Death Penalty

Biden Campaigned on Ending the Death Penalty. His Justice Department Wants To Execute the Boston Marathon Bomber Anyway.

A new brief asks the Supreme Court to reinstate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence.


The Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to let the federal government execute Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, undermining President Joe Biden's campaign promise to eliminate the death penalty.

Federal prosecutors submitted a 48-page brief Monday asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty for Tsarnaev after the sentence was tossed out by a panel of judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in August 2020. The panel determined that the judge overseeing Tsarnaev's trial did a poor job of evaluating potential jurors for bias during the sentencing phase. At least two jurors had posted comments on social media expressing opinions about Tsarnaev prior to being seated. The court panel mandated a new sentencing trial for Tsarnaev.

Former President Donald Trump's DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. The Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the case and consider reinstating the death penalty for Tsarnaev.

But while then-Attorney General William Barr and Trump were carrying out federal executions during the latter half of 2020, Democrats were campaigning against Trump with the promise of eliminating the federal death penalty. Biden's campaign site carries this pledge:

Because we cannot ensure we get death penalty cases right every time, Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level, and incentivize states to follow the federal government's example. These individuals should instead serve life sentences without probation or parole.

This does not seem to be the actual position of the DOJ under Biden. The brief asks the Supreme Court to reverse the decision and "put this case back on track toward a just conclusion," meaning Tsarnaev's eventual execution.

"The jury carefully considered each of [Tsarnaev's] crimes and determined that capital punishment was warranted for the horrors that he personally inflicted—setting down a shrapnel bomb in a crowd and detonating it, killing a child and a promising young student, and consigning several others 'to a lifetime of unimaginable suffering,'" the brief concludes. "That determination by 12 conscientious jurors deserves respect and reinstatement by this Court."

It's easy to simply not care whether Tsarnaev gets executed. This is not a case where innocence is even remotely in question. Since the 1970s, about 185 people have been exonerated while on death row awaiting execution. Tsarnaev is never going to join that list.

Nevertheless, as long as the death penalty remains on the table, the likelihood of an innocent person's execution remains a concern. Biden's campaign position didn't contain an exemption for the killers who are most obviously guilty of extremely high-profile, terror-motivated violence. But his administration doesn't appear to be acting on the some-odd 59 people currently on death row in federal prison.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked directly about the Tsarnaev case in March when the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case. Psaki said merely that Biden had "grave concerns about whether capital punishment, as currently implemented, is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness. He's also expressed his horror at the events of that day and…Tsarnaev's actions."

No federal death row inmates were executed during the eight years of former President Barack Obama's administration. But even so, federal prosecutors continued to seek the death penalty for certain cases, as they did here with Tsarnaev. It's easy to see the Biden administration taking the same path of least resistance. His DOJ could decline to schedule any executions while continuing to pursue and defend the death penalty in the sentencing phase. He could then claim to have not put anybody to death while not actually changing the policies at all.

Biden promised to sign legislation to end the death penalty if Congress passed it. But he could, if he were inclined, commute the sentences of every federal prisoner on death row to a life term. He has not done so. And clearly his own Justice Department is still in favor of having the authority to execute prisoners for capital crimes.

NEXT: Former Biden Senior COVID Adviser Admonishes Americans for Their Lack of 'Sacrifice' During the Pandemic

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 80% of Americans believe abortion should sometimes be legal. Take that you pro-life troglodytes!

    1. The anti-death penalty and pro-abortion views aren’t necessarily contradictory as you might think. In both cases, the killer is seen as more worthwhile than the victim.

      1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are D much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. [USA PART TIME JOB]For starters, most healthy people want a job that satisfies their needs, but a job without a social support system can set … Selected Works Cited from Internet……………..PART TIME JOB

    3. If being an advocate for the unborn makes me a troglodyte – then I’m OK with that.

  2. I’m all for abolishing the death penalty, but for that to happen, the legislature needs to make it law. This is pointless distraction and no one gives a shit about this asshole anyway.

    1. The citizens of Bean Town (aka Beaners) care about putting this terrorist to death. Besides, being an “anti-death penalty libertarian” means you are anti-death when a BIPOC is going to be executed for a crime. Also, Chechens are Caucasian.

      1. Massachusetts repealed their death penalty. There is a part of me that feels when a crime is localized to a single state that says no more death penalty, the Feds shouldn’t do the dirty work for the state.

        If Mr . Tsarnarev had bombed Texas instead, the Feds going for merely a life sentence would be effectively protective custody.

    2. Yup. Hang him high, who cares?

      1. Something we agree on. I can’t think of a single reason to let this terrorist turd live.

        1. I’m against the death penalty(except for Mormons because they aren’t people), so you’re lucky I believe traitors like you should only get life in prison.

          How can you put your boner for Trump ahead of your oath to uphold the constitution? Have you no shame?

          1. While true that Mormons aren’t real people, I’m hesitant to concede they all need the death penalty. Almost all are indoctrinated from birth, it takes quite a bit of effort to beat that disability. Perhaps re-education camps could be a happy medium?

        2. Of course dol also believes babbitt deserved to be shot on sight for trespassing.

    3. I care.

      To the extent that, if we are going to kill anybody for a crime, we need to make sure we kill this guy. And soon.

      Not like there is a scintilla of doubt, or that his crimes were not severe.

      1. I think we should prioritize hanging all the governors who overstepped their bounds in the pandemic response. With proper legal procedure, of course, (for any feds who may be reading this).

        1. I prefer the term ‘lawfully executed’.

        2. They actually did more damage to more people than the Boston bomber. I’m pretty much opposed to capital punishment in all cases but if forced to choose I wouldn’t be protesting the public, slow and painful hanging of these sick sociopathic fucks.

      2. There is doubt.

        His brother was the violent one who had killed before the bombing and who had planned the bombing. This guy went along with what his older brother told him.

        There was no reason for this to be in federal court. This was a local crime. He shouldn’t have even been tried in federal court or faced a death penalty.

        It’s pretty clear he’s guilty of murder under the felony murder rule, for going along with his brother, but there’s really no direct evidence that he intended things to take lives and maim children, or make a political point, which is necessary for a terrorism case.

        I’d be satisfied if he rotted in a Massachusetts prison, but the federal death penalty never did sit right to me.

        1. No evidence that he intended to kill and maim? He’s a big boy, he knew what he was doing.

  3. I’m so glad we have a normal President who doesn’t speak his mind with mean tweets but uses diplomatic, thought out language to avoid responsibility or political pushback from his supporters.

    1. Accountability and publicly-declared strong positions were the worse.

    2. Who needs Twitter when there is a compliant media to loudly repeat the attacks.

  4. you get the whole “they’re full of shit on the campaign trail” thing ya?

    alternatively, you’ve had 50 years of Biden record to at least figure him out.

    1. Unlike ideological GOPers, Biden has the intellect and moral fortitude to re-evaluate his political positions when they might cost him an election.

      1. karma chameleon.

      2. You must mean Ralph Biden or some other person and not Joe Biden, the presidnet of the United States. Cause Joe has a long record devoid of intellect or morality.

  5. I love that teaching radical racism in public schools and letting a mass murderer terrorist psychopath out of prison are the hills that libertarians have chosen to die on.

  6. Shackford actually didn’t believe Biden, but the president who instituted the First Step Act made mean tweets about Don Lemon.

  7. Fuck that, give this asshole the needle, or Old Sparky.

    Then do the same to James Comey, who fucking missed catching these assholes before they killed Americans.

    1. Hang Bibi for war crimes!

      Fuck their new PM too!

    2. Mueller and brennan and clapper first please.

  8. The fascist media would eat Biden alive if he did this right now and it would distract from other Democratic priorities.

    1. Masks now, Masks tomorrow, Masks forever.

      1. I just got email from the local medical group, saying that even though Newsom ended his mask mandates,

        We understand that everyone is excited to return to activities we enjoyed before the pandemic. However, face coverings will still be required at all our locations, even for people who are fully vaccinated. We’re following the advice of our infectious disease experts and CDC guidance , and remain committed to providing a safe environment for our patients, their families and our workforce.

        1. Yup, the official guidance from California was “Businesses can choose to get confirmation from people that they are vaccinated, or they can just require everyone to wear masks”. They also continue to recommend students wear masks at school.

          Hmmm…what are the businesses going to do? Ask their clerks to request medical information from every customer, or just require every person to wear a mask? God it is terrible.

    2. Ok. Distraction from democrat priorities is good for Americans.

  9. Progressives have few principles beyond forced sacrifice, and consistency is certainly not one of them.

    1. Progressives are just awful. And, therefore, we libertarians had no choice but to throw our support behind Donald Trump, right? He sure was known for his consistency from day to day, right?

      1. Vote Authoritarian! It’s better than Totalitarian!

        1. Apologize for authoritarian socialists–because Republicans aren’t perfect!

          Especially at this point, when the Republicans control practically nothing at the federal level, what are you blaming Republicans for exactly?

          1. this^^

            (R) hasn’t had any bite since 1986

          2. I wasn’t blaming anyone, just repeating your campaign slogan!

            1. Because I recognize an appropriate distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism doesn’t mean I support authoritarianism. If you’re insisting that we capitulate to the totalitarians because the Republicans aren’t perfect, however, you are carrying water for the totalitarians.

              How’s it feel?

              And what part of Trump negotiating a withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban was authoritarian? What part of Trump opposing the Green New Deal is authoritarian? What part of nominating judges who care about the original meaning of the Constitution is authoritarian? What part of opposing the Democrats’ infrastructure deal is authoritarian? What part of Trump opposing Biden’s promised assault on our gun rights is authoritarian?

              As you may recall, one of the important distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that where authoritarians are generally satisfied with using the government to control what we do, totalitarians insist on using the government to control what we think, and I can point to all sorts of what that progressives are insisting on controlling what people think.

              That’s what cancel culture is all about. Can’t have people saying things that aren’t approved! That’s what threatening to break apart the social media companies if they don’t crack down on “misinformation” on their platforms is all about. We can’t have people thinking that they shouldn’t listen to Dr. Fauci and do what the experts in the government tell them to do! That’s what teaching Marxism AKA Critical [Race] Theory in school is all about–the whole idea is to change the children’s ideology to bring about change rather than let them think that their individual effort makes any difference.

              “[Critical Theory] argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation, . . .

              —-Critical Theory


              The only way to bring an end to this progressive totalitarian regime will probably be to vote for Republicans to take the House and Senate in November of 2022, so we can do more than merely frustrate their ability to implement their agenda. If you intend to try to persuade our fellow swing voting Americans not to vote for Republicans in 2022 because they’re less than perfectly libertarian, you might as well be carrying water for the progressives.

              There isn’t anything libertarian or capitalist about bending over and grabbing our ankles so that totalitarian socialists can have their way with us. You should be ashamed of yourself.

              1. “If you’re insisting that we capitulate to the totalitarians because the Republicans aren’t perfect, however, you are carrying water for the totalitarians.”

                Nope. I never said that either.

                1. Other than the Republicans taking the House or the Senate in 2022, do you see another way to end the radical totalitarian and socialist threat from the progressives or our liberties, our prosperity, and the quality of our lives?


                  I suppose you could disprove Duverger’s Law. Write it up your rebuttal here in comments, I’ll send it over to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and they’ll have you on the faculty in no time, I’m sure.

                  Apart from that, you can support the Republicans, capitulate to the progressives, or leave it to others to do what’s necessary at the ballot box to protect you from the totalitarian and socialist progressives.

                  As we stand, the filibuster, our gun rights, packing the Supreme Court, trillions in new spending, and the permanent revision of our election laws are all teetering on Joe Manchin’s mood swings. There’s only one way to change that, and it’s to see the Republicans win control of the House or the Senate in 2022.

                  That’s the reality. Deal with it.

                  1. You work OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM. If the system guarantees a two-party result, then you break the system and reform it into something else that doesn’t guarantee a two-party result.

                    There is no rule that says we must support the system that currently exists.

                    You are smart enough to understand this, and yet you continue to shill for Team Red. Duverger’s Law is the fig leaf rationalization for why we “must” support Team Red. No we don’t Ken, and if you weren’t such a Team Red bootlicker, you might understand this.

                    1. “break the system and reform it into something else that doesn’t guarantee a two-party result.Team Red bootlicker”

                      Go fuck yourself you gaslighting, fifty-centing shill.
                      You’re actually paid to advance the interests of the Democratic Party on forums and comments sections, yet you have the temerity to call Ken a bootlicker?

                      You fucking mendacious hypocrite.

                2. Lol. God damn you are so self unaware. All you do is attack the right, only retreating to being a fake centrist when called out. Everyone sees this but you.

              2. You are the one saying Republicans are merely authoritarian while Progressives are totalitarian. I’m just repeating your words back to you. So as far as your list of questions go, I don’t care because I’m not asserting anything.

                1. “You are the one saying Republicans are merely authoritarian while Progressives are totalitarian.”

                  I remember saying that the progressives are totalitarian–because they want to use the government to control what people think.

                  I remember saying that was a distinction between totalitarians and authoritarians–because authoritarians only want to use the government to control what people do.

                  I do not remember saying we should support American authoritarians per se. I may have argued, per Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous argument, that having relationships that support authoritarian dictators like Pinochet can make sense in terms of defeating our totalitarian communist enemies. But that was about foreign policy and American interests.

                  Donald Trump was by no means a libertarian, but he didn’t cross the line into authoritarianism, and I think the belief that we should support Trump–as an authoritarian–is something you invented in your mind. I have long listed the things Trump did that not only were not authoritarian but were also decidedly libertarian and capitalist–something I did above, again.

                  Because you think of Trump as an authoritarian 1) doesn’t mean that’s what he was and 2) doesn’t mean that’s why other people supported him. Opposing the Green New Deal was not authoritarian. Getting rid of ObamaCare to the extent he could was not authoritarian. Opposing Biden’s promised assault on our gun rights was not authoritarian. Negotiating a full withdrawal deal with the Taliban to get us out of Afghanistan was not authoritarian. Avoiding a full scale invasion and occupation of Syria was not authoritarian. These were actually very libertarian things, and libertarians should be happy to support them.

                  Why aren’t you?

                  1. Donald Trump was by no means a libertarian, but he didn’t cross the line into authoritarianism

                    Border restrictions
                    Trade war and tariffs, then using that tariff revenue to buy votes among farmers
                    Unapologetic defense of entitlements that are bankrupting the country
                    Muslim travel ban
                    Banning bump stocks
                    “Take the guns first, due process later”

                    No, not authoritarian at all

                    1. Except these things never ever happened, you lying, fifty-centing piece-of-shit:

                      And you supported these things here yourself, you gun-grabbing pedophile:

                    2. Border restrictions. You mean enforcing existing laws dumbass. Also private property and sovereignty are libertarian ideas. Can’t have those with enforcing borders on property.

                      Trade war and tariffs to buy farmers. Because so many farmers were going to vote for Biden, they guy wanting to kill the gas and oil wells many have put on their property to help supplement income. Also the guy whos green new deal includes taxing them for methane emitted from cow farts and turds.

                      Unapologetic defense of entitlements bankrupting country. Trump defended existing ones, sure. Telling boomers you want to axe their social security doesn’t win elections and trump had a clear empathy for older Americans and veterans. But if you’re so worried about entitlements bankrupting us, why do you support the guy wanting to expand entitlements to record levels?

                      Muslim travel ban. Was actually endorsed by the fbi (the same one trying to undermine trump) because the countries on the list A) did not maintain proper criminal and background records B) had such poor diplomatic relations the records could not/would not be provided securely and verifiable or C) were so poorly governed they don’t even have the infrastructure in place to store or track these records for their own purposes let alone share them with other countries.

                      Banning bump stocks. Was very stupid. But you agreed with it at the time lol. Disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe you. I’ve flushed things with more integrity than you.

                    3. Lol. You do realize the tariffs he issued were retaliatory right? But then again you give no fucks to other countries violating free trade. He openly advocated for countries dropping all tariffs, not one sided trade barriers only you half wit.

                      Borders with a welfare state are not fucking congruent with libertarianism you dishonest fuck. You always fail to recognize that like the dishonest person you are.

                      Muslim travel ban? How fucking retarded are you? Seriously this talking point has been debunked to death.

                    4. The irony of the bump stock ban was it was the least intrusive ban asked for by anybody. And rumors are was crafted intentionally to be struck down.

                2. Do you even realize the only people here on your side are the other gaslighting leftists who pull the same bullshit as you do?

              3. Trump is a Nazi Facist because he didn’t nationalize companies at the beginning of wuflu

                1. He didn’t impose national lockdown orders either.

                  All the states were supposed to be like New York.

            2. Hitting the sauce early?

          3. Could blame them for allowing shit to get to this point and abandoning government and academia to the left.

            1. That battle was already lost before Trump came into office, and I’m not sure how much the Republicans can or should do about that.

          4. Damn. Even ken is calling out sarcasmic these days. Will sarcasmic learn what a transparent partisan he is… nope. He will go back to praising jeff and white Mike.

        2. “Simp for leftist totalitarianism, because people who like Trump pointed out I’m a shallow, dogmatic thinker with the emotional maturity of a 5 year old!”

          1. Because you support Trump or you’re a leftist totalitarian.

            1. You’re not a leftist totalitarian, you just simp for them because you’re broken.

              1. Come on, guys. Mute button. This place would be so much better without all the stupid bitchy cat-fights.

                1. Nope. People need to be called put on their bullshit. Sarcasmic never fmarhues honestly anyways. O can give you dozens of links to him being the first in thread with a mention of trump or a hyperbolic strawman about the gop. Then he cries like a little bitch when called out. He completely deserves the ridicule as he continues to act like a sanctimonious ass.

              2. Get some new material.

                1. Yes, you should. Now go back to your bottle you broken lush.

                  1. Better to be a trunk than an anti-American traitor like you!

                    1. look in the tunk.

                    2. He must mean Trunk

        3. Well, that is generally the choice offered.

      2. I thought libertarians had no choice but to back Joe Biden. Now I’m confrused.

        1. Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich…. Which do I choose…?

          1. I just got a letter telling me I’ve been removed from voter roles. I think I’m going to frame it and hang it on the wall. Hopefully it will mean less annoying political calls.

            1. Nice. Last time I moved I didn’t bother to register, and I’m in a different county so they can’t call me for jury duty. Not sure if that’s a pro or a con.

              1. You could get out of it anyway. You just have to explain to them that your severe alcoholism prevents you from remaining sober while on jury duty. I’m sure it would take very little to convince a judge that you’re a broken drunk not capable of sustained rational thought.

            2. Have a relative call them, tell them you died three years ago and plan to vote for Biden in 2024. They’ll put you right back on.

          2. How ’bout the one that’s insufficiently libertarian, insufficiently capitalist but isn’t enthusiastically totalitarian and enthusiastically socialist?

            1. I choose none of the above.

              1. That isn’t one of the options!

                Either the Republicans take the House or Senate and we go back to divided government–or we live under a single party government dominated by totalitarian socialists.

                P.S. You don’t get to choose whether the seasons change either.

                1. That isn’t one of the options!

                  Yes it is. There is no requirement to vote for either the Turd or the Douche. YOU KNOW THIS. You advocate for voting for Republicans because you *actively and affirmatively support Republicans*, not because you think there really is no choice but to vote for them.

                  1. Trump was pretty good. And given how awful Biden is, Trump was obviously the better choice. Except for leftist idiots and open borders nutcases.

                    1. Trump was the better choice for traitors like you.

                    2. These leftists hide their partisanship under claims of neutrality while never attacking the left. Their behavior is so obvious.

      3. You aren’t part of that we white Mike.

  10. He probably thinks he did eliminate the death penalty.

    1. Biden is pro killing. Especially when it comes to jobs.

      1. Trump was just pro killing the constitution.

  11. Here’s the intersection of reality with libertarianism. Biden’s DOJ knows damn well commuting the sentence of a jihadist murderer is about as appealing to most Americans as liver and onions. He’s not going to commute that asshole’s sentence or any other federal death row prisoner, even to life, until he’s got legislative cover. Which he’s unlikely to get given this stupid ass Congress who are more obsessed with finding fake insurrectionists and not losing their ass next year (which they will anyway, because they are shitbag left wingers who can’t tie their own shoes). So quit dreaming about helping some radical pile of garbage in federal Supermax and think about action at the state level if that’s what you want.

    1. What’s wrong with liver and onions?

      1. Ever had deer liver? Oh my goodness. If you like chicken livers you’ll love that. I’ll pass on the beef liver though.

        1. Even parasites pass on your liver.

        2. There was a deli near me who made a chopped liver and pastrami sandwich on kosher rye. You had to get the sliced onion and brown mustard on top. Wrapped in paper with a pickle on the side.

          I think you had to sign a waiver to get it if you were over 50.

      2. Got to have that cod liver oil

  12. Leipards do not change their spots.

    1. especially the Hawaiian ones.

  13. “Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level”

    There’s the escape hatch. If Congress doesn’t act – hey, he tried!

    1. But he thinks that talking is the same as doing, like all democrats.

      1. If on,y that’s all they would ever do. We would be so much better off.

        No democrat should ever do anything.

  14. That’s the ‘law enforcement reform’ you guys thought Biden was going to lead – despite 50 years of being ‘tough on crime’ and taking a prosecutor as a running mate.

  15. But he was soooo dreamy on that Rolling Stone cover!

    1. He bought 5 copies for his mother.

  16. “The panel determined that the judge overseeing Tsarnaev’s trial did a poor job of evaluating potential jurors for bias during the sentencing phase. ”

    A guy who blew children to bits is getting this sort of due diligence, while the lies of Chauvin’s jurors go unnoticed, and instead the Feds are looking for more ways to punish him.

      1. Wasn’t it Shackford who tried to tell us that a guy who threatened to burn down a strip club, then proceeded to build a fire in their parking lot got fifteen years for “burning a rainbow flag?”

  17. “No, you can’t execute a bunch of people for trespassing in Congress. How about that Tsarnaev guy?”

  18. Sure this is an honest assessment with no agenda, and not a fantasy developed toward totalitarian ends…

    NEW: Attorney General Merrick Garland : “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the white race.” [Video]

    1. Remember the pulse night club shooting was right wing terrorism

      1. I thought it was Gay Wing Terrorism.

    2. Proof that Merrick Garland really was not fit to serve as a federal judge and that “cocaine Mitch” McConnell was right to block him as much as possible.

  19. Yeah not surprising.


    Remember that guy who posted Rachel Maddow clips all over his Facebook page saying GOP was full of traitors and endangering US with treason, then went to a softball field and shot Republicans after confirming who they were?

    Not really sure what he was up to, says Andrew McCabe: [link]

  21. Abolishing the death penalty? Are you kidding me? We need to greatly expand it. I’m personally in favor of the death penalty as the one and only punishment for conviction of ANY violent and property crime. We have the most lenient, slap on the wrist law enforcement right now, how’s that working out as violent crime rates shoot through the roof? If we implemented this kind of policy, crime would plummet overnight.
    First, it permanently removes someone who has proven they can’t be trusted to live peacefully in a civilized society. Second, it’s a huge deterrent to potential violent criminals. Third, let’s be honest, almost no violent criminals actually rehabilitate in jail, they’ll go right back to their old ways the moment they’re let out. Fourth, why should a criminal who has violated the natural rights of other have any expectation that society respect his natural right to life?

    1. I’m almost sympathetic to that idea. The we could largely abolish prisons too. If all victimless non-crimes that currently have criminal penalties were off the books, I don’t really have much moral problem with killing people who deliberately victimize others. I’m still uncomfortable with government killing people in cold blood. I’m all for more people getting shot while trying to rob or burglarize people, though.
      We don’t have the most lenient system, though. Lots of places in Europe are far more lenient on property crimes and assaults.

      1. They are also much more lenient on most all first offense homicides.

      2. I agree regarding victimless crimes cause they aren’t crimes at all. That’s why I specifically said violent and property crimes. As a bonus, If we had this kind of super harsh punishment, society just might reconsider what it actually considers a crime.

    2. Only if you think that the criminal justice system is completely fair and impartial…

      1. Depends who’s standing before the judge and what for.

      2. That’s a reasonable argument, however is it any better to be wrongfully convicted of a crime and rot in a cage for a long time?

        1. Well, better to have a chance to get out at some point if you’re able to prove your innocence.

          1. And how often does this case actually come up?

  22. I’m not going to claim that Biden has any plan, or was consistent, or even remembers what he signed on to.

    However – if someone did have a serious intent to abolish the death penalty, it would be crucial to wait and pick the right poster boy. Tsarnaev is not the one.

    1. I don’t think you’ll find a big-eyed bunny cute enough to be a poster boy–that’s been sentenced to death at the federal level.

      Surely, we can still appeal to people’s reason, ethics, and empathy anyway.

      Why does every cause need a big-eyed cute bunny? Maybe that’s the source of the problem. Instead of focusing on the criminal, we should focus on ourselves and what kind of society we want to be.

      1. Yeah, when you make it about the people being executed, the discussion always get’s stupid. Either it’s something we want government to be doing or it isn’t.

      2. Oh, I agree. But then there’s the reality of how laws get passed.
        There’s a reason why so many laws are named after a young, pretty, female crime victim.

    2. Plus, it’s not something a president has the power to do. If you want to end the death penalty, you need to ask congress to pass a law.

      1. Of course. Just saying this isn’t the case you’d want front and center in the news when you started pushing Congress.

        A POTUS could effectively suspend the death penalty for quite some time (with effects way past his term) by issuing blanket commutations.

  23. They should have let him bleed out when they captured him.

  24. Most campaign promises are worthless. Either the opposition party blocks the promise, or their is lack of interest and other more important things to deal with, or the candidate just lied to get elected. Sometimes Presidents change their mind once fully informed of issues during the transition period. Don’t put much stock on campaign promises, they are seldom fulfilled.

    and the most memorable of all in 1928:

  25. This is brilliant. Campaign on criminal justice reform, and then hide behind the independence of the Justice Department.

    Bonus points for hiding behind the guy they wanted on SCOTUS.

  26. Most campaign promises are worthless. Either the opposition party blocks the promise, or their is lack of interest and other more important things to deal with, or the candidate just lied to get elected. Sometimes Presidents change their mind once fully informed of issues during the transition period. Don’t put much stock in campaign promises, as they are seldom fulfilled.

    and the most memorable of all in 1928:

  27. Newsflash – a libertarian can support the death penalty. You don’t have to buy in 100% of the party line. Same goes for killing of the unborn

    1. Government fucks everything up so we should allow them to kill people and regulate women’s bodies.

      You’re not a libertarian(I’m not either).

    2. why are you even here?

    3. I’m a libertarian and I 100% support the death penalty. For the subhuman piece of shit in question, I can’t believe it’s even up for debate. It’s jail that I’m against as far too lenient, a largely pointless delusion from the point of view of rehabilitation and a complete waste of time and taxpayer money.

  28. Biden campaigned? When?

  29. Biden is backing the death penalty on this one because it’s an issue many Bostonians who lived through the bombing have strong support for. Sure Biden said some stuff, but there are future elections at stake. I can assure that once this guy is 6-feet under, Biden will take a very serious look at ending the death penalty.

    1. By “take a very serious look” you mean grope it and sniff its hair?

  30. Sure, much better to give convicted murderers free room, board, medical care, etc., etc. for the rest of their lives on our dime. Do the crime, get the goodies.

    Also, how do you reconcile the “there’s a theoretical small chance that an innocent person might go to the gas chamber” argument with murdering all innocent babies to preserve “a woman’s right to choose” (funny, I don’t have the right as a male to choose to use my body to murder someone)? Doesn’t society have the exact same right to agency that an individual woman does?

  31. “These individuals should instead serve life sentences without probation or parole.” Leaving aside whether groupthink mystical brainwashees haven’t abdicated individuality and rights, the question incarcerators evade is: “At whose expense?” Making America into a boardinghouse for imported violent murderers requires that IRS agents with guns fan out and nationalize cash and other assets and kill all citizens who effectively resist. The LP was against that in 2016, but in 2018 made the platform to import murderers without inspection, then proposed enslaving the innocent to provide them room and board instead of the death sentence. Maybe that’s where the Dems got the idea.

    1. It cost more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life

  32. Innocent people die every day on American roads. Should we outlaw driving?

  33. Two thoughts: I am firmly against the death penalty and also fuck that guy.

  34. Never give the government the power of execution.

    1. +10000000000

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.