Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[Jodie]

But you accept there would be a sentencing hearing though.



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

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

There would have to be decision made by someone in authority.

The forgone conclusion, exactly.

 

[varwoche]

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

Huh? This might be your most bizarre post, and that's saying something.

 

[SezMe]

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

Jodie, stop it. This point has be refuted.

Jodie, read this and get back to me.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Sorry, our justice system doesn't work like that.

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

Really? Oh, do tell.....

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

Good. I'd volunteer to plunge the plunger down on the syringe. And afterwords, we'll have a party, with a cake with his face emblazoned on the top. But, instead of eating it, we smash it. **** him.

FYI, neither is yours.

I've not expressed an opinion. I've presented facts. Facts that you apparently don't like, but that's ok. Doesn't make them any less factual.

 

[triforcharity]

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

I didn't. It wasn't a bomb. It was an explosion. They're not the same thing.

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

KSM? (who, BTW, wasn't captured in the US) The 19th hijacker Moussaoui? Who, BTW, was convicted and sentenced to life. You can read about that here. http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/ And?
Thanks for pointing out much of what I already know.

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?

You may be. You may not be. My point is, it's IRRELEVANT. Do you understand that? Or, might I suggest a dictionary.

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.

Wait, you've got PR research stating, and I quote "Our law makers are out of touch on both the state and federal levels on many issues." Sounds like something you couldn't prove, not could you even suggest it with evidence.

But, you go ahead and Google for that PR article. I'd love to see this....

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

It's not meaningless at all. It has significant meaning. It means that we went through the correct process as required by law, and convicted and sentenced this useless waste of carbon. It also means that he cannot appeal his conviction and have that appeal upheld. Not to mention the legal ramifications that he would have against the DOJ for civil rights violations. Not to mention the possibility of tainting MUCH of the evidence, just because Jodie wanted to save a few bucks and sentence this disgusting puke. Yeah, I think we'll go with the law here....

 

[SezMe]

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

Here's why (it's an article about Cox but this bit is relevant):

The false statement makes Knox a liar, but not at all, by implication, a murderer. A recent study of criminal justice in the U.S. by law professor Brandon Garrett shows it is not uncommon for innocent people to lie under police pressure; indeed no fewer than 40 people out of 250 who were convicted and later exonerated by DNA evidence, had falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit.

My bold. I have every confidence now, Jodie, that you will quit asserting that a confession abrogates the need for our justice system to proceed as designated by law.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

Legal rights apply to EVERYONE, regardless of confessions, etc. Legal rights are in place to protect everyone from arbitrary treatment by the state and in evolved societies cannot be be made not to apply to him.

ie. Tsarnaev still has the right to due process, the right not be be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, the right to representation, etc.

The State cannot take them away arbitrarily just because of whatever condition you feel meets your need for vengenance, because that removes the very essence of what a legal right is - a protection guaranteed by the supreme law of the land.

It is his right to have the evidence gathered by the State presented to the Courts in an open manner where the relevance and weight can be contested and assessed to determine if it proves his guilt - this isn't for him solely, but for everyone. It allows us to be confident that we are punishing the correct person, that he will not be subjected to an arbitrary punishment, and that LEOs are not fabricating evidence, and then beating people until they confess - because once you start down that path, its not so far to show trials for those who hold unpopular views.

 

[Babbylonian]

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

The process is not hollow and meaningless. It ensures that everyone's rights are protected. The fact that you think the process is meaningless and/or useless in any specific case is a sign of poor/incomplete education, or an inability to accept the decent one you may have been provided. Again and again, we're a nation of laws that fails every time we set those laws aside in the interest of simple expediency, and serving expediency seems to be your only argument.

 

[Nessie]

There would have to be decision made by someone in authority.

The forgone conclusion, exactly.

So a sentencing hearing by a judge (the someone in authority) and maybe a short court appearance. No big trial, not even a small one. Do you object to that happening?

I do not think you understand that what you are calling for may well happen.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

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?

It is odd, given that you seem to think the legal system does not provide sufficient protection to some, that you advocate further reducing the protections of the law.

Imagine this: One dark night "X"'s door is broken down and X is arrested by a man who identifies himself as a federal agent. He calls himself "Bill" but shows no identification and givens no second name. X is taken to a prison somewhere. For two days X is shouted at, beaten and intermittently drowned until he signs a confession, which he has not even read.

The next day a judge 100 miles away reads the confession, and sentences X, in accordance with your procedure. If it is the rule for Tsarnaev, it is the rule for X. And that is why Tsarnaev must have a hearing.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Here's why (it's an article about Cox but this bit is relevant):


My bold. I have every confidence now, Jodie, that you will quit asserting that a confession abrogates the need for our justice system to proceed as designated by law.

SezMe, your point is valid, but it will go nowhere with Jodie, because she was the very first person in this thread to bring up the concept of false confessions. Way back in post #207 she mentions that the Memphis Three are innocent. One of the Memphis Three confessed to the crime.

The men were convicted based on a witness's testimony that he heard the three men talking about the murders, and on the confession of Jessie Miskelley, who also implicated the other two men. But DNA evidence collected at the crime scene and analyzed only in 2007 did not match any of the suspects. After four years of legal maneuvering, a documentary, and lots of celebrities taking up the cause, the West Memphis Three walked free.

 

[theprestige]

I think everybody in this thread is overlooking something very important:

We did try Tsarnaev in the USA, with horrific results.

Perhaps the better question would be, should we try Tsarnaev back in Chechnya?

 

[Jodie]

Legal rights apply to EVERYONE, regardless of confessions, etc. Legal rights are in place to protect everyone from arbitrary treatment by the state and in evolved societies cannot be be made not to apply to him.

ie. Tsarnaev still has the right to due process, the right not be be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, the right to representation, etc.

The State cannot take them away arbitrarily just because of whatever condition you feel meets your need for vengenance, because that removes the very essence of what a legal right is - a protection guaranteed by the supreme law of the land.

It is his right to have the evidence gathered by the State presented to the Courts in an open manner where the relevance and weight can be contested and assessed to determine if it proves his guilt - this isn't for him solely, but for everyone. It allows us to be confident that we are punishing the correct person, that he will not be subjected to an arbitrary punishment, and that LEOs are not fabricating evidence, and then beating people until they confess - because once you start down that path, its not so far to show trials for those who hold unpopular views.

Did he not arbitrarily take the victims rights away? I'm not vengeful at all, just being practical. If you have overwhelming evidence and a confession the end result will be the death penalty whether a mob hangs him from a tree, or by lethal injection, or whether he is sentenced to the electric chair. Death is the end result in any of these scenarios.

 

[Jodie]

I think everybody in this thread is overlooking something very important:

We did try Tsarnaev in the USA, with horrific results.

Perhaps the better question would be, should we try Tsarnaev back in Chechnya?

I think so, ship him over. Just as I suspected, they didn't want him back over there either.

 

[Jodie]

SezMe, your point is valid, but it will go nowhere with Jodie, because she was the very first person in this thread to bring up the concept of false confessions. Way back in post #207 she mentions that the Memphis Three are innocent. One of the Memphis Three confessed to the crime.

I've lived in Memphis, there is a big difference in the requirements for a backwoods judge versus a federal investigator regarding education, training, and in depth background checks before employment. One was elected by the good ole' boy system and the other is screened before employment. The point of bringing this case up was to demonstrate how imperfect/warped the judicial system is already.

 

[Border Reiver]

Did he not arbitrarily take the victims rights away? I'm not vengeful at all, just being practical. If you have overwhelming evidence and a confession the end result will be the death penalty whether a mob hangs him from a tree, or by lethal injection, or whether he is sentenced to the electric chair. Death is the end result in any of these scenarios.

No Tsarnaev didn't arbitrarily take their rights away, he is alleged to have murdered them.

Since we don't take away the right to due process for other murderers, why him?

You call it being practical, but the reality is that you're still being vengeful. You are depriving a citizen of his legal rights because you are offended by the crime he is alleged to have committed, and for which he has not yet had the opportunity to provide evidence on his own behalf.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think so, ship him over. Just as I suspected, they didn't want him back over there either.

Exile isn't an option for US citizens, as a punishment.

 

[Border Reiver]

I've lived in Memphis, there is a big difference in the requirements for a backwoods judge versus a federal investigator regarding education, training, and in depth background checks before employment. One was elected by the good ole' boy system and the other is screened before employment. The point of bringing this case up was to demonstrate how imperfect/warped the judicial system is already.

And your way to fix the system is to go with trial by media, followed by some mob justice? No, just no.

 

[Jodie]

No Tsarnaev didn't arbitrarily take their rights away, he is alleged to have murdered them.

Since we don't take away the right to due process for other murderers, why him?

You call it being practical, but the reality is that you're still being vengeful. You are depriving a citizen of his legal rights because you are offended by the crime he is alleged to have committed, and for which he has not yet had the opportunity to provide evidence on his own behalf.

The victims aren't here to exercise their rights so basically they have been relieved of what rights they had here on earth in our society. It was arbitrary because there was no specific target, it was whoever was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We do take away the rights of other murderers as it is very dependent on what you can afford to pay for regarding your defense. This is getting back to the socioeconomic factors that drive our judiciary system. In essence we are going through the motions with the vast majority to satisfy a legal requirement but not really doing the work that is needed. Why should this guy get any better representation and treatment than Shequan, an indigent gang member in Memphis or some other inner city?

Yes I am offended, I'm offended by the concern that is given to this guy's rights when no one seems to be concerned about the rights of the victims, murdered or injured, or concerned about the inequality within the judicial system as a whole. If you are that adamant and concerned about someone's rights then I think the energy you are expending would be better spent on a more worthy candidate, such as the Memphis Three.

 

[Minoosh]

Death is the end result in any of these scenarios.

Death is the end result of life.

IMO he won't get the death penalty, but in any case I'd say killing him right now would be a mistake. What might we have found out if Oswald hadn't been blown away?

I think your position is absurd, but lots of people have pointed that out. I'm more worried that you need a fire-alarm ringtone to hear over the CD player in your car. I'd suggest turning down the CD player, or not picking up while driving. Being deaf to the outside world is probably not optimal for safe driving.