Boston Marathon Bombing

BREAKING: Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Sentenced to Death

Legal battles still loom

|

Tsarnaev mugshot
Public domain

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death for his role in the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013.

Last month, Tsarnaev was convicted on all 30 charges against him, 17 of which carry the death penalty. The jury sentenced him to death on six of those counts, but it only takes one.

According to reports from journalists inside the courtroom, Tsarnaev "swallowed hard" when the verdict was read, but otherwise did not show emotion.

An appeal is likely, according to The New York Times:

With death sentences, an appeal is all but inevitable, and the process generally takes years if not decades to play out. Of the 80 federal defendants sentenced to death since 1988, only three, including Timothy J. McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, have been executed. Most cases are still tied up in appeal. In the rest, the sentences were vacated or the defendants died or committed suicide.

Public sentiment in Massachusetts was against executing Tsarnaev, though many people who lost family members in the bombing—and were present in the courtroom today—had pushed for such an outcome.

Read more from Reason on the debating the death penalty here.

NEXT: FBI Was 'Wrestling' With License Plate Reader Privacy Issues, For What That's Worth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not even gonna demand a hat tip.

    So, over/under on the Richman article?

    1. I see no difference between Tsarnaev’s jury and Adam Lanza.

      1. who else saw no difference between that jury and Adam Lanza?

          1. Ha ha ha haaaa.

    2. $50 says it gets published on May 18.

  2. This is one of those cases that really, really makes me question my opposition to the death penalty.

    Mind you, I still don’t believe in it. I’d rather this guy spend the rest of his life at Florence ADMAX than in Terre Haute while all his appeals go down. I just won’t shed any tears when/if he is executed.

    1. I agree. Those supermax prisons are where he should be, preferably until he dies.

      1. You know, given his youth, at some it could probably dawn on him he fucked up big time.

        1. If it does, he’ll know he deserves what is coming, and more besides.

    2. I don’t question my opposition, even in this case, but my political beliefs aside, fuck this asshole.

    3. I do hope that smirk was wiped off his stupid face even if it was for a moment.

      1. AlmightyJB|5.15.15 @ 3:57PM|#
        “I do hope that smirk was wiped off his stupid face even if it was for a moment.”
        If he could not get out, that smirk would disappear when it dawned on him that no one was joking about it. Maybe not when it slammed behind his back on arrival, but with each year, that smirk would look more and more like a grimace, until not even he could claim otherwise.

      2. put him in a cell with Bubba. That smirk won’t last long.

    4. He is the poster child for having a death penalty; premeditated, murdered children, and was remorseless afterwards.

      That being said I’m still against the death penalty because for every degenerate like this there are others whose guilt is not as assured and legitimate beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t trust our justice department to get this right 100% of the time thus I’m against all of it.

      Let him rot in a cement cage till he dies, that’s fine with me.

      1. In 30 years we’ve only had 80ish death penalty verdicts. I’d say that means it is very rarely used and only in cases such as this one where the defendant really really is an a hole

        1. I would agree the chances innocence are far different from a sentence of life in prison, but even if there was only 1 innocent person in the 80 we should oppose the death penalty.

          1. What about people sentenced to life in prison rather than death – who escape or are released and murder someone?

            That is just as much of a ‘systemic error’ as an innocent person executed. Not trying to compare the two – except to say that there are potential systemic errors regardless

        2. Cameron Todd Willingham – Innocent and Executed

          “This Court orders the exoneration of Cameron Todd Willingham for murdering his three daughters. In light of the overwhelming, credible, and reliable evidence presented by the Petitioners, this Court holds that the State of Texas wrongfully executed Cameron Todd Willingham.”

          As has been said, better to let ten guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man. I agree Tsarnev is very deserving, but either you believe the state gets it right 100% of the time or you don’t.

          I don’t.

      2. I philosophically support the death penalty on moral grounds but oppose it for practical reasons.

        Dude was on video putting a bomb next to an 8yo kid who got blown apart.

        Fuck ‘im.

        1. Yeah. That video exists. But the government says we can’t see it. Because reasons.

          I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m sure it happened how they said it did. But… why make this big deal about the video and then never show it? My understanding is they didn’t even show it in court.

      3. I really fail to see how the equally possible innocent man rotting away in a cage until he naturally dies weighs against killing him or anyone else sooner.

        Imperfect justice means that some people will be unjustly punished. We either accept that or we don’t.

        You can argue that it would be extremely rare for an innocent man to endure a life sentence to it’s natural conclusion, but it is no less rare than the innocent man put to death.

        If you refuse to accept it then nobody should ever be punished.

        1. Yeah, but it shouldn’t be up to someone else to decide if an innocent person should prefer to die or rot in a cage for years. You may think it is just as bad, but I suspect it looks different to a lot of people who actually face the prospect. If that weren’t the case there would be a whole lot more suicide in prisons.
          And as long as the person is still alive there is a chance that they will be released.

          Some injustices are worse than others.

        2. That leap in logic is ridiculous. For one, there’s roughly 3,000 people across the nation currently on death row. Of that amount, there’s an estimated 4% of that population that is likely innocent. That’s quite a large chunk of the total, given the finality of the sentence.

          That aside, saying that nobody should be punished if the state lacks the power to off it’s own citizens is a pure non sequitur. The magnitude of the punishment alone in comparison to any and all others makes that absolutist stance absurd.

          1. 4%? Are you an ADA? 1 in 4 factually innocent would still be an incredibly generous estimate for the Statr. 4% is more like people who have been exonerated through conclusove DNA testing and remain on death row because they cant get an appeal hearing on a factual basis.

            1. 1 in 4 factually innocent would still be an incredibly generous estimate for the Statr.

              As long as you’re pulling made up numbers out of your ass, why not go for the really high drama? Say half. Or better yet, say 4% is more like the number of actually guilty on death row! Don’t softball the hysterics.

        3. If you’re mistaken about a life sentence, you’ve got a lifetime to rectify the mistake. If you’re mistaken about an execution, there’s no such chance. Besides which, I’m not comfortable with the idea of the government having the power to effectively vote to kill one of its citizens. If you’ve ever seen a city council meeting or been witness to an HOA, or worked in or with a court, you’d never want to grant a committee the power of life and death over anyone.

      4. But, really, the people, like him, will see it as martyrdom and will hope for the death penalty! Either way, in their minds, we lose. Will we need to martyr them all?! Only to be successful!

    5. As I’ve said many a time. Not every death penalty case is a dodgy case convicted on sketchy DNA evidence, questionable jail house testimony and shaky eye witness accounts.

      Sometimes the guy who did it did it, admits he did it, and doesn’t give two shits about the victims.

      1. How does that justify murdering him?

        1. Because public masturbation is frowned upon, so it’s the only way that some people can get rid of their revenge boners.

          1. Because public masturbation is frowned upon

            By whom?!?

            1. Not the Kony guy.

        2. If killing someone duly convicted of homicide is murder, than imprisoning someone duly convicted of a crime is kidnapping.

          I oppose the death penalty, but don’t think this argument really washes.

          1. It does for anarchists.

            1. So what’s the anarchist solution to criminals? Say “fuck it” and look in the other direction?

              1. Private justice. You want to kill someone, you take that moral responsibility on. But mostly, shunning.

                1. +1 Ned Stark for King

                2. “Private justice. You want to kill someone, you take that moral responsibility on. But mostly, shunning.”

                  That sounds nice in theory, but historically capital punishment came about because private justice tends to be blown out of proportion to the original crime. At least that’s what happened with the Ancient Hebrews. It was a solution that took the emotion out of it’s execution. (pun unintended)

                  1. I don’t think it sounds particularly nice, but that doesn’t really matter to me.

                  2. Sure, but in order to get the emotionless state execution we had to give up most of our freedoms.

                3. Private justice. You want to kill someone, you take that moral responsibility on. But mostly, shunning.

                  This is one of those things where I’d love to see the people who advocate it actually have to live by it. I suppose it’s in the same vein as the ROADZZZZZZ argument, but it really would be fucking hilarious to see some of you tuff gais actually have to live in a society where you are personally responsible for exacting your own justice.

                  1. This is one of those things where I’d love to see the people who advocate it actually have to live by it. I suppose it’s in the same vein as the ROADZZZZZZ argument, but it really would be fucking hilarious to see some of you tuff gais actually have to live in a society where you are personally responsible for exacting your own justice.

                    Well, handily, it does tend to separate revenge from legitimate concerns for safety. Also, thanks to guns, pointy sticks, and having a pair, just about anyone could kill anyone else if they really have a mind to do so. We’re not talking about challenging Thor to a fistfight after school, chief. This is more like that scene in Seven Samurai where the old lady stabs the bandit to death with a pitchfork.

                    1. Also, thanks to guns, pointy sticks, and having a pair, just about anyone could kill anyone else if they really have a mind to do so.

                      And yet very few people actually avail themselves of those options in dispute resolution, blustery anonymous threats on a worldwide computer network notwithstanding. And even then, presumably the victim of the crime would be outgunned (hence their becoming a victim in the first place), which would make retribution untenable. Which is more or less my point. In the absence of a criminal justice system, I have a feeling most of the relatively wealthy, safe, and sheltered people who advocate for that position would not be very satisfied with the results of social shunning (or on “oh well” shrug in the event the perpetrator was carrying a bigger stick) if they were the victim of a serious crime. I guess for Nicole it wouldn’t matter that much since she ostensibly hates her life so much anyway. Just more fodder for suicide poetry. But outside of an academic wankery exercise, it’s just kind of silly.

                4. You know what happens to people that are shunned? They just form their own communities. History is loaded with examples.
                  The founder of Rhode Island was from a Puritan settlement and when he challenged their dogma, he was banished, and he set up a colony with complete religious freedom.

                  Eric the Red was also banished from his homeland, and he founded a colony in Greenland.

                  When gays, atheists and the like are shunned by their conservative families, they join other communities.

                  Same thing happens to murders and thieves, we just called them bands of bandits and pirates.

                  The point I am setting to make is shunning is overrated.

                  1. Same thing happens to murders and thieves, we just called them bands of bandits and pirates Australians.

                    Sometimes these things work out better than others.

              2. Putting someone in a box after he hurts people accomplishes the goals of punishing him and preventing him from hurting anyone else. Taking him out of that box and murdering him accomplishes nothing further.

                1. “Taking him out of that box and murdering him accomplishes nothing further.”

                  It can certainly prevent him from committing further crimes within prison.

                  1. It can certainly prevent him from committing further crimes within prison.

                    So death penalty for all convictions then? Paul I knew you were trying to change the world into that one episode of TNG where Wesley almost gets laid/killed.

                    1. “So death penalty for all convictions then? ”

                      You know I don’t believe that. The death penalty should be reserved only for your movie reviews.

                  2. Also prevents Rolling Stones from doing an interview with him celebrating the 10 year anniversary of his crimes. Or having hundreds of people knock each other down to write a book with him. Or him graduating from Columbia’s new SJ prison campus(perhaps), graduating class 2028.

                2. Taking him out of that box and murdering him accomplishes nothing further.

                  I am against the death penalty but putting him down puts an immediate end to the cost of incarcerating him.

                3. Putting someone in a box after he hurts people accomplishes the goals of punishing him and preventing him from hurting anyone else

                  A solution unavailable due to its prohibitive cost until quite recently — and one which is continually undermined by the state through furlough programs, prison overcrowding, etc.

                  Taking him out of that box and murdering him accomplishes nothing further

                  It saves money, is proportionate for certain crimes, and has the desired effect of appropriately expressing and condemning the severity of the act.

                  And, as alluded to above, was the only practical option in many cases (and would be again in an anarchist society).

            2. Not necessarily. Anarchists can decide that someone has got to go just as much as a government can. It’s hardly like there’s many human systems that don’t include the use of force in some situations, and the use of deadly force in at least a few. Even if execution is out, deadly force in self-defense isn’t, unless you’re a Buddhist anarchist.

              1. Here’s a thought. By keeping him in a box at taxpayer expense, the state is enslaving millions of people a tiny bit to keep a condemned prisoner alive. If he’s never going to be allowed out, how is killing him a worse evil than the large-scale theft that’s required in order to avoid killing him?

                1. You’re right. We should send him to Mars.

                  1. PRO GLIB YOU GOT WHUT U WANT GIV DISE PEOPLE AYUH

                    1. [Executes prisoner via three-breasted mutant.]

                2. it’s far cheaper for the enslaved tax payers to put him the box, then trying to kill him at least under the current system of government.

                3. Here’s my libertarian solution: don’t have the state kill him. Don’t have the taxpayers feed and provide medical care and heating, etc for him.

                  Put him in a cell and that’s that.

                  Those individuals who favor keeping that scum alive can donate food/money to his upkeep. And if those who are against the death penalty aren’t as full of shit as I suppose they are, well then he and others like him will be kept alive. And if nobody REALLY gives a shit, then he slowly starves in his cell.

                  Problem solved.

              2. deadly force in self-defense isn’t, unless you’re a Buddhist anarchist

                Buddhists are quite comfortable with the use of deadly force in self-defense if necessary, thank you very much.

                1. Word. Not sure how the Buddhists got impugned with this non violence thing.

                2. I meant hardcore Buddhist.

                  1. If that wasn’t a hardcore Buddhist he’ll do til one gets here.

          2. “I oppose the death penalty, but don’t think this argument really washes.”
            Agreed.

            My opposition is based on denying the state that additional power, and my conviction (sorry) that even several false negatives are far better than one false positive regarding killing someone.

            1. I tend to agree. I oppose it because I don’t trust the government with that kind of irreversible decision and because the less absolute power the government has, the better.

          3. You presume the convictions were justified, and these days that simply cannot be taken on faith.

            1. I don’t presume the convictions were justified, I’m saying this particular conviction absolutely was definitely justified given everything we know.

              There have been innocent people executed in the past, and it’s because of that danger that I oppose the death penalty. I’m just saying the argument that the death penalty is always murder makes no sense because in that case imprisonment is always kidnapping.

              1. Well, your original argument hinged on “duly convicted” and not “always”, which is rather a significant difference. The clarification is accepted and agreed with, on pure basis of law of absolutes, and we can all drink to that.

          4. It’s not a good argument. (Unless you believe all life is sacred- I don’t) The best argument, of course, is the possibility of innocence. You could stretch and discuss the possible reformative aspects of a prison sentence, but I’m not clear what reformative benefit you’d get from life I prison without the possibility of parole.

            1. You don’t have to believe that all life is sacred to believe that an person’s life is sacred to that person, and that no government should be empowered to take that away from him unless he is an imminent threat to other people.

              1. I guess I could get a handle on the counter argument. In aggregate I mean- I’m not saying you’re moving any goalposts.

                To me, possibility of innocence is the best overall argument against the death penalty. But I’m repeatedly told that life in prison is FAR more cruel than the DP. If so, wouldn’t THAT be the cruel and unusual punishment? A lifetime in a super max dealing with guys who were too violent and aggressive to be cops?

                All punishment has a vengeance component in it. So I guess we’re arguing matters of degree?

                I’m not rabidly for the death penalty, but I don’t have an overarching problem with it in clear cut cases and admit (see my response to Andrew s. Above) that a ban is probably in order because of flaws in the justice system.

                But your argument (respectfully) seems to be in opposition to it even in the absence of those flaws?

                1. I also believe that the death penalty should be reserved for the makers of Swype and the gang of Reason criminals who committed us to a lifetime sentence in a chat room without an edit button.

                2. A lifetime in a super max dealing with guys who were too violent and aggressive to be cops?

                  Would that be the prison guards or the inmates?

              2. But it is ok for the government to be empowered to force a murder victims family to wake up every morning for the rest of their life mourning their loved one while the murderer is protected/fed/clothed/etc by the state?

                Like it or not – prisons do not merely protect ‘society’ from the ‘violent’. They also protect the violent from their victims. Is that really the side you want to be on?

                1. “the government to be empowered to force a murder victims family to wake up every morning for the rest of their life mourning their loved one while the murderer is protected/fed/clothed/etc”

                  I think I mean something other than what you mean when I say the word ‘force’.

            2. I do believe that Life is sacred.

              I also believe the death penalty for a person who gleefully takes another life is just.

              I simply do not trust our government (or any other I know of) to have that power.

              (This is why survey takers avoid me)

          5. “If killing someone duly convicted of homicide is murder, than imprisoning someone duly convicted of a crime is kidnapping.”

            I agree, it’s the worst argument

            1. Izzis logical deduction by consensus? Did I cut the wrong class?

          6. It’s cold blooded killing, whatever else you might want to call it. I think that “killing another person unnecessarily (i.e. not in self defense or to defend others), on purpose” is a reasonable definition. By that definition executions count as murder. It also looks to me like a clear violation of the NAP.

            1. If you’re the type of libertarian who tolerates a state of some kind, there’s probably an argument that execution of someone convicted of behavior as anti-social as blowing up dozens of other people is a “defense of others” — if not of the victim(s), then of society. As Irish pointed out above, this argument also cuts against imprisonment of any kind. Pretty sure locking somebody in a cage would be considered a NAP violation as well.

              1. Libertarians tolerate states. Anarchists don’t. Killing someone who poses a direct threat to others is totally justifiable by the NAP. Killing someone in revenge might not be justifiable via the NAP but is something I could certainly understand personally and is something I would probably condone, being less committed to the NAP than others. Allowing the state to kill someone because according to a law and the votes of 12 people that person committed a crime against “society” is neither moral nor just; it’s neither revenge nor defense.

                1. My point being that any action against the perpetrator of a crime once he is no longer an immediate threat is, by the strictest definition, a NAP violation. Locking somebody in a cage to remove him from society because he’s so dangerous that he might hurt people is different only in degree from killing him to remove him from society because he’s so dangerous he might hurt people, from a NAP perspective. Demonstrating a certain level of anti-social behavior probably qualifies you as a threat to society going forward such that the state (if you’re in the minarchist camp – I don’t consider anarchists non-libertarians) is justified in aggressing against you, whether that be killing you or confining you. If you’re the type of libertarian who doesn’t believe in criminal justice, only civil justice, this isn’t even an issue. But if you subscribe to some form of minarchy and accept the premise of criminal justice, you have a lot of mental contortions to go through to differentiate between imprisonment (particularly lifetime imprisonment) and death as a penalty vis-a-vis the non-aggression principle.

                  This all presumes, of course, that one rejects retributive justice in princple. I personally don’t, but I know such an opinion is considered libertarian heresy.

                  1. Doesn’t anarchy by definition mean the legalization of random murder? And isn’t the conjuring up of a “free” market in the forcible restraint of men–without a legitimate government having first secured individual rights–a bit like the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

        3. Eye for an eye. It says that people like him don’t deserve to breathe. I would prefer that the state didn’t do, but he needs to die, on principle

        4. If executing Joker consitutes “murdering him,” then keeping him in prison constitutes “kidnapping him.”

          1. + more than 9000.

        5. The state does not have any its own ethical justifications for anything. If it cannot act purely as an intermediary for the victims/family – and yes that means killing him if that is what the victims family would do – then the state should butt out and let the families take their own vengeance on the bastard. But that forces the family themselves to become a murderer and that is a profound disservice to the victim of a crime.

          The ONLY valid role of the state here is to use its objectivity to ensure that the correct perpetrator is identified and that the trial is fair. That really can only be done by third parties and is thus recognized (by everyone from the family of the victim to a perpetrator of a crime) as a step above the means of punishment that preceded this.

          NOTHING is as offensive as the state perpetuating ‘humanitarian’ notions of punishment – whether that notion is ‘deterrence’ or ‘rehabilitation’ or just plain chickenshit wussiness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with vengeance as the driver behind punishment.

          CS Lewis on the subject in 1953
          http://www.spiked-online.com/i…..5-1-PB.pdf

        6. Seriously? Ok, I’ll make it simple for you. YES IT FUCKING WELL DOES!

          That simple enough?

      2. Yeah, and if they were the only ones who got executed, I’d be all for the death penalty. I won’t give two hoots when Tsarnaev dies.

    6. If there was a way to keep the death penalty solely for super-clear-cut horrific crimes like this I’d have no problem with it.

      1. I don’t think there is because of feature creep. We have tons of examples about how a law that seemed clear cut to fight X was bent by an ambitious prosecutor to apply to Y.

        As someone who’s not entirely opposed to the death penalty, I would definitely not be opposed to a national moratorium while something like this could be hashed out. And if it can’t be hashed out, I’d accept a ban on the practice.

        1. I’m not opposed to the death penalty, although I’m red-hot against the government having this power. Some people just need killin’. I merely will never agree that Top Men are to be trusted as the sole true arbiters of who those people are.

          1. But the government decides who needs killing all the time. It is, in fact, the primary power we do give them.

            Is your argument more akin to Hugh’s which is that once no longer an imminent threat the government shouldn’t be in the business of killing?

            1. Paul.|5.15.15 @ 5:02PM|#
              “But the government decides who needs killing all the time. It is, in fact, the primary power we do give them.”

              Cite?

          2. Strangely, or maybe not strangely, while I am dead-set against the state having the power to kill I have absolutely no problem with vigilante justice and revenge killings.

            1. “Vigilante justice and revenge killings” violate the due process principle. Without the rule of law and due process, civilization breaks down.

            2. Rules? in a knife fight?

          3. You guys keep saying it’s the government that is killing them. Isn’t this decision made by juries who understand that the death penalty is/may be invoked for the defendant if they decide him guilty?

            Some crimes deserve the death sentence IMO and I’m more okay with juries that hopefully aren’t a bunch of assholes unanimously deciding that, in special cases like the Boston bomber, where they is no serious doubt of the defendant’s guilt and the depraved nature of the crime, they have the power to off him.

        2. Yeah, that’s what I was trying to imply. Any clear-cut case will get brought up in support of a marginal or even transparently shitty one, and the courts are biased in favor of the prosecution. Thus, fuck the death penalty, even in clear-cut cases. No other way to ensure we keep innocent people off the gurney.

    7. I won’t shed any tears for him when he’s gone. I still oppose the death penalty however as the cases where it’s applied aren’t always as clear cut as this one.

  3. “Die terrorist?”
    This is kinda not Reason Nut Punch Friday material Robo Swabay…

    1. It’s German for “The Terrorist”. And no one who speaks German could be an evil man.

      1. You know who else spoke German and was an evil… ah, fuck it.

        1. Catherine the Great?

        2. Angela Merkel?

        3. Well, FA Hayek and L von Mises, obviously! Evil, EVIL CAPITALISTS!! / prog

        4. Donald Duck?

  4. The way I see it, a resident of Boston committed a crime in Boston. On what basis is this a Federal trial?

    The people of Massachusetts prefer not to have a death penalty which means they accept criminals like this guy not being put to death for crimes committed within the Commonwealth.

    And while I still do not entirely oppose the death penalty from a moral standpoint, I do feel that life in prison is much worse, especially for someone that young.

    1. “I do feel that life in prison is much worse, especially for someone that young.”

      Funny the amount of energy people sentenced to death expend fighting to get life in prison.

      1. Because people generally don’t think much farther forward than the immediate future. And death is a scary concept.

        1. “Why should I be afraid of death? There’s no reason for it!”

          1. Millions of years of evolution selecting for organisms that don’t want to die?

        2. Yeah, about that…

          The Americans lead lavish lives and they are afraid of death. We are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death.” Veteran Taliban fighter Maulana Inyadullah

          When you believe, earnestly, that if you are killed in the name of your religious ideology that you will be rewarded with an eternal paradise that includes 72 large-breasted, doe-eyed, transparent skinned celestial concubines at your constant disposal then death is not so scary, yeah?

          1. Fucking idiots. Everyone knows that real Americans love Coke.

          2. Can’t remember if I discussed this here, but I know I had issues with Bill Maher’s comments on the 9/11 terrorists being brave. They weren’t. They doing the equivalent of going to their girlfriend’s house to get laid.

            When you earnestly believe that death isn’t the end…

            1. They doing the equivalent of going to their girlfriend’s house to get laid.

              Yep. It doesn’t take any particular bravery to kill one’s self. Bravery is found in fighting against superior odds; using a pressure cooker to render the flesh of a 7 year old kid into bits and then spending the night bleeding out in a boat isn’t what I would call fighting against superior odds.

            2. Paul I’ve read in several places that some of the 9/11 terrorist weren’t aware that they were going on a suicide mission but a simple plane hijacking.

              I think it’s harder to get an adult to actually believe the 72 virgin policy than the Imams espouse.. That’s why most suicide bombers are young teens.

              But I am in agreement that denying this guy death is the right way to go.

              Put him in a rape cage and let him have all the sex he can live through. I think he will get more of the justice we all want for him in general population. Hell, set him up with a blog so he can tell the rest of the fundamental Mooslems how rewarding it is to kill innocents for Mohammed.

              1. So much of the thread has focused on the death penalty, but I think it important to think about the Islamic beliefs which “inspired” it. Whether or not you believe the religion, Judeo-Christian beliefs have been the foundation of morality which supports Western civilization. Jesus is regarded as a pacifist, and his sayings are interpreted to support liberty and separation of church and state. Having a Reformation 500 years ago helped refine what is most widely believed.

                Islam on the other hand is the world’s most intolerant religion. Its beliefs are broadly speaking, hateful and absolutist. Mohammed is on record as stealing, killing, looting, and what we would today call rape. The values are essentially totalitarian. This religion is easily employed toward political ends, the leaders may not believe what they say but there are masses of people just waiting to be turned into rabid dogs.

                Did I say Islam is evil at its core?

    2. It was a federal crime because they wanted it to be one so they could put the death penalty on the table. If this were to have happened in Texas, the state would’ve tried him.

    3. From a skim of the indictment,

      http://www.cnn.com/interactive…..ndictment/

      I find many bases of federal jurisdiction (eg, trying to influence U.S. foreign policy by terrorism), but one thread which runs through it all is…interstate and foreign commerce.

      The bombs he set off, and conspired to set off, affected interstate and foreign commerce…for example, “Many [Boston Marathon] runners and their family members travel to the Boston, Massachusetts area from other states and countries and stay at local area hotels, eat at local area restaurants, and shop at local area businesses.”

      I hope ENB will soon be around to be outraged at this unjustifiable stretching of the commerce power to prosecute murder.

      1. Are you really trying to start one of your stupid fucking abortion pissing matches, Eddie?

        1. That time I was just trying to get it off my chest, and wouldn’t have minded if nobody answered.

          Thanks for asking!

      2. One of the experts ENB cited indeed did mention that the Feds have no business in most murder in his article about the Feds having no business getting involved in abortion.

        1. I would be happy to join with you, ENB, and her experts to end federal involvement in the vast majority of homicides, but of course that would mean the federal government wouldn’t be in the business of *legalizing* homicide, either. I have no interest in a one-way ratchet where the feds can’t punish homicide but get to enable and support it.

          1. The states set homicide laws Eddie. Some states allow self defense exceptions that others don’t. Some states prosecute assisted suicides that others don’t. I guess according to you this should all be federalized to, you know, prevent outlawry…

            1. Some states have self-defense exceptions? Wow, you must have scored some excellent debating points against those voices in your head.

              1. Bo is an eleven year old who’s only allow 2 hours of computer time a day, leave him alone.

      3. Has anyone considered the pros and cons of just abolishing the Commerce Clause? (there IS a legitimate process for amending the constitution)

        Is there really a point to having such a clause anymore? The government has shown that they will twist those words to cover anything that they want it to cover.

        Is there a reason that the federal government MUST have the power to regulate interstate commerce in the year 2015?

        1. The State: “Yes. FYTW.”

    4. He was convicted for violating federal laws regarding the use of WMDs. And as crazy as that sounds, I’m not being flip; the definition has been made so broad that his bomb qualified.

      1. I thought the statute predated current usage of the term. Perhaps some lawyery types could shine some light on this.

        1. The definition was ammended a few years ago.

          1. What was the old definition? That’s what I can’t seem be bothered to dig up.

            1. Previously it required the weapon have a nuclear, biological, chemical (other than explosive force), or radiological aspect to it.

              1. Have a citation for that? Timothy McVeigh was convicted for use of weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction in 1995, and his bomb had none of those features. Unless by “a few year” you mean “a few decades”.

      2. Boston, Mass

        Weapon of Mass Destruction

        Makes sense if you squint and tilt your head to the side.

  5. How many bombing victims are expected to come back to life once he is finally executed?

    1. There ghost can rest in peace, or something like that.

      1. *Their*. Edit button, or don’t, I just can’t even anymore.

    2. My table napkin calculation shows 0. However, I also come up with zero if he gets life in prison, ten years, five years, or we let him go with a pinkie-promise to never ever do it again.

      1. Yeah, it’s almost like “people brought back to life” is an abjectly retarded way to measure justice and a non-sequitur.

        1. If we exact justice by any measure, it’s like we set those bombs ourselves.

    3. I don t know. But I’m game to find. Out.

  6. You seem to have linked to the NYT editorial page by mistake. From the article:

    “The Tsarnaev verdict goes against the grain in Massachusetts, which has no death penalty for state crimes and where polls showed that residents overwhelmingly favored life in prison for Mr. Tsarnaev. Many respondents said that life in prison for one so young would be a fate worse than death, and some worried that execution would make him a martyr.

    “But the jurors in his case had to be “death qualified” ? that is, they all had to be willing to impose the death penalty to serve on the jury. So in that sense, the jury was not representative of the state.”

    This from the reporter, not some source they found to parrot their opinions.

    1. So a NYT reporter did his job?

    2. Not seeing the problem here given that everything he wrote is true and can be fact checked.

      1. It would also be true and checkable to call Tsarnaev an evildoer and scumbag who slaughtered innocent people. But even if true, it’s still…editorializing.

        And even if it were true that all the political candidates the NYT editorial board endorses are the most qualified, that wouldn’t justify putting the endorsement in a news article.

        Saying “the jury was not representative of the state” could well be true, but it’s just as much editorializing as the hypothetical denunciation of Tsarnaev above, or the hypothetical endorsement of the most qualified candidate.

        So it should be in the editorial section, or at least the reporter should go to the trouble of finding someone who agrees with her to go on the record with that assertion.

        1. Saying “the jury was not representative of the state” could well be true, but it’s just as much editorializing as the hypothetical denunciation of Tsarnaev above, or the hypothetical endorsement of the most qualified candidate.

          Well, only if you completely ignore the preceding “in that sense”, referring to the established and documented attitudes of the commonwealth towards the death penalty, which makes the statement demonstrably true.

          1. All it says is that most Bay Staters, asked simply if they want Tsarnaev to die, say no, while 12 bay staters who have heard the evidence and applicable legal standards will apply that evidence and those standards to impose the death penalty.

            And voting for the death penalty as a juror doesn’t presuppose you’d vote for it as a voter. Judges hammer into jurors’ heads that they have to get beyond their “personal opinions” on the death penalty and “apply the law.”

            1. *ring* *ring*

              “Hello, I’m a pollster…do you support the death penalty for Tsarnaev?”

              “No.”

              Isn’t the same as a lengthy trial with testimony including statements from victims, plus detailed legal standards to consider, etc. With more info, people can change their minds.

            2. And what’s ‘the law’ as determined by the representatives of the people of Massachussetts? Why, it’s that no death penalty should be available. So yes, in that sense the jury’s decision was against that grain, no editorializing.

              But I’m sure you’ll give us some Eddietorializing….

              1. So, you don’t know the difference between a juror being death-qualified and the juror supporting the death penalty as a matter of policy? I suppose I’m not surprised.

                1. You’ve really latched onto this. Let me demonstrate how silly it is in terms you might get.

                  Let’s say federal law recognized a gay marriage that a state’s laws and it’s citizens, as ascertained via polling, did not. But in a federal trial for a tort a jury in that state found damages for loss of consortium for one of the members of the marriage. It’s reported as being interesting because it ‘cuts against the grain’ of that state and it’s resident’s understanding of what a marriage is. How silly would you be to object on the grounds that the jury selection process made sure strong opponents of gay marriages were excluded and the judge lectured the chosen jury on following federal law only?

                  1. So, you don’t know the difference between a juror being death-qualified and the juror supporting the death penalty as a matter of policy? I suppose I’m not surprised.

                  2. Out of curiosity, can you think about about any topic at all without having to frame it in tribalist terms within your head?

              2. Bu what of Bird Law Bo? WHAT OF BIRD LAW?

        2. If this is true:
          “polls showed that residents overwhelmingly favored life in prison for Mr. Tsarnaev.”

          Then, this:
          ” the jury was not representative of the state”

          Is not editorializing.

          1. see above for the difference.

            Also, you can editorialize truthfully.

            Non-editorializing: “The jury found that Mr. Tsarnaev was responsible for the death of several people.”

            Editorializing: Tsarnaev is a convicted scumbag murderer.

            1. Nice.
              Now about my post?

              1. The reporter noted that 12 Bay Staters, presumably after being told by the judge to separate their “personal opinions” about the death penalty from the existing law, voted for death. She assumed therefore that these 12 were not representative of Massachussettsians.

                But we know from bitter experience that a person may, as a voter, vote to (say) legalize marijuana, but as a juror, can be bamboozled by the judge into convicting someone of dealing or possession. Likewise with the death penalty. Maybe it’s not a good thing, but there it is. You can find people who would vote against the death penalty at the ballot box but vote for it in the jury box.

                1. And the answer they give to a pollster in a 30-second conversation about Tsarnaev is different from the answer they may give to a judge after a lengthy trial where they hear at length from the victims, get detailed instructions from the judge, and go over these instructions for several hours of deliberation.

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|5.15.15 @ 8:34PM|#
                    “And the answer they give to a pollster in a 30-second conversation about Tsarnaev is different from the answer they may give to a judge after a lengthy trial where they hear at length from the victims, get detailed instructions from the judge, and go over these instructions for several hours of deliberation.”

                    Which hypothetical still says nothing about my post, including the presumption that one answer “is” different from the other.
                    You’re welcome to try again, but I doubt you’ll do better.

          2. Actually, in 82 MA residents passed a referendum to reinstate the death penalty. A judge knocked it down. In 97 lawmakers almost passed a bill reinstating it, which would have been signed by the governor, but at the last minute someone changed their vote and they were locked in a tie. So, no, MA residents are not necessarily against the death penalty.

        3. “It would also be true and checkable to call Tsarnaev an evildoer and scumbag who slaughtered innocent people. But even if true, it’s still…editorializing.”

          Hahahaha,

          1. So, you don’t know the difference between a juror being death-qualified and the juror supporting the death penalty as a matter of policy? I suppose I’m not surprised.

            1. The voters of that state have consistently chosen representatives who have, after deliberation, decided that their law shall be that the death penalty shall not be available for any criminal. So twelve of those voters opting for the death penalty here can certainly said to be ‘going against the grain’ of death penalty opinion in that Commonwealth without it being editorializing.

              1. So, you don’t know the difference between a juror being death-qualified and a juror supporting the death penalty as a matter of policy?

                1. Sigh. The difference wouldn’t matter Eddie, that’s what you’re not getting.

                  1. The idea that you can have twelve jurors who opposed the death penalty at the ballot box, yet can be death-qualified as jurors so that they’re willing to “follow the law” and vote for death in certain circumstances…that doesn’t register with you?

                    1. How does the fact that if you screen out those categorically opposed to the death penalty and then lecture the chosen twelve on the jury to consider it, and then they choose that, somehow undercut the observation that the vote still goes against the grain in a state where the voters regularly choose reps who then consistently take the death penalty off the table for all of their murderers?

                      You act like the fact that taking a small sample of the state selected under those situations and then having them change their minds in applying federal law here somehow doesn’t go against the general, regular grain in Mass., which is that regardless of evidence or heinousness, the death penalty is off the table.

                    2. Wait, those goalposts were here just a second ago…

                    3. Would you ever use such a retarded argument in court? Would they even let you?

              2. Oh well. Either way, it’s a good thing for that little fucker to die. A very good thing.

    3. The Tsarnaev verdict goes against the grain in Massachusetts, which has no death penalty for state crimes and where polls showed that residents overwhelmingly favored life in prison for Mr. Tsarnaev.

      it’s possible the reporter needs some qualified fact-checking:

      Fifty-nine percent of those [Massachusetts Residents] asked about Tsarnaev stated that they believe he should receive the death penalty, while 35 percent feel he should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Only 6 percent were unsure. These numbers are all exactly the same as those of the survey taken nearly a year ago in the aftermath of the bombing.

      Opinion is nuanced. Boston residents polled 57% against the DP for Tsarnaev.

      Massachusetts residents (statewide) overwhelmingly support the death penalty for Tsarnaev.

      http://www.umass.edu/newsoffic…..ident-2014

      1. Are you suggesting that a New York Times reporter would not only editorialize, but editorialize on the basis of cherrypicked data?

    4. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they’re basing that on a Boston Globe poll which many are calling inaccurate. Also, the author of this article is didn’t do his homework either. If you followed the news you’d know that the family of the 8 year old kid who was killed, who were injured too (mother lost an eye, sister a leg), wrote an op-ed asking for life, not the death penalty.

  7. He should be encased in concrete and buried underneath the finish line so that thousands of marathoners can triumphantly run right over his sorry ass every year.

    In reality of course, we’ll be lucky if Obama doesn’t give him a full pardon.

    1. He should be encased in concrete and buried underneath the finish line

      after being required to make, sit on, and detonate a pressure-cooker bomb?

    2. And lifetime benefits. Plus making him an advisor to the White House on American-Islamoc relations. And if he fails to lay his taxes? Well, taxes are for Tea Partiers and evil corporations.

  8. the jurors in his case had to be “death qualified” ? that is, they all had to be willing to impose the death penalty to serve on the jury. So in that sense, the jury was not representative of the state

    “Mistrial!”

  9. He is the poster child for having a death penalty; premeditated, murdered children, and was remorseless afterwards.

    So- two weeks paid vacation?

    1. That only applies if you’re wearing the correct government-issued costume.

    2. Only two weeks? Generally it seems to take the cops at least six weeks to fully conclude through crack investigation that they did nothing wrong when they murdered a kid.

    3. +1 light the dunphy signal!

  10. Well. Fuck him.

    1. Either way. Fuck him indeed.

      Just for doing what he did to that family.

      1. Don’t get me wrong, trying it as a federal crime is ridiculous, and I don’t trust the state to competently kill people who deserve it, to say nothing of the moral implications of murdering to deter murder. But. Fuck him.

  11. I’m against the death penalty. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be averse to sticking his ass in the general population of a plain old maximum security prison.

    How isn’t that de facto a death penalty?

    1. So you’re for the death penalty?

      1. Don’t like it. But, I also don’t see the point in spending a whole lot of money protecting the little bastard. Is that the death penalty, or just exposure to the elements?

        1. Death by snu-snu is still the death penalty, I suppose.

          1. The difference is, you’re not the one doing it. I mean, if the bastard was on fire and you refused to piss on him to put it out, would you have killed him?

  12. I’m all for implanting a bomb in his body and sending him on his merry way back to his fellow slimeball terrorists.
    “Hey guys! The stupid Americans let me go…let’s do(kaboooooooooom)

    1. As long as that little faggoty fuck is still alive, why not subject him to daily bacon grease colonics and a steady diet of pig feces?

  13. “Many respondents said that life in prison for one so young would be a fate worse than death,”

    I suppose the USG could just waterboard him seven days a week for the rest of his life if what you’re looking for is a fate worse than death. Presumably that’s not what motivates most who oppose the death penalty.

    I would be much happier if he were killed by a vigilante rather than the state, but sometimes in an asshole v. asshole conflict, an asshole’s going to die. I’ll file this one a step below “parking tickets on public streets” wrt things to be upset over.

    1. Water boarding isn’t that bad. Seriously, It makes Americans look like pussies to equate it to torture.

      1. No, it’s that bad. If you disagree now, we can just waterboard you until you DO agree.

  14. No! This little shit does not get to contaminate Mars with his presence! Send his ass to Titan!

    1. What? No way, I have plans for an estate on Titan, after we finish terraforming it.

      1. That will make you neighbors with Thanos, the Titanian Eternal. Better take good care of your lawn.

  15. I don’t believe in the death penalty, but if it had to happen to somebody, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person.

  16. I have struggled with my opinion of the death penalty in the past. I started out in favor, but my decreasing faith in gov’t competence finally made me come down on the side of “against”, not because some people don’t deserve to be executed, but because I don’t know how we can know who does and who doesn’t.

    Even after I came to that conclusion (anti-death penalty), the day I woke up and heard that Tim McVeigh had been executed, my only reaction, which i spoke aloud to myself, was “Good.”

    I expect I’ll feel the same way when/if this guy meets his end at the hands of the state.

    It’s complicated and admittedly inconsistent. I’ll keep trying.

  17. Never in my life did I think I would ever be proud of ANYTHING coming out the state of Massachusetts but I am proud of the jurors and their sentencing verdict of the lowlife form called Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

    Now if only we could get in about a month of torture before we execute him. Then all would be right with the world, for at least few seconds anyway. I’ll take it!

  18. I lived in Boston during the bombing and only recently moved to the burbs of Worcester and I hear from a lot of people “im normally against the death penalty but in this case, I hope he gets it. I was in boston when it happened and that day was just awful”

    They cant separate their emotions from the case and at that point its no longer about justice. Its about making yourself feel good, which is basically revenge.

    1. Justice in murder cases is always about revenge, and I don’t have a problem with that. You can’t bring the victims back to life, but you can avenge them.

  19. The general consensus of the Internet seems to be: he did a particularly bad thing (and flipped off a camera), so fuck him. My opposition to the death penalty isn’t based on the psychopathic slimeball excuse that life in solitary confinement is worse (how is that quantifiable?). They’re both extreme and unworthy of a decent civilization. The only people who should be locked up forever are proven violent psychopaths who would unquestionably harm others. Maybe he is one, I dunno. But isn’t it constitution 101, not to mention libertarianism 101, that we do not base our justice system on our passions?

    1. Take that up with “the Internet”.
      I’m happy to see you tend to agree with most of us here; maybe you’ll find there’s more in that constitution if you get around to reading it.

    2. The only people who should be locked up forever are proven violent psychopaths who would unquestionably harm others. Maybe he is one, I dunno.

      We can’t afford to base the law on all of the things you don’t know, Tony.

      1. Yeah I’m so stupid say all the cousin-fucking fucktards who think they’re the world’s true intellectuals because they read Bastiat and Rand. Stupidity, arrogance, and a complete unawareness of one’s own stupidity is the cause of all life’s problems. You redneck pieces of shit should really rethink the abortion thing. Like make it mandatory for yourselves.

        1. Tony|5.15.15 @ 11:39PM|#
          “Yeah I’m so stupid say all the cousin-fucking fucktards…”

          No, you stinking pile of shit, you’re so stupid that you can’t tell where you’re posting.
          The cousin-fucking fucktards are your relatives; go talk to them, not us.

        2. I like when you just devolve into mindless profanity laced hyesterics instead of pretending you actually have anything to contribute to a conversation. The projection is just the icing on the cake.

    3. Fuck off you worthless little git. That you would even begin to question wether he should be locked up forever at a minimum shows what an utter useless piece of shit you are. It also showcases why you filthy progs are such a threat to the well being of anyone around you. Always looking for any way to enable those who would kill everyone.

  20. For those who think life in prison would have been a worse punishment, I strongly disagree. After a few years in prison people get used to their lifestyle and are OK with it. This explains why a sizable number of prisoners who have spent many years in prison do not want to leave prison when their time is up.

    This case also validates my theory that we need a ‘Slam-Dunk Verdict.’ When there is absolutely no doubt as to the persons guilt, one weeks after the guilty verdict comes down we string em up and let em drop. No appeals, no sitting on death row for 15 years. Get it over and done with.

    Crank it up as high as it’ll go and fry the Mutha Fucker, soon.

    1. EndTheGOP|5.15.15 @ 8:50PM|#
      “[…]This case also validates my theory that we need a ‘Slam-Dunk Verdict.’ When there is absolutely no doubt as to the persons guilt, one weeks after the guilty verdict comes down we string em up and let em drop. No appeals, no sitting on death row for 15 years. Get it over and done with.[…]”

      Well, I’m glad you aren’t in charge.

      1. Sevo — Do you have any reason you’re “glad I’m not in charge” or haven’t you thought that far ahead yet? Get back to us if anything pops into that head of yours.

        1. He wants to coddle garbage like Joker.

  21. Good. Too bad he’ll live off taxpayer money for many years while working through the appeals process before finally getting the fate he deserves.

  22. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  23. YOU MESSED WITH THE WRONG CITY, JOKAAAAAAAAH

  24. Is there any reason why the appeals process takes so long? A swifter appeals process would be beneficial to all sides.

    1. Pretty sure the defense in a death-sentence case has no incentive to speed things up.

    2. In death penalty cases, it’s actually good that the appeals process consumes so much time. The gravity of the situation calls for it. In a case like this, of course, it makes no difference, but in other cases it gives time for new evidence (possibly based on new technologies) to come forward, for the public to learn about the case, etc.

  25. On what basis might an appeal be made? Give him and his attorneys 30 days to present the grounds on which they might base an appeal, and let the court determine the time needed to present such appeal, noting that a decade or a year would be unacceptable without positive evidence that such amount of time would be rationally required. Should the appeal be granted and fail to change the verdict, the sentence should then be carried out in a timely fashion.

  26. Death sentence shmeth sentence. The odds of it being carried out in this case are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0001 in about 10 million. Islamic terror attacks in the West are very safe where execution for being caught is concerned. There will be no martyr making so why even put on the show. For the victims and victim families I suppose. There must be some kind of comfort or “closure” in the hearing the death sentence passed down.

  27. It’s odd we never saw that video of Tsarnaev dropping the backpack next to the trashcan before the explosion. Everyone claims it exists, but it was never shown for some reason.

    Oh well. I’m sure Big Brother knows best.

    1. Yeah right, he was railroaded. Jesus fucking Christ, get a clue.

  28. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First
    ………….. http://WWW.TIMES-REPORT.COM

  29. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  30. Gosh, all he did was sentence a crowd of track event spectators to death and maiming. Why shouldn’t “we” be taxed to support him in comfort instead of ushering him into Paradise? HL Mencken pointed out that people of Dzhok’s faith are “not bidden to love their enemies but to smite them.” Wasn’t he following his religious customs? Don’t the telescreens say “our” secret ballots elected the politicians who bomb his people. Wouldn’t that make it society’s fault?

  31. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  32. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  33. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  34. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.