Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

abaddon said:
And who decides that? You? Frankly, that is simply a recipe for miscarriages of justice.
Click to expand...

You , me, and anyone else who happens to feel the same way about how badly our justice system works in its current form.
 
varwoche said:
Quaint concepts like justice don't play a part in Jodie's dystopian fantasy. She wants you sent to the cornfield, then off to the cornfield you go.
Click to expand...

No, that's you making it an "all or nothing" proposition.
 
Jodie said:
You , me, and anyone else who happens to feel the same way about how badly our justice system works in its current form.
Click to expand...
And how would that differ in any way at all from a mob? Or is mob justice your ultimate aim? I recognize that this is a purely rhetorical question.
 
Jodie said:
It was a different time then, no we are all linked economically. I think colonies were much more self sufficient back then. Maybe legally they were considered a British colony but I doubt they contributed much, hence the reason for the revolution.
Click to expand...

So we can add American history to the legal system on the list of things you don't understand.

A chief cause of the Revolution was the perception that the colonists were being denied their rights as Englishmen, which included the right to not be sentenced for crimes unless they had need convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction. The idea that someone could decide that "We don't need to hold a trial, he confessed to the constable and most people think he's guilty anyways." would have horrified most people fighting on BOTH sides of the Revolution.
 
Jodie said:
Oh I get it just fine but that's the ideal. In reality it doesn't happen that way so why pretend in this particular case?
Click to expand...

So, because our justice system is not perfect, which no justice system is, we just say **** it and forget about it completely? No.
 
Jodie said:
You , me, and anyone else who happens to feel the same way about how badly our justice system works in its current form.
Click to expand...
It is precisely for that reason, that any system of justice is by nature, imperfect, that a trial must occur, and all must be held up to scrutiny. Actual justice is not held to the standard of how YOU feel about it. That you should think your "feelings" should have paramount importance above and beyond your constitution, and the laws of your land says an awful lot about you rather than due process.

What you are proposing is analogous to this scenario:

"George W. Bush should be clapped in irons, and dragged to the Hague, not for a hearing, but for sentencing. No trial required, guilt is assumed. The sentence should be death by exile, no appeal allowed, guilt is assumed."

Do you support this?
 
Rat said:
And how would that differ in any way at all from a mob? Or is mob justice your ultimate aim? I recognize that this is a purely rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

In certain cases the stipulations change, that's what I think should happen. That is a far cry from mob rule.
 
Border Reiver said:
So we can add American history to the legal system on the list of things you don't understand.

A chief cause of the Revolution was the perception that the colonists were being denied their rights as Englishmen, which included the right to not be sentenced for crimes unless they had need convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction. The idea that someone could decide that "We don't need to hold a trial, he confessed to the constable and most people think he's guilty anyways." would have horrified most people fighting on BOTH sides of the Revolution.
Click to expand...

That is not what I suggested, in this case the evidence backs the confession as well as what witnesses state they saw.

You picked one single item relevant to this argument ignoring the long list of differences between the colony and sovereign state, along with cultural/ social developments evolving at the time, that resulted in the Revolution. The founding fathers debated the level of democracy needed in the newly established United States and also feared mob rule. Unfortunately, we are about as far away from mob rule as one nation can get and still claim to be a democracy, the founding father's concerns were unfounded.
 
triforcharity said:
So, because our justice system is not perfect, which no justice system is, we just say **** it and forget about it completely? No.
Click to expand...


No, either make it work closer to the ideal as it exists, or rethink the whole system in order to be fair and remain equitable.
 
abaddon said:
It is precisely for that reason, that any system of justice is by nature, imperfect, that a trial must occur, and all must be held up to scrutiny. Actual justice is not held to the standard of how YOU feel about it. That you should think your "feelings" should have paramount importance above and beyond your constitution, and the laws of your land says an awful lot about you rather than due process.

What you are proposing is analogous to this scenario:

"George W. Bush should be clapped in irons, and dragged to the Hague, not for a hearing, but for sentencing. No trial required, guilt is assumed. The sentence should be death by exile, no appeal allowed, guilt is assumed."

Do you support this?
Click to expand...


Why should he be exiled? For making bad decisions? Impeachment would have been more appropriate but our judiciary system failed us in that respect.

Change starts with one person. It takes one person to put common sense above abuse of power and an ineffective system to produce change, however you might feel about that.
 
Jodie said:
Why should he be exiled? For making bad decisions? Impeachment would have been more appropriate but our judiciary system failed us in that respect.

Change starts with one person. It takes one person to put common sense above abuse of power and an ineffective system to produce change, however you might feel about that.
Click to expand...
Why is Tsarvaev any different then? He is a US citizen, after all.
 
Jodie said:
Change starts with one person. It takes one person to put common sense above abuse of power and an ineffective system to produce change, however you might feel about that.
Click to expand...
How about fleshing it out for us -- who qualifies for summary punishment in your dystopian fantasy?

Any citizen who confesses to a violent crime? Or just citizens who were born in other countries? What about someone who is severely mentally retarded? Just fry 'em, no questions asked?

What constitutes a confession? If the news media reports a confession, does that alone qualify? What protection is there for false confessions, and/or illegally coerced confessions?

Who needs to hear the confession? Is a local sheriff adequate? (Think Joe Arpaio.) What protection is there against over zealous law enforcement officials? In what way does the confession need to be documented? Who certifies it?

This barely scratches the surface.

It most be lonely, being that one crusader for justice.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
How about fleshing it out for us -- who qualifies for summary punishment in your dystopian fantasy?

Any citizen who confesses to a violent crime? Or just citizens who were born in other countries? What about someone who is severely mentally retarded? Just fry 'em, no questions asked?

What constitutes a confession? If the news media reports a confession, does that alone qualify? What protection is there for false confessions, and/or illegally coerced confessions?

Who needs to hear the confession? Is a local sheriff adequate? (Think Joe Arpaio.) What protection is there against over zealous law enforcement officials? In what way does the confession need to be documented? Who certifies it?

This barely scratches the surface.

It most be lonely, being that one crusader for justice.
Click to expand...

If they catch the culprit read handed as they did Ariel and Tsarvaev then the confession, compounded by witness statements, and the evidence should speak for itself, why bother with a trial?

Mentally challenged people are not deemed responsible for their actions, why would that change? If the citizen born in another country is not happy here, then by all means, let them go back where they can function as a normal citizen, one that doesn't blow up their fellow citizens.

A confession is what the person guilty of the crime says he did. If the evidence backs that up then the confession is valid. The news media doesn't qualify as an authority on anything, and never will, some of the most ignorant people on earth are journalists. It seems to me in this day and age that requiring all interrogations to be taped could be easily accomplished to prevent coercion.

There are many others who feel the way I do, I'm not lonely at all. I think you might be surprised to find that your attitude is in the minority outside of this forum.
 
Jodie said:
If they catch the culprit read handed as they did Ariel and Tsarvaev then the confession, compounded by witness statements, and the evidence should speak for itself, why bother with a trial?
Click to expand...

I'll say this really slow. Read it as many times as it takes to sink in. Ready?

THE LAW REQUIRES IT.

Jodie said:
There are many others who feel the way I do, I'm not lonely at all. I think you might be surprised to find that your attitude is in the minority outside of this forum.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom