim to domestic violence of the actually person she murdered.
This was denied to the jury, which would very much make in this day and age the case being classified as a crime of passion. I gave you the two exceptions I would allow for the death penalty, you do not have to agree. So I will make some exceptions, just as we make exceptions on other criminal laws

No. It wasn't self defence, it wasn't done on the spur of the moment, she didn't fear for her life, she was jealous and she was out for revenge.

Anyway, moving on. Jodi Arias stabbed her boyfriend multiple times, and was convicted of first degree murder - quite rightly IMO. I think that had she confessed at the time, she might have got away with second degree murder, but hey ...

There then had to be a decision as to whether she should get the death penalty. Now, in my opinion, she killed her boyfriend for the same reason Ruth Ellis killed David Blakely - ie, anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge because he didn't treat her well. Do you think Jodi Arias should have got the death penalty?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


It is irrelevant, because as she was a victim to domestic violence of the actually person she murdered.
This was denied to the jury, which would very much make in this day and age the case being classified as a crime of passion. I gave you the two exceptions I would allow for the death penalty, you do not have to agree. So I will make some exceptions, just as we make exceptions on other criminal laws

No. It wasn't self defence, it wasn't done on the spur of the moment, she didn't fear for her life, she was jealous and she was out for revenge.

Anyway, moving on. Jodi Arias stabbed her boyfriend multiple times, and was convicted of first degree murder - quite rightly IMO. I think that had she confessed at the time, she might have got away with second degree murder, but hey ...

There then had to be a decision as to whether she should get the death penalty. Now, in my opinion, she killed her boyfriend for the same reason Ruth Ellis killed David Blakely - ie, anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge because he didn't treat her well. Do you think Jodi Arias should have got the death penalty?

I never claimed self defense.
Again the jury was denied evidence on the domestic violence, which would be calls for a retrial and again would be deemed as a crime of passion today, you cannot escape these factors. Well as I disagree with you on Ruth Ellis, I cannot compare your other case and would need to research the case more before I answered. It would be silly to post on this other case without looking into further

I am off out, so will look into and reply tomorrow

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. It wasn't self defence, it wasn't done on the spur of the moment, she didn't fear for her life, she was jealous and she was out for revenge.

Anyway, moving on. Jodi Arias stabbed her boyfriend multiple times, and was convicted of first degree murder - quite rightly IMO. I think that had she confessed at the time, she might have got away with second degree murder, but hey ...

There then had to be a decision as to whether she should get the death penalty. Now, in my opinion, she killed her boyfriend for the same reason Ruth Ellis killed David Blakely - ie, anger, jealousy, and a desire for revenge because he didn't treat her well. Do you think Jodi Arias should have got the death penalty?

I never claimed self defense.
Again the jury was denied evidence on the domestic violence, which would be calls for a retrial and again would be deemed as a crime of passion today, you cannot escape these factors. Well as I disagree with you on Ruth Ellis, I cannot compare your other case and would need to research the case more before I answered. It would be silly to post on this other case without looking into further

I am off out, so will look into and reply tomorrow

I don't think that the actions of Ruth Ellis would have fallen under the definition of battered woman syndrome because she had no need to kill him to escape him.

In any case, that's a different defence to a "crime of passion".

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So when you say you're fine with the death penalty as long as there's no reasonable doubt, do you mean as long as there's no doubt that the person actually did it, or that there are no mitigating circumstances?

As stated before my reservation about the use of the death penalty is based on a miscarriage of justice.
Like I said before, I do not need to worry about that in this instance.

Just so I’m sure I am following you, the guarantees that assures certainty that the death penalty is not improperly imposed are: a worksheet in which the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances are listed?

Would it be of any concern to you that the listing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has been a part of American criminal justice since about 1920? It is routine. So I’m assuming you are confident that there has never been a miscarriage of justice since 1920.

If there is zero possibility of a wrongful imposition of the death sentence in 95-years, why not go with it? Why this charade that you are against the death penalty at all? As I say, there are lots of occasions when the state takes a life and no one objects. Why whine about the death penalty?

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

As stated before my reservation about the use of the death penalty is based on a miscarriage of justice.
Like I said before, I do not need to worry about that in this instance.

Just so I’m sure I am following you, the guarantees that assures certainty that the death penalty is not improperly imposed are: a worksheet in which the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances are listed?

Would it be of any concern to you that the listing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has been a part of American criminal justice since about 1920?  It is routine.  So I’m assuming you are confident that there has never been a miscarriage of justice since 1920.

If there is zero possibility of a wrongful imposition of the death sentence in 95-years, why not go with it?  Why this charade that you are against the death penalty at all?  As I say, there are lots of occasions when the state takes a life and no one objects.  Why whine about the death penalty?

Point 1 and 2, have never made any such claim, your words again, not mine.

Point 3 Not making such an assertion, I am making the view, this case is beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguing off other cases is moot, when all that matters is this single case where I back the death penalty, where my reservations against the death penalty are nullified.

If you attempt to be a complete twat again, making unfounded claims I have not said, the debate will be over very quickly Quill, as that is the second time you have made accusations to things I have not said.

Last chance

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Just so I’m sure I am following you, the guarantees that assures certainty that the death penalty is not improperly imposed are: a worksheet in which the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances are listed?

Would it be of any concern to you that the listing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has been a part of American criminal justice since about 1920?  It is routine.  So I’m assuming you are confident that there has never been a miscarriage of justice since 1920.

If there is zero possibility of a wrongful imposition of the death sentence in 95-years, why not go with it?  Why this charade that you are against the death penalty at all?  As I say, there are lots of occasions when the state takes a life and no one objects.  Why whine about the death penalty?

Point 1 and 2, have never made any such claim, your words again, not mine.

Point 3 Not making such an assertion, I am making the view, this case is beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguing off other cases is moot, when all that matters is this single case where I back the death penalty, where my reservations against the death penalty are nullified.

If you attempt to be a complete twat again, making unfounded claims I have not said, the debate will be over very quickly Quill, as that is the second time you have made accusations to things I have not said.

Last chance

All cases are beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard imposed on a jury in any criminal case. It is certainly the standard imposed in a death penalty case.

If it helps your confusion, let’s all agree that in all criminal cases the verdict is beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is etched in stone. No verdict is imposed that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume you will have no problem stipulating to that.

Moreover, when a verdict is imposed ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, it is second- and triple-guessed by a lengthy appeals process. All appeals courts make their findings and pronouncements beyond a reasonable doubt.

So that we may all understand, once and for all: what on earth is your objection to the imposition of a death penalty?

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



Point 1 and 2, have never made any such claim, your words again, not mine.

Point 3 Not making such an assertion, I am making the view, this case is beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguing off other cases is moot, when all that matters is this single case where I back the death penalty, where my reservations against the death penalty are nullified.

If you attempt to be a complete twat again, making unfounded claims I have not said, the debate will be over very quickly Quill, as that is the second time you have made accusations to things I have not said.

Last chance

All cases are beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is the standard imposed on a jury in any criminal case.  It is certainly the standard imposed in a death penalty case.

If it helps your confusion, let’s all agree that in all criminal cases the verdict is beyond a reasonable doubt.  That standard is etched in stone.  No verdict is imposed that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume you will have no problem stipulating to that.

Moreover, when a verdict is imposed ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, it is second- and triple-guessed by a lengthy appeals process.  All appeals courts make their findings and pronouncements beyond a reasonable doubt.

So that we may all understand, once and for all: what on earth is your objection to the imposition of a death penalty?  

How many times do I have to repeat myself
No miscarriages of justice do happen , which is why I have a reservation on the death penalty.
I am not interested in other criminal cases, just this one where I back the use of the death penalty.
No there is a clear case here of the person being guilty, with no remorse and clearly intending to murder children by placing the bomb behind children, of which a child was murdered.
This case really is beyond reasonable doubt, where as many other cases, may not be based on a 12 person Jury, of which humans are not infallible, hence why such a system is not beyond reasonable doubt

I hope all these people who get involved in capital punishment - the judge, the jury, the executioners, etc, realise that they are also murderers.

Raggamuffin wrote:I hope all these people who get involved in capital punishment - the judge, the jury, the executioners, etc, realise that they are also murderers.

How so?

Definition of murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."


Do you class soldiers as murderers then Rags, as they are sent out with right to kill in combat?

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I hope all these people who get involved in capital punishment - the judge, the jury, the executioners, etc, realise that they are also murderers.

How so?

Definition of murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


How so?

Definition of murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Morally, is subjective.
Soldiers lawfully kill, so by your view all soldiers that kill people in combat are murderers.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Morally, is subjective.
Soldiers lawfully kill, so by your view all soldiers that kill people in combat are murderers.

Soldiers don't generally kill someone who is tied up and completely at their mercy - well they shouldn't anyway.

Executioners are cowards, especially the ones who don't know if they had a live bullet in the case of death by firing squad.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Morally, is subjective.
Soldiers lawfully kill, so by your view all soldiers that kill people in combat are murderers.

Soldiers don't generally kill someone who is tied up and completely at their mercy - well they shouldn't anyway.

Executioners are cowards, especially the ones who don't know if they had a live bullet in the case of death by firing squad.

Really, soldiers commit to pre-emptive strikes against soldiers in opposition, where they can asleep in their trenches or quarters, how is that any different? Its not, soldiers are executing their orders, which means executing some of the opposing forces.
It is lawful killing, you may object, that is up to you, but your views are subjective, as the whole aspect on killing is subjective

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Soldiers don't generally kill someone who is tied up and completely at their mercy - well they shouldn't anyway.

Executioners are cowards, especially the ones who don't know if they had a live bullet in the case of death by firing squad.

Really, soldiers commit to pre-emptive strikes against soldiers in opposition, where they can asleep in their trenches or quarters, how is that any different? Its not, soldiers are executing their orders, which means executing some of the opposing forces.
It is lawful killing, you may object, that is up to you, but your views are subjective, as the whole aspect on killing is subjective

Your views are also subjective. You've been talking about reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances, but your idea of reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances may well be very different to that of someone else.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



Really, soldiers commit to pre-emptive strikes against soldiers in opposition, where they can asleep in their trenches or quarters, how is that any different? Its not, soldiers are executing their orders, which means executing some of the opposing forces.
It is lawful killing, you may object, that is up to you, but your views are subjective, as the whole aspect on killing is subjective

Your views are also subjective. You've been talking about reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances, but your idea of reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances may well be very different to that of someone else.

never claimed my views were not subjective, which is the point.
The other point is we have laws, which make certain times killing lawful, which is the main point.
Again I have many reservations about the death penalty, but not in this particular case.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All cases are beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is the standard imposed on a jury in any criminal case.  It is certainly the standard imposed in a death penalty case.

If it helps your confusion, let’s all agree that in all criminal cases the verdict is beyond a reasonable doubt.  That standard is etched in stone.  No verdict is imposed that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume you will have no problem stipulating to that.

Moreover, when a verdict is imposed ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, it is second- and triple-guessed by a lengthy appeals process.  All appeals courts make their findings and pronouncements beyond a reasonable doubt.

So that we may all understand, once and for all: what on earth is your objection to the imposition of a death penalty?  

How many times do I have to repeat myself
No miscarriages of justice do happen , which is why I have a reservation on the death penalty.
I am not interested in other criminal cases, just this one where I back the use of the death penalty.
No there is a clear case here of the person being guilty, with no remorse and clearly intending to murder children by placing the bomb behind children, of which a child was murdered.
This case really is beyond reasonable doubt, where as many other cases, may not be based on a 12 person Jury, of which humans are not infallible, hence why such a system is not beyond reasonable doubt

Wait, wait...under the US Constitution, 6th Amendment, a jury is guaranteed:

US Constitution wrote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...

Unless waived,*  there are no cases that "may not be based on a 12 person Jury...", to directly quote your words.  In other words, all criminal matters are tried to a jury (unless waived).  Given that all criminal trials in the US are jury trials, unless waived, there is no possibility that "...such a system is not beyond reasonable doubt."  Now perhaps you didn't know that, but now that you do...doesn't that meet your requirement?

To state it more directly: you have no objection to the death penalty.  At least you have stated none.  This case is just like any other case.  You haven't given us any distinction by which this case stands out as a proper death penalty case and others do not. All cases where there is no reasonable doubt are proper death penalty cases if the crime warrants.

*In some instances a defendant may want to try the case to a judge, called a "Bench Trial".  It is usually a part of an agreement between the state and defendant.