Not all criminals are violent offenders (in fact, the vast majority are not), but yes, the obvious discussion at hand is regarding the most violent criminals.
Not all criminals are violent offenders (in fact, the vast majority are not), but yes, the obvious discussion at hand is regarding the most violent criminals.
I'm heavily against the death penalty short of photographic proof of a crime on top of everything else. With that said I'm fine with both outcomes here. The only reason for this trial is so see to it he can not do this again, there is no rehabilitation to be had here. I could care less at the coast one way or another in his case, same goes with being humane.
Life is just fine with me so long as he will never talk to anyone but prison guards the rest of his life, no family visiting or anything.
Do whatever makes the world feel better about themselves as at the same time he can't even speak about helping someone do it again or even hear about the outside world. I want zero chance this guy will persuade or help anyone ever again.
This.
I stated that we severely lack in the area of rehabilitation as is. Our programs fail at that part, currently. That doesn't mean I can't support us improving on those programs.
No where did I say this particular guy could be rehabilitated. I highly doubt it. I would be fine with them trying in an attempt to be more humane for those spouting that locking him up is worse than death. But no, I do not have any expectations they would succeed enough that he would be released.
[edit] Court proceedings (the original topic that I came here for) are not necessarily for protecting someone like him, but anyone else who we may have questionable doubt. I do not want parameters at all on who we bother with and who we don't. Better safe than sorry.
A different perspective/reason for not seeking death penalty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...lty/?tid=sm_fb
I guess theres a rule about not quoting full articles...? So I just did excerptParents of 8-year-old killed in Boston Marathon bombing ask prosecutors not to seek the death penalty
...
“We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed,” they said. “We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul.”
...
If the jurors do sentence Tsarnaev to death, that “could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives,” the Richards said. That lengthy process could also lead to their surviving children growing up with an ongoing reminder of what the family lost, they added.
...
rule is 5 sentences max. cos quoting full articles is how we got slapped with a C&D from those gaming sites that shall not be named.
Tsarnaev just got sentenced to death. No obvious news links on teh interbutts atm, still fresh.
And now everyone gets to see the endless appeals court circuit. Wonderful.
Sometimes I wonder why the right to a speedy trial doesn't cover these mandatory appeals for the death sentence. There's purpose in requiring the appeals, as a precautionary measure and in the interest of justice, but it's just fucking stupid to have the process take 15-20 years.
Serious question, would they not appeal if he got life?
That would kind of be up to him, I believe. So... maybe? I honestly don't understand the relevance of the question.
He didn't plead guilty, likely because the prosecutor wouldn't take the death penalty off the table in a plea, hence the main trial (in which he was found guilty on all counts) before the penalty phase which finished today.
Ohhh
lol
Thanks for the update Ramsay