Shryke Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Capturing an at-large suspected terrorist and prosecuting/deciding punishment against that person are not part of the same process. Tsarnaev retains the presumption of innocence in our legal system, and retained it even as extraordinary measures were being taken to secure his capture and arrest, a process not aimed at a specific punishment outcome (if any), which we empower courts and juries, not law enforcement, to decide. Only without the presumption of innocence can we imagine that the process of capturing Tsarnaev was aimed at executing him. Thus the cost of securing his execution is wholly separate from and not part of any overall cost which includes his capture. This is all irrelevant. Again: It doesn't. Altherion is waist-deep in the sunk cost fallacy in that post. To demonstrate:The costs already incurred are orders of magnitude larger than anything that might result from any choice. Thus, it would be better to give him a proper trial rather than trying to save money on a part of the process with a tiny part of the overall cost, but a substantial effect on the overall result. Absolutely textbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Can someone inform me why keeping Tsarnaev in prison forever is a less desirable outcome than his execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Can someone inform me why keeping Tsarnaev in prison forever is a less desirable outcome than his execution? Cause Bostonians got really emotional regarding that whole deal. You fuck with that event (The Boston Marathon) and they tend to fuck back. I would have to imagine that prosecutor is under quite a bit of public pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Cause Bostonians got really emotional regarding that whole deal. You fuck with that event (The Boston Marathon) and they tend to fuck back. I would have to imagine that prosecutor is under quite a bit of public pressure. While I'm sure there is public pressure, it does not, to be fair, seem to be coming from Bostonians: Federal death penalty trials are rare. This would be the biggest since that of Zacarias Moussaoui, a Sept. 11 conspirator, in 2006, and the trial of Timothy J. McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, in 1997. That such a trial would take place here is the source of some angst. Massachusetts has no death penalty and sentiment in this city is strongly against it; a Boston Globe poll in September 2013 found 57 percent of Bostonians favored life without parole for Mr. Tsarnaev, while 33 percent favored death. I suspect the decision has more to do with national politics on terrorism, and potential outrage/intense criticism from the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 While I'm sure there is public pressure, it does not, to be fair, seem to be coming from Bostonians: I suspect the decision has more to do with national politics on terrorism, and potential outrage/intense criticism from the right. Ah, I didn't realize that. Seemed to me that city was screaming for blood during the manhunt that took place after the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court shows some rare good sense. Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry for juvenile offenders is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled on Monday. In a 5-1 decision, the court concluded that the state, by making an “irrefutable presumption” about adults’ behavior based on crimes they committed as teens, violated their constitutional right to due process. The current rule, which sees convicted teens added to the registry for at least 25 years, “negatively affects juvenile offenders[’] ability to obtain housing, schooling, and employment, which in turn hinders their ability to rehabilitate.” About freakin' time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court shows some rare good sense. About freakin' time. That is encouraging. Sex offender registries are problematic at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That is encouraging. Sex offender registries are problematic at best And useless at worst. I've never seen any evidence that they deter anyone or prevent anything. In my view, they are another production of Security Theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 And useless at worst. I've never seen any evidence that they deter anyone or prevent anything. In my view, they are another production of Security Theatre. And a further form of punishment, no matter how much the authorities deny it. If someone poses that much of a threat to society, just keep them locked up. Don't make them go around knocking on people's doors and confessing their past crimes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 And a further form of punishment, no matter how much the authorities deny it. If someone poses that much of a threat to society, just keep them locked up. Don't make them go around knocking on people's doors and confessing their past crimes, etc. I think that's true. For a long time I've felt that I wish we could just be honest and admit that many of us just want to execute sexual offenders. Instead, we just do everything we can to make their lives as unlivable as possible, by restricting where they can work, live, walk, etc. All of this is done without regard for the fact that the term "sexual offender" can be applied to both a serial rapist and someone who urinated in public, and everything in between. I really don't think that dude taking a piss in the alley next to Bucky Burger is someone we want police to track for a quarter-century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 And a further form of punishment, no matter how much the authorities deny it. If someone poses that much of a threat to society, just keep them locked up. Don't make them go around knocking on people's doors and confessing their past crimes, etc. Exactly. This is the whole problem with all this kind of bullshit. If on release from prison, you still feel the government should be walking all over these people's rights and restricting their movements and freedoms and such because they might do something, why were they released in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Yeah, gonna echo what's been said about how fucked up those lists can be. There's far too many ways to get on it and no way to tell how it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Wow. Have we found a rare point of unity? I agree completely. Had an extended family member end up on the list and saw it nearly drive him to suicide. For supposed crimes that happened before he was an adult. And he was a lucky one; actually had an end in site to it due to the sentence. "Only" had to live under its rules for four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Ah, I didn't realize that. Seemed to me that city was screaming for blood during the manhunt that took place after the event. No one was really sceaming for blood during the manhunt. It just more chaotic and people were not sure what the hell was going on. At the time I dont think people were 100% convinced that there were only two people involved. I was in Cambridge the morning after the MIT cop was murdered and it was a ghost town. Everyone was hunkered down trying to figure out what was going on. I'm an early riser so i go to work at 5am. By 5:30 or 6am the stay home order was sent out. I'll never forget walking through Kendall Square by myself. It was the closest i'll ever come to a true post apocalyptic movie set :) I dont get any sense regarding collective thought locally about a trial versus a plea. I'd be fine if they plea it out to life with no chance of parole. Hopefully someone would take care of him in jail a la Dahmer. On the other hand it would fine to see the death penalty enacted in this case. There are plenty of good arguements for doing away with the death penalty but this is a case where it is tough to argue against it unless you are just strictly against it from a moral/cost perspective. There is really nothing to argue against it on the evidence. One other benefit of eliminating a trial is we would be spared the weird subculture of supporters that are showing up at the court house. It is a mix of his strange family and some teenage girls that support him (probably read the Rolling Stones article and fell in love). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Exactly. This is the whole problem with all this kind of bullshit. If on release from prison, you still feel the government should be walking all over these people's rights and restricting their movements and freedoms and such because they might do something, why were they released in the first place?I know a guy who was charged with ten counts of possessing and distributing child pornography. He got three years probation, and a lifetime on the sex offenders list. I am very happy he will be on that list forever. Not all of these people go to prison, and I would much rather families with young kids know that a person attracted to young kids is living near them. So they could at least take precaution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I know a guy who was charged with ten counts of possessing and distributing child pornography. He got three years probation, and a lifetime on the sex offenders list. I am very happy he will be on that list forever. Not all of these people go to prison, and I would much rather families with young kids know that a person attracted to young kids is living near them. So they could at least take precaution. But it is not just pedophiles that end up on the list. A lot of things can get you on it, like solicitation, pubic indecency (pissing in public), depending on the state, an older teenager (18/19) with a younger (15-17) boyfriend/girlfriend when parents push for the statutory rape charge. someone sending you pictures you didn't know were underaged, clicking on links you don't know that take you to child porn sites (labeled as something else) I used to look at a lot of porn, and there were plenty of people who passed pictures around, and one time the girl looked 14....it was quickly deleted and that pretty much stopped for me. Maybe she wasn't, but who can take the chance? (this was back in the old AOL days) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Obamanomics: How Will Republicans Spin the Upturn? http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/ They said gas would be $5.45 a gallon. That unemployment would be up past 8%. How are they going to take credit for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 But it is not just pedophiles that end up on the list. A lot of things can get you on it, like solicitation, pubic indecency (pissing in public), depending on the state, an older teenager (18/19) with a younger (15-17) boyfriend/girlfriend when parents push for the statutory rape charge. someone sending you pictures you didn't know were underaged, clicking on links you don't know that take you to child porn sites (labeled as something else) I used to look at a lot of porn, and there were plenty of people who passed pictures around, and one time the girl looked 14....it was quickly deleted and that pretty much stopped for me. Maybe she wasn't, but who can take the chance? (this was back in the old AOL days)I wouldn't be against reforming the list so some of the more ridiculous examples can be removed. Like the examples stated in this thread as unfair. But at the same time I dislike the idea of allowing someone like I described to be free and clear after three years of probation. In that case being on the list is more of the sentence than the probation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I wouldn't be against reforming the list so some of the more ridiculous examples can be removed. Like the examples stated in this thread as unfair. But at the same time I dislike the idea of allowing someone like I described to be free and clear after three years of probation. In that case being on the list is more of the sentence than the probation. What are the knock-on effects of being on that list, though? I understand what you're saying, too, but basically systematically making it impossible to get a job, home, etc seem like they'd push people towards crime. At that point, you have to wonder if the list is counterproductive and increases recidivism rates. I'm not saying it is, but it is something we should investigate. I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I wouldn't be against reforming the list so some of the more ridiculous examples can be removed. Like the examples stated in this thread as unfair. But at the same time I dislike the idea of allowing someone like I described to be free and clear after three years of probation. In that case being on the list is more of the sentence than the probation. You're kind of supporting our point though. If these people are too dangerous to allow amongst the general public, then just say that and extend their jail time. I agree that in most cases probation is far too light for someone who abused a child. But putting them on a list of deviants and forcing them to go through bizarre, humiliating rituals is just weird. It is arguably cruel, and definitely unusual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.