Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[triforcharity]

And I presume he wasn't shot after he was in custody!

So he couldn't possibly have been given a proper Miranda warning, and he of course couldn't have made any potentially self-incriminating statements. I wonder why the news media are making such a fuss about this? If something is impossible to do, surely there's no moral or legal requirement to do it.

I'm not certain about the situation with his ability to talk or not. It may be a medically induced, or from a gunshot wound. I wouldn't even want to speculate.

You wonder why the media is twisting a story to make it more sexy???

 

[triforcharity]

I work next door to the court house

Thankfully not in.

Why not? The judicial system doesn't work anymore,

It certainly works better than nothing. And lightyears better than mob rule.

why not be creative with guys like this one where it is pretty clear cut?

Because of a the rights that we have here in the US? Because it would be immoral and unethical? Because it would make us no better than places like Somalia? You're welcome to hold that asinine view, but you'd better come up with something better than "why not?" to justify it.

 

[Toke]

Sometimes the wrong thing is the right thing to do. If the rules don't really work anymore and function as an ideal than what actually happens in reality, then in that particular case, I would say the public saved the tax payers a lot of money. Unfortunately it probably cost more in the long run to prosecute the vigilantes, if that even happened.

Ok, there are administrative advances. And it will be easier to keep up the % of cases solved.

The police would no longer have to "testilie" in order to get convictions, they can just gun down one of the usual suspect and bring in the corpse claiming it was him.

Claiming it is only for clear cut cases run into the problem of defining a clear cut case without a chain of evidence. And once you start on breaking the rules who say where it ends?

 

[Minoosh]

I would take him somewhere for the interrogation, here, Guantanamo, doesn't really matter. Give him just one iota of hope that if he co-operates things might not go so badly for him.

His youth, inexperience, and fear will get the best of him without too much pressure. He will tell everything. Then we follow whatever standard procedure is in place for these situations.

Do you not get that the standard procedure is due process?

Interrogators will give him an iota of hope. They probably already have. The "somewhere" in this case is a hospital, and from there probably federal custody.

I certainly wouldn't trust an attorney to do it for me.

If he wants to represent himself, there's a process for that. And, out of curiosity, why wouldn't you trust an attorney to represent you if you were accused of a crime?

I've been away from the thread, I'm sure someone has already made these points.

 

[Jodie]

Because of a the rights that we have here in the US? Because it would be immoral and unethical? Because it would make us no better than places like Somalia? You're welcome to hold that asinine view, but you'd better come up with something better than "why not?" to justify it.

There is nothing "mob rule" about anything I suggested. I certainly don't think we are hearing everything as far as what evidence they have but obviously there is no question regarding his guilt.

If we had something more stringent in place it might stop some of these attacks. Why do you think they keep happening? Because they are taking advantage of legal loop holes in our judicial system. If they pulled the same stunt in their home country there would be a very swift outcome.

 

[Rat]

There is nothing "mob rule" about anything I suggested. I certainly don't think we are hearing everything as far as what evidence they have but obviously there is no question regarding his guilt.

If we had something more stringent in place it might stop some of these attacks. Why do you think they keep happening? Because they are taking advantage of legal loop holes in our judicial system. If they pulled the same stunt in their home country there would be a very swift outcome.

Well, stringent enforcement of the law and draconian punishments certainly seems to be keeping the bombings in Iraq down to a minimum.

 

[Jodie]

Ok, there are administrative advances. And it will be easier to keep up the % of cases solved.

The police would no longer have to "testilie" in order to get convictions, they can just gun down one of the usual suspect and bring in the corpse claiming it was him.

Claiming it is only for clear cut cases run into the problem of defining a clear cut case without a chain of evidence. And once you start on breaking the rules who say where it ends?

That happens now, one case that comes to mind where something similar happened, only they had the wrong suspects, is the Memphis Three.

 

[newyorkguy]

...obviously there is no question regarding his guilt

You keep writing that -- he IS guilty -- but you never have answered, I don't think, how you know that?

How do you know that?

I think if you'd take a stab at trying to answer that question you'd maybe realize, you don't know he's guilty at all. You're just assuming that based on (didn't you say you haven't followed this closely?), a headline? "Second Bomber Captured!"

You're ready to suspend our Constitution and execute someone based on a headline?

 

[Jodie]

Do you not get that the standard procedure is due process?

Interrogators will give him an iota of hope. They probably already have. The "somewhere" in this case is a hospital, and from there probably federal custody.



If he wants to represent himself, there's a process for that. And, out of curiosity, why wouldn't you trust an attorney to represent you if you were accused of a crime?

I've been away from the thread, I'm sure someone has already made these points.

If I'm not paying for the attorney then he has no obligation to do the best job that he can for me unless he happens to be very dedicated to his job. Due process won't be circumvented but there are cases where the judicial system goes through the motions to get to the bottom line.

 

[Toke]

That happens now, one case that comes to mind where something similar happened, only they had the wrong suspects, is the Memphis Three.

I think you should read my post again.
Assorted travesties happens now, do you really think your "swift justice" idea will improve matters?

 

[Toontown]

"Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help? The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers. The wounded, some of whom now have to learn how to stand and walk and live again, deserve answers."

-Barack Obama

In other words, this entire discussion is premature. The specific answers to the specific questons posed by Obama will determine whether the perpetrators of the bombing are common murderers or enemy combatants. This determination is a matter of established law and policy. The pertinent questions have not yet been answered.

Your personal preferences do not count, and need not be mentioned. Hopefully you can all live with the irrelevance of your personal preferences in such matters. There is nothing you can do about it, and it is better this way. Because if your personal preferences count, then my personal preferences count. And you might not like my personal preferences.

 

[SezMe]

In other words, this entire discussion is premature.

Not really, Toontown. Gossip, rumor-mongering, idle speculation come with be homo sapien. Parts of this discussion have been interesting and informative. Parts have been like peaking under a dark rock. Most importantly, none of it has affected the process of finding justice. Let's roll!

 

[SezMe]

It won't mean anything in this guy's case.

It will mean something to me. It will mean that we're still trying as a country to uphold our cherished ideals. If that is Pollyandish, then so be it. I sincerely hope most of my fellow citizens share my view.

 

[SezMe]

If we had something more stringent in place it might stop some of these attacks. Why do you think they keep happening? Because they are taking advantage of legal loop holes in our judicial system. If they pulled the same stunt in their home country there would be a very swift outcome.

Nonsense. We have VERY harsh drug laws that don't do much to deter drugs. We have heavy penalties for drunk driving but even in my relatively small town, there are numerous drunk driving arrests every weekend.

Do you really think these guys and the 911 ones and Reid, etc. etc. sit around over Sunday morning coffee and decide whether to commit an act of terrorism because there might be some loophole they can wriggle through. Pul-eeze.

 

[leftysergeant]

That happens now, one case that comes to mind where something similar happened, only they had the wrong suspects, is the Memphis Three.

You just blew your whole case for making major exceptions for this case right out of the water.

 

[Jodie]

I think you should read my post again.
Assorted travesties happens now, do you really think your "swift justice" idea will improve matters?

If they have proof/evidence that they aren't sharing, certainly, go through the motions that our justice system allows and do it quickly. If not, then let it work how it is supposed to work in theory.

 

[Jodie]

You just blew your whole case for making major exceptions for this case right out of the water.

No I didn't, they never had concrete evidence for those three, but in this case they evidently do.

 

[Courier]

The best way to ensure Justice is served and the trial is done correctly, is to do it in the USA in civilian court.

The people of Boston deserve it.

 

[Jodie]

Nonsense. We have VERY harsh drug laws that don't do much to deter drugs. We have heavy penalties for drunk driving but even in my relatively small town, there are numerous drunk driving arrests every weekend.

Do you really think these guys and the 911 ones and Reid, etc. etc. sit around over Sunday morning coffee and decide whether to commit an act of terrorism because there might be some loophole they can wriggle through. Pul-eeze.

Oh absolutely, just like the above do also. The stringent laws are there, but working our judicial system often results in reduced sentences or no corporeal punishment, unlike what would happen in other countries.

I guess that begs the question then as to which countries have higher rates of terrorists attacks and how does there judicial system compare to ours?

 

[Rat]

I guess that begs the question then as to which countries have higher rates of terrorists attacks and how does there judicial system compare to ours?

I think I hinted at that in my previous post. Take any of the Nordic countries (obviously the Norway thing is a blip that couldn't have been prevented), and I think that they do not carry out extra-judicial executions (or any other sort), or torture, or anything of the sort, and they do not seem to have a significant problem with terrorism. I don't know how much terrorism, say, India have, but I suspect it's higher than Sweden.