doulikefish Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 A very liberal city decided this killer deserved to pay the capital price and the jurors were prepared to bear that personal burden of condemning this dude. All I'm saying is if that option was available to a jury here, in similar circumstances, they'd probably do the same. And there should be no need for backsliding, liberal hand wringing, all the usual churchmen and apologist voices to stop that verdict. The victims should also have a say, in Tsarnaev's case there were 264 injured, many with terrible injuries. Stick to romanians with aids pete,your an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 All I'm saying is if that option was available to a jury here, in similar circumstances, they'd probably do the same. Highly improbable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822 The victims should also have a say, in Tsarnaev's case there were 264 injured, many with terrible injuries. Yes, what we need are extremist laws injected with mob justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/16/mohammed-morsi-sentenced-death-egyptian-court-former-president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Highly improbable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822 Yes, what we need are extremist laws injected with mob justice. You're calling the jurors in Boston extremists now? Get a grip. It wasn't your people that are walking about with prosthetic limbs obviously, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 You're calling the jurors in Boston extremists now? Get a grip. It wasn't your people that are walking about with prosthetic limbs obviously, idiot. 'your people' I'm calling the law extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 'your people' I'm calling the law extremist. And I'm calling you a bloody idiot, some people should not get suffrage and you are one. Those Boston jurors are not extremists for exercising their will, fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 And I'm calling you a bloody idiot, some people should not get suffrage and you are one. Those Boston jurors are not extremists for exercising their will, fool. Reduced to full-on ad hominem. My work here is done, good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I said the opposite I am in agreement with you, i wasn't aiming my post at you directly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 A very liberal city decided this killer deserved to pay the capital price and the jurors were prepared to bear that personal burden of condemning this dude. All I'm saying is if that option was available to a jury here, in similar circumstances, they'd probably do the same. And there should be no need for backsliding, liberal hand wringing, all the usual churchmen and apologist voices to stop that verdict. The victims should also have a say, in Tsarnaev's case there were 264 injured, many with terrible injuries. I think you're probably right in the sense that a jury here would probably make the same call if they could. But that doesn't make it right. Public opinion is not always right. On this case it's wrong (although I'm heartened by banana's link which suggest we as a nation are gradually becoming more liberal...and sensible). The death penalty will right never be reintroduced in Britain. The argument has been won (a while ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 How many of the Boston jury would be willing to actually carry out the punishment? I would guess it wouldn't be 12. Easy to pass the sentence when the actual punishment is so removed from the original conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The boston bomber killed 5 people including an 8 year old child he deserved to get the electric chair on full power the scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I think you're probably right in the sense that a jury here would probably make the same call if they could. Some sums to back up my "highly improbable" reasoning. Assuming the death penalty here would also require a unanimous jury, and given a roughly 50-50 split in support for the death penalty in the UK as stated in that BBC article, the chances that a random jury of 15 people will contain 15 proponents is 0.003%. For size 12 juries it's 0.024%. The Boston trial heavily biased the jury though the death-qualified requirement, in-effect largely meaning that all jurors selected must not be non-proponents of the death penalty, but also that proponents should be willing to consider life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. In the case of a terrorist attack, I can't imagine that a proponent is going to flip to life imprisonment. Hence the 12/12 slam dunk despite the Boston public being polled at only 27% in support in this case. Emotion no doubt came into it as it would in the UK, but would still be "highly improbable" that it'd be enough to overcome the odds stated. Assuming of course no death-qualified requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The boston bomber killed 5 people including an 8 year old child he deserved to get the electric chair on full power the scumbag. Totally disagree, that's bibiical revenge not justice. Killing is so abhorrent we are going to kill you. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No. That is the simply and only answer to this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has kev ever been on the right side of a discussion on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has kev ever been on the right side of a discussion on this forum? I think he is always on the right side. Never the correct side, always the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Fuzzy's been banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has kev ever been on the right side of a discussion on this forum? Do you mean the majority side. There is no right side to this argument. Just that everyone believes they are right. I'm in favour of the death penalty but it looks like I'm in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has kev ever been on the right side of a discussion on this forum? Do you mean the majority side. There is no right side to this argument. Just that everyone believes they are right. I'm in favour of the death penalty but it looks like I'm in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'd say if there's even the most remote chance that an innocent man can be condemned to death, and there obviously is, then the death penalty is a complete no go area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.