Boston Marathon bomber Tsarnaev found guilty of all charges


Recommended Posts

he would have been dead anyway so it makes little difference to him with this sentence and it will not deture others who want to carry out acts like he did.

better that hes executed than be a burden on the tax payer.

 

 

 

  1. Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population.

 

Better punishment would be life in prison under solitary confinement.  No virgins in heaven for him...

To be honest I am all for any kind of death penalty when it involves those who you CAN NOT deny committed murder, terrorism, etc. He was an adult and he knew the difference between Right and Wrong and he only has himself to blame. 

he would have been dead anyway so it makes little difference to him with this sentence and it will not deture others who want to carry out acts like he did.

better that hes executed than be a burden on the tax payer.

 

Maybe we should use death as a way to fix wasting tax money in other areas to. imagine how much disabled and elderly cost. 

why put this ######er on death row, just execute him and get it over and done with.

 

because, while I wouldn't quite call America civilized when it comes to how it handles criminals, you're not quite a fundamentalist muslim state under imam rule either.

Better punishment would be life in prison under solitary confinement.  No virgins in heaven for him...

 

No, waste of space for people like this.  Why should my tax dollars go to house/feed these kind of people.  2 in the chest, one in the head....done.

They should just put him in a room and make him watch Hunger Games movies until he kills himself.

 

Naw, get all the victims together and let each one have a go at him if they choose to do so.  If he is close to death, let him recover and continue where they left off.

No, waste of space for people like this.  Why should my tax dollars go to house/feed these kind of people.  2 in the chest, one in the head....done.

 

Naw, get all the victims together and let each one have a go at him if they choose to do so.  If he is close to death, let him recover and continue where they left off.

 

That would make those inflicting the punishment no different than him.  In a civilized world there are due processes to deal with crimes.  It's a good thing that those that are in charge of the judicial processes do not act based on their emotions.

 

And, as I already quoted, in most cases Death Penalty costs more than to imprison the person for life.

  • Like 2

No, waste of space for people like this.  Why should my tax dollars go to house/feed these kind of people.  2 in the chest, one in the head....done.

 

Naw, get all the victims together and let each one have a go at him if they choose to do so.  If he is close to death, let him recover and continue where they left off.

 

what about the victims that aren't bloodlust barbarians who understand that violence and revenge, contrary to what the american "justice" system thinks, isn't the solution and won't solve anything ? 

 

Like the father who had to leave his son, who he knew was going to die, to carry his daughter that he could save to hospital while the son had to lie their and die alone. who then stod in front of the jury and argued AGAINST death penalty.

  • Like 2

My tax money is better spent putting a bullet in people like this and being done with it.  Never said that it cost more or less.  And a lot of prisoners live very well even in the worst prisons.


what about the victims that aren't bloodlust barbarians who understand that violence and revenge, contrary to what the american "justice" system thinks, isn't the solution and won't solve anything ? 

 

Like the father who had to leave his son, who he knew was going to die, to carry his daughter that he could save to hospital while the son had to lie their and die alone. who then stod in front of the jury and argued AGAINST death penalty.

 

I said for those who choose to do so.  Of course some will forgive/forget and was really my opinion on the subject.  May not be the most popular opinion.

I can live with grey areas in some murders. Temporary insanity, drugs, just a bad situation.. but cases like this, Death.

 

This wasn't someone who made a mistake, it was premeditated murder that everyone is damn lucky how few actually died.

My tax money is better spent putting a bullet in people like this and being done with it.  Never said that it cost more or less.  And a lot of prisoners live very well even in the worst prisons.

 

I said for those who choose to do so.  Of course some will forgive/forget and was really my opinion on the subject.  May not be the most popular opinion.

 

So, barbarism is ok if the majority are ok with uncivilized barbarism...

 

well that explains a lot...

So, barbarism is ok if the majority are ok with uncivilized barbarism...

 

well that explains a lot...

I honestly don't have an opinion on death penalty, I know that some people could be rehabilitated, but what would you do to people who cannot be, who would kill again and again the moment they had the chance?

Not only that, but killers sentenced to life have killed while in prison. Some do it for cred, some for fun. Worse, some teach other short time prisoners their "craft." When those pupils get out....

In this case he's in the federal system which has a much shorter appeals process. Good riddance.

Not only that, but killers sentenced to life have killed while in prison. Some do it for cred, some for fun. Worse, some teach other short time prisoners their "craft." When those pupils get out....

In this case he's in the federal system which has a much shorter appeals process. Good riddance.

 

So basically.

 

"Our justice and rehabilitation system is a complete failure, therefore we should kill people instead, because revenge and more murder makes everyone feel good and makes everything good again"

  • Like 2

Not only that, but killers sentenced to life have killed while in prison. Some do it for cred, some for fun.

That highlights the need for prison reform, as no prisoner should be put at risk by another. Execution isn't the answer though, which is why virtually every developed nation has abolished the death penalty. It's a barbaric practice that has no place in a civilised society.

So basically.

"Our justice and rehabilitation system is a complete failure, therefore we should kill people instead, because revenge and more murder makes everyone feel good and makes everything good again"

Fact of life: a great many of these killers are malignant psychopaths and there's no rehabilitating them, and while in prison they're a very real danger to other prisoners and the staff.

No amount of politically correct reform attempts or psychobabble treatment is going to change that.

Fact of life: a great many of these killers are malignant psychopaths and there's no rehabilitating them, and while in prison they're a very real danger to other prisoners and the staff.

No amount of politically correct reform attempts or psychobabble treatment is going to change that.

 

oh, so in addition to the previous it's also "well he's sick, so we should just murder him"

oh, so in addition to the previous it's also "well he's sick, so we should just murder him"

 

There is no point in arguing with you, it seem you cannot see the logical side of things.

 

Even for me, let's say I get into an accident or else, and that I end up either completely paralyzed or in a vegetative state, I'd rather be euthanized than spend the rest of my days in a bed plugged to machine. I know it's not the same situation, but what I'm trying to convey here is that keeping someone alive just for the sake of it make no sense. I don't see what is uncivilized about doing that.

It's a barbaric practice that has no place in a civilised society.

That's debatable. Mostly because what makes up civilized society is largely what people consider to be civilized. There's no hard definition that civilized means not killing. It's perfectly civilized to kill someone in self defense, why is out not civilized to kill someone we can't fix and we'll only ever cause problems for society or be a drain on tax dollars? I don't like killing people, but I'm not a fan paying for the room and board for the decades it takes for them to die naturally either.

The truth is there is no real right answer. They both suck, but people today are so afraid of reality they want to pretend people don't die. And even when the worst people in the world get killed people are ready to jump to those defense because no matter how bad you are, killing is wrong. Even if you've ruined tens or hundreds of lives.

Should we really be wasting resources on these people? In the US, most inmates get better healthcare than people outside of jail. Not saying it's a wonderful life inside but we put a lot into making sure these people are comfortable and healthy. I don't think that makes sense. They made a choice that landed them where they are. They need to live with those choices just like anyone else should.

If we can kill people in defense of our lives, why is it suddenly wrong to kill people for taking them with intent? For ruining lives?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I've been on Deezer for over a decade, but glad that Tidal joined them in fighting AI slop. Can't stand such takes as Spotify's: "Spotify's CEO recently pushed back against listeners who call AI music "slop," urging people to stop using the term and instead embrace the creative potential of AI music."
    • “Could” … in the IS the healthcare is run by insurance companies that make indecent profits denying basic treatments to people that are paying money for nothing. Besides, where are all the Trump epigones who were stating that the tariffs were going to paid by foreign companies and not the US citizens? …
    • Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots by Usama Jawad Microsoft Teams is set to receive a couple of new features soon, including a dedicated Recap app and a rather controversial location tracking functionality. The Redmond tech giant has also explained how it has made online communication and collaboration a lot more performant this year. Now, the company has detailed more secure bot admission mechanisms, as first reported by us in March 2026, and now available in Teams. As the use of AI has expanded across enterprise environments, Microsoft has begun allowing users to integrate bots into their meetings for various tasks, such as note-taking. While this has a tangible productivity benefit for users, Microsoft has highlighted how misconfiguration has allowed bots to join meetings that they shouldn't. This has created security and privacy risks, which Microsoft is now combating using a new Teams admin policy that allows organizers to control how external bots access meetings. Admins can leverage a policy called Manage external bots and their access to meetings. The default configuration is "When detected, require approval before joining", which places detected bots in a lobby before they are explicitly admitted into the meeting. The other option disables the experience. Microsoft has also requested admins to only allow organizers and co-organizers to manage access to a meeting, so that other people don't randomly allow bots into meetings. Teams will now be able to leverage infrastructure signals to intelligently detect and distinguish between bots and humans. Microsoft will soon also trial a registration experience for independent software vendors (ISVs) to build a system that registers a bot with Microsoft, so it is marked as a "known" bot. Teams will also categorize bots as trusted and suspected threats so that organizers can quickly identify which bots they want to allow into a meeting. Additional safeguards to block accidental admission of a bot into a meeting include: No one-click Admit option for identified bots Confirmation prompts when admitting participants that include bots Warnings when organizers choose Admit all, and bots are included Microsoft has begun rolling out this experience, and it will be retiring the current CAPTCHA verification implementation. In the future, the company plans to roll out new capabilities like allow-lists, organization-wide policies, admin reports, audit logs, and more granular controls.
    • With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!