Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[Jodie]

So the terrorists have succeded in making some people a bit jittery. That is not what they are wanting. They want a wholescale change of the system especially the ending of the rule of law and to impose their ways on others. To do that terrorits need people like you who react by proposing changing the rule of law. What they do not want are people like the rest of us who react by saying nothing changes.

I think that is an ideal view point. I don't see going straight to consequences for a confessed terrorist who does not support our culture/system/ way of life, whatever you want to call it, as undermining anything.

 

[Jodie]

In effect that is what happens. The charges and circumstances are read over and then either their or then or after an ajournment the judge passes sentence.

Are you proposing that happens in secret or not at all and the judge just passes a sentence?

Given the circumstances, the evidence, and the confession why would the guilty party have to be there? I think the decision has already been made anyway, due process in this case would just back up a forgone decision. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Jodie]

For a number of reasons:

A. False confessions can be given for a number of reasons, such as mental illness, a desire to take the fall for the real perpetrator, a desire to make an interrogation stop, a desire for notoriety, etc;
B. the laws of the land say that due process involves a public trial and airing of the evidence. This allows the public to be satisfied that the perpetrator has been caught and if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, punished in the the same way as anyone one else convicted of the same offence.

The system is there for everyone's protection and it is to ensure that arbitrary courts such as the Star Chamber, or mob justice don't happen. It's a great development of the English system of government that the Americans wisely kept after their disagreement with George III.

This I can see in this specific case, I think his mother may have been the instigator, however, this young man did help with setting and detonating the bombs.

 

[Jodie]

I guess Americans really haven't got the hang of this keeping calm and carrying on. Actually, I don't really think that, but we had bombs in cities here throughout the twentieth century, and I don't think it ever caused anyone to panic at the sound of an alarm. I can't work out whether you're exaggerating or mischaracterizing others' behaviour, or whether Americans really are reacting that badly, but I'd like to think it's the former.

Seriously, I was surprised at their response, and more than one lady made the comment. I can't speak for all Americans, but this was the response I got from my ringtone in my area of the country. Like I said, I would have thought "fire alarm".

 

[Jodie]

No.



Those that trained them were innocent US citizens. Why would we punish them?



Did you even read the article on false confessions? I mean, you've said this I don't know how many times, and the answer is STILL the same. Because we're a nation of laws, not a lawless society.



Nope.

I watched the fireball from when the second plane struck. I would say I was right.

We had to investigate that to know that and there were more than just those pilots involved.

We are a nation where laws are already manipulated depending on your socioeconomic class. Our prisons are over burdened, not always with the right people behind bars because the system is already flawed. Our law makers are out of touch on both the state and federal levels on many issues. When it gets to that level, it's in name only, or just a matter of going through the motions. In clear cut cases like this, I'm saying don't even pretend, just get to the consequences.

 

[Border Reiver]

I watched the fireball from when the second plane struck. I would say I was right.

We had to investigate that to know that and there were more than just those pilots involved.

We are a nation where laws are already manipulated depending on your socioeconomic class. Our prisons are over burdened, not always with the right people behind bars because the system is already flawed. Our law makers are out of touch on both the state and federal levels on many issues. When it gets to that level, it's in name only, or just a matter of going through the motions. In clear cut cases like this, I'm saying don't even pretend, just get to the consequences.

What is to stop some one of a low socioeconomic class then from being denied due process because it's a clearcut case, so why bother, let's just get to the consequences.

 

[Border Reiver]

Given the circumstances, the evidence, and the confession why would the guilty party have to be there? I think the decision has already been made anyway, due process in this case would just back up a forgone decision. I don't have a problem with that.

Due process is a legal requirement. That is how the evidence is brought out, CNN's broadcasts not being considered an actual trial with an obligation to adduce exculpatory evidence.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So Jodie is trolling?

 

[L.Y.S.]

At any rate, it would seem that religion was not the straw that broke the "camel's back". It seems that the elder of the Tsarnaev brothers was already having complications in his life, and was an avid boxer. Amid being denied entry into a fabled boxing tournament he became more religious and aggressive with those closest to him. It would seem that being denied his dreams radicalized him, and made him vent his frustration against the public.

Definitely not the stereotypical reason for a terror attack.

 

[triforcharity]

Given the circumstances, the evidence, and the confession why would the guilty party have to be there?

Because 1-it's his RIGHT, and 2-Because it's REQUIRED by LAW.

I think the decision has already been made anyway,

If the decision is to put people on trial in the court of public opinion, sure. But, we don't do that **** here.

due process in this case would just back up a forgone decision.

No. Just....no.

I don't have a problem with that.

I do. Many others do too. The law certainly cares too. Your opinion, while you're of course entitled to it, is worth nothing when it comes to this case.

 

[triforcharity]

I watched the fireball from when the second plane struck. I would say I was right.

No, it wasn't. Very much sub-sonic. So, no. It wasn't.

We had to investigate that to know that and there were more than just those pilots involved.

Huh?

We are a nation where laws are already manipulated depending on your socioeconomic class.

Irrelevant, and unsupported opinion

Our prisons are over burdened, not always with the right people behind bars because the system is already flawed.

No justice system is perfect. Sure, ours has flaws. But, just because it's a little dented up, doesn't mean we should just skip it all together, which is what you're advocating.

Our law makers are out of touch on both the state and federal levels on many issues.

Irrelevant opinion.

When it gets to that level, it's in name only, or just a matter of going through the motions.

Irrelevant opinion.

In clear cut cases like this, I'm saying don't even pretend, just get to the consequences.

You're welcome to hold that asinine position, but here in reality, that won't happen. It cannot happen. The law requires a specific process. Again, not suggests, but requires.

 

[Travis]

At any rate, it would seem that religion was not the straw that broke the "camel's back". It seems that the elder of the Tsarnaev brothers was already having complications in his life, and was an avid boxer. Amid being denied entry into a fabled boxing tournament he became more religious and aggressive with those closest to him. It would seem that being denied his dreams radicalized him, and made him vent his frustration against the public.

Definitely not the stereotypical reason for a terror attack.

I don't know. A lot of people have written that one of the major causes for radicalization in places like the Muslim world is that there are lot of people who feel their dreams are unattainable.

Realizing you can't get a job because there are few and what few there are require higher education while your only schooling came in a poor religious one. That you can't marry because rich men have twenty wives each. That at best your country is nothing but a punching bag for other countries should any war break out with the West.

All that can make a person much more likely to join up with a radical cause.

 

[Nessie]

I think that is an ideal view point. I don't see going straight to consequences for a confessed terrorist who does not support our culture/system/ way of life, whatever you want to call it, as undermining anything.

But you accept there would be a sentencing hearing though.

Given the circumstances, the evidence, and the confession why would the guilty party have to be there? I think the decision has already been made anyway, due process in this case would just back up a forgone decision. I don't have a problem with that.

If the accused refuses to go, it can be heard without them present.

So what you are arguing for may very well happen anyway.

 

[Jodie]

What is to stop some one of a low socioeconomic class then from being denied due process because it's a clearcut case, so why bother, let's just get to the consequences.

If he confesses and the evidence backs it up, why not?

 

[Jodie]

Due process is a legal requirement. That is how the evidence is brought out, CNN's broadcasts not being considered an actual trial with an obligation to adduce exculpatory evidence.

I realize that, but there is probably much more going on in this situation than we hear about on the news. No need to drag this out any longer than necessary.

 

[Jodie]

So Jodie is trolling?

I wouldn't call it trolling, I am stubborn. There is the way things are supposed to work and then you have how things really work. I'm being a realist, not a trollist.

 

[Jodie]

At any rate, it would seem that religion was not the straw that broke the "camel's back". It seems that the elder of the Tsarnaev brothers was already having complications in his life, and was an avid boxer. Amid being denied entry into a fabled boxing tournament he became more religious and aggressive with those closest to him. It would seem that being denied his dreams radicalized him, and made him vent his frustration against the public.

Definitely not the stereotypical reason for a terror attack.

Hadn't heard that, it's even more pathetic situation than I thought if that is the case. We have enough home grown crazy here without importing it.

 

[Jodie]

Because 1-it's his RIGHT, and 2-Because it's REQUIRED by LAW.



If the decision is to put people on trial in the court of public opinion, sure. But, we don't do that **** here.



No. Just....no.


I do. Many others do too. The law certainly cares too. Your opinion, while you're of course entitled to it, is worth nothing when it comes to this case.

He should not have the right therefore the law would not apply to him.

We do ****** like that here all the time.

Just wait and see, the death penalty is coming to this guy.

FYI, neither is yours.

 

[Jodie]

No, it wasn't. Very much sub-sonic. So, no. It wasn't.



Huh?



Irrelevant, and unsupported opinion



No justice system is perfect. Sure, ours has flaws. But, just because it's a little dented up, doesn't mean we should just skip it all together, which is what you're advocating.




Irrelevant opinion.



Irrelevant opinion.



You're welcome to hold that asinine position, but here in reality, that won't happen. It cannot happen. The law requires a specific process. Again, not suggests, but requires.

The fuel erupted the minute the plane went into the building, I don't know how you could have missed it.

The follow up investigation led to many other contributors within the terrorist group that lived here in the United States.

Wrong, much research has gone into race,class, and the judicial system and how it works. That research suggests that I am correct. Might I suggest Google?

It isn't irrelevant if it is a well founded opinion based on peer reviewed research. The resulting laws and judicial system are based on these law maker's decisions. It doesn't take a giant intuitive leap to draw that conclusion.

If the process is hollow and meaningless, then what is the point of having it?

 

[Jodie]

I don't know. A lot of people have written that one of the major causes for radicalization in places like the Muslim world is that there are lot of people who feel their dreams are unattainable.

Realizing you can't get a job because there are few and what few there are require higher education while your only schooling came in a poor religious one. That you can't marry because rich men have twenty wives each. That at best your country is nothing but a punching bag for other countries should any war break out with the West.

All that can make a person much more likely to join up with a radical cause.

I agree with this.