Boston Marathon bomber Tsarnaev found guilty of all charges

[123456789A]

ohh ohh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

That doesn't change anything.

 

Enron's law, someone on Neowin will avoid a point raised and link a Wikipedia article about a "law" someone made up.

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

 

Enron's law, someone on Neowin will avoid a point raised and link a Wikipedia arti cle about a "law" someone made up.

you are a neowin guru now even a "sage" maybe.

 

writing your own laws

[ctebah]

Too many uncertainties in your approach.

What about killing Nazis? Was that effective or should we have sat down with Hitler and tried to talk him into being a nice guy?

It took 6 years and millions of lives to defeat the Nazis. War on terror started over a decade ago and the vast majority of the deaths have been civilians while the numbers of the terrorists have increased exponentially. For every terrorist that was killed, an entire family joined the fight. And the best part is that US is actually sponsoring certain terrorist organizations to fit their agenda. Not sure how on earth you can compare that to the fight against the Nazis but I hope you just learned something.

[123456789A]

It took 6 years and millions of lives to defeat the Nazis. War on terror started over a decade ago and the vast majority of the deaths have been civilians while the numbers of the terrorists have increased exponentially. For every terrorist that was killed, an entire family joined the fight. And the best part is that US is actually sponsoring certain terrorist organizations to fit their agenda. Not sure how on earth you can compare that to the fight against the Nazis but I hope you just learned something.

 

Yes, I realized more terrorists need to be eliminated. Picking them off a few at a time allows them to regenerate and grow in numbers, but massive strikes destroying thousands of jihadists would work better. They'll eventually run out of volunteers.

 

That way, there would be no need to sponsor any terrorist organizations. Those would just be eliminated as well.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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?

It's not civilised at all - in fact it highlights the uncivilised nature of some elements of society. It's a last resort and something one shouldn't relish. It astonishes me that you would claim that having to kill someone in self-defence demonstrates that society is civilised.

 

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.

Virtually every developed nation has abolished the death penalty and many progressive states in the US have done so also. Some US states are just behind the curve when it comes to progress.

 

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.

Justice comes before money. Further, it's well established that it is more expensive to sentence someone to death than life in prison, so if your primary concern is fiscal responsibility you should oppose the death penalty.

 

Should we really be wasting resources on these people? In the US, most inmates get better healthcare than people outside of jail.

If that's true then it just highlights how bad healthcare is in America. And yes, even prisoners have human rights - that's especially important when people are subsequently found innocent.

 

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?

Because the state shouldn't have the power to take lives.

Yes, I realized more terrorists need to be eliminated. Picking them off a few at a time allows them to regenerate and grow in numbers, but massive strikes destroying thousands of jihadists would work better. They'll eventually run out of volunteers.

Each time American drones assassinate innocent civilians to take out a few terrorists it creates even more terrorists. Increasing the size or frequency of the strikes would only increase the number of terrorists.

[ctebah]

Yes, I realized more terrorists need to be eliminated. Picking them off a few at a time allows them to regenerate and grow in numbers, but massive strikes destroying thousands of jihadists would work better. They'll eventually run out of volunteers.

That way, there would be no need to sponsor any terrorist organizations. Those would just be eliminated as well.

But that's just it, you can't. Every time you try to kill one, more join the fight. US has done a very good job of convincing it's public that everyone that fights back is a terrorist. US invades countries illegally but when they fight back they are labeled as terrorists. See the hypocrisy? There is no better propaganda machine as that of the west.

[Emn1ty]

1. It's not civilised at all - in fact it highlights the uncivilised nature of some elements of society. It's a last resort and something one shouldn't relish. It astonishes me that you would claim that having to kill someone in self-defence demonstrates that society is civilised.

 

 

2. Virtually every developed nation has abolished the death penalty and many progressive states in the US have done so also. Some US states are just behind the curve when it comes to progress.

 

 

3. Justice comes before money. Further, it's well established that it is more expensive to sentence someone to death than life in prison, so if your primary concern is fiscal responsibility you should oppose the death penalty.

 

 

4. If that's true then it just highlights how bad healthcare is in America. And yes, even prisoners have human rights - that's especially important when people are subsequently found innocent.

 

 

5. Because the state shouldn't have the power to take lives.

6. Each time American drones assassinate innocent civilians to take out a few terrorists it creates even more terrorists. Increasing the size or frequency of the strikes would only increase the number of terrorists.

 

First of all, lets just go over the truth here. This is all subjective, there's no hard definition of what it is to be 'civilized' in regards to death. The thing is each generation of civilization calls the previous barbaric and uncivilized for whatever reasons they can come up with. Death itself is a reality, and I feel it is quite idealistic to think a civilized society shouldn't be able to confront realities of people dying. Utopia isn't gonna happen anytime soon so we should stop acting like it's already here.

 

1. What do you propose we do then? Just let people get killed by all those bad people and just reactively punish them after they've taken lives?

 

2. Progress is relative.

 

3. Only because of the appeals process and the insane hoops we jump through to kill someone 'humanely'.

 

4. Healthcare isn't bad in America. The prison system just has really good healthcare. Please don't distort things.

 

5. What? Do you mean the state shouldn't have the power to punish people according to their crime under their own laws?

 

If find it amazing people here think they can dictate what civilized society is when every society before us has considered itself civilized. Lets not forget how this stuff works. Whatever the heck 'civilized' means doesn't give us an excuse to ignore the harsher truths of the world. We can't play nice with people who don't follow our rules. If we do, we're going to lose to them.

[jwjw1]

I don't think he should be kept alive for any liberal reasons.  I think a more fitting punishment is to make him FEEL his punishment for 60+ years...  Killing him just puts an end to it.

he'll probably have 10+ years of life while the appeals go though....then about the time he gets comfortable and happy they'll tell him that tomorrow its 'needle time'

[theyarecomingforyou]

1. What do you propose we do then? Just let people get killed by all those bad people and just reactively punish them after they've taken lives?

I'm not arguing against self-defence

[Emn1ty]

1. I'm not arguing against self-defence

[FloatingFatMan]

The state shouldn't have the power to execute people as a general principle. The state also shouldn't have the power to imprison people indefinitely, something the EU classes as 'inhumane and degrading'. In the US, however, the use of life without parole is actually increasing.

 

I disagree vehemently with the EU on this one.  If you kill someone deliberately, you should never be released; ever.  Why should a murderer be allowed to resume their lives after x years, when the victim is still dead, the victim's family are still suffering?

 

Life should be life.  Locked away where you can't hurt anyone else, ever again, forever.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I disagree vehemently with the EU on this one.  If you kill someone deliberately, you should never be released; ever.  Why should a murderer be allowed to resume their lives after x years, when the victim is still dead, the victim's family are still suffering?

The criminal justice system is about punishment and rehabilitation. Criminals that have served a reasonable punishment and are no longer considered to pose a risk to society should be released. That means that most will never be released from prison but they should have the right to apply for parole and have it considered. Life without parole is simply a prolonged death penalty. Tsarnaev should be allowed the right to apply for parole after he has served his punishment, despite it being unlikely he will ever be fit for release.

 

The EU has much higher regard for human rights than the UK government, which is seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act. It's the same with voting rights for prisoners, something the European Court of Human Rights demands but that the UK rejects. The UK has a long way to go when it comes to protecting human rights.

[FloatingFatMan]

The EU has much higher regard for human rights than the UK government, which is seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act. It's the same with voting rights for prisoners, something the European Court of Human Rights demands but that the UK rejects. The UK has a long way to go when it comes to protecting human rights.

 

What an utter pile of tripe.  We have WAY better history of respecting human rights than the rest of Europe does. That's why we want out. The EU regs are full of stupid rules that have sod all to do with human rights. We'd much rather have our own, which serve the intent of the legislation far better than the reality does and so that criminal foreigners can be kicked out without them claiming it's against their human rights.