Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, you are kind of approaching the wealth distribution of one. It is likely to have consequences for the quality of labour available.

I don't think wealth distribution has ever distinguished a "Third World" country from a developed country.

The U.S. has the 5th highest Ginni coefficient (higher value means more income inequality). First and second place goes to two African "Third World" countries but but third and fourth goes to Denmark and Switzerland, respectively.

 

[newyorkguy]

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.

The media was reporting -- I don't know as I would call it "making a fuss" -- that law enforcement officials announced they were possibly going to invoke the "public safety exception" to allow Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be questioned without reading him his Miranda rights. That, coupled with the fact Senator Graham and McCain issued a statement suggesting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be turned over to the military as an enemy combatant, created a lot of interest on the part of the public. It had not been made public at the time, I don't think, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could not speak.

Don't forget there are some countries where most of this would've been kept under wraps. Almost no information would've been released to the public. The public would maybe know there was some kind of explosion in downtown Boston Monday afternoon and that would be about all we'd know.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The media was reporting -- I don't know as I would call it "making a fuss" -- that law enforcement officials announced they were possibly going to invoke the "public safety exception" to allow Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be questioned without reading him his Miranda rights. That, coupled with the fact Senator Graham and McCain issued a statement suggesting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be turned over to the military as an enemy combatant, created a lot of interest on the part of the public. It had not been made public at the time, I don't think, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could not speak.

I think you're right. The headlines I kept hearing (yesterday) were probably based on ignorance of the fact that he couldn't speak, the silliness Graham and McCain raised, and probably someone not very close to the case's* offhand mention of the "public safety exception". On TV anyway, every time I heard the Miranda warning mentioned, it was also in conjunction with the possibility of trying him as a enemy combatant.

*ETA: Or maybe something said before he was taken into custody.

 

[newyorkguy]

Don't forget there are some countries where most of this would've been kept under wraps. Almost no information would've been released to the public. The public would maybe know there was some kind of explosion in downtown Boston Monday afternoon and that would be about all we'd know.

Imagine that?

Imagine this thread was about, Was There an Bomb Explosion in Boston Monday? We might be arguing, did the explosion -- if there really was one -- have any connection to the Boston Marathon? Some people would say they doubt it, other people would say it must've been connected as it was at the same time and reportedly near the route of the marathon.

Maybe the State Press Bureau would release a statement that there was an electric transformer under the street that short circuited, causing a loud noise and some smoke. That no one was injured. Maybe there'd be rumors swirling about that many bloodied people were seen being brought to downtown hospitals Monday afternoon. Not too long after the reports of an explosion.

That there was a police gun battle in Watertown Friday morning and another one that evening. We'd be arguing whether the events were all connected in some way but wondering, how?.

Scary to think that, but for many millions of people around the globe that's reality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Imagine that?

Imagine this thread was about, Was There an Bomb Explosion in Boston Monday? We might be arguing, did the explosion -- if there really was one -- have any connection to the Boston Marathon? Some people would say they doubt it, other people would say it must've been connected as it was at the same time and reportedly near the route of the marathon.

Maybe the State Press Bureau would release a statement that there was an electric transformer under the street that short circuited, causinghere. a loud noise and some smoke. That no one was injured. Maybe there'd be rumors swirling about that many bloodied people were seen being brought to downtown hospitals Monday afternoon. Not too long after the reports of an explosion.

That there was a police gun battle in Watertown Friday morning and another one that evening. We'd be arguing whether the events were all connected in some way but wondering, how?.

Scary to think that, but for many millions of people around the globe that's reality.

I appreciate that observation as a balance to the criticism of some pretty egregiously irresponsible journalism this week, but I would point out that the number of places in the world where we wouldn't know for sure whether or not the bombing happened and have at least an accurate recap of events a day later are pretty few*. I'm glad my country isn't one of them, but it doesn't excuse the poor journalism.


*Especially when I was in college in the '80s, I used to hear poly sci profs make a big deal of the fact that once again the U.S. managed to have a transition of power following an election instead of changing who is in authority by violence. Even then, the number of places that didn't have reasonably valid elections was pretty small. It always seemed to me to be the implication that we were somehow unique or had invented freedom, and also that the problems with our electoral process could therefore be excused or overlooked since things could be much worse.

 

[dudalb]

He's looking at at least five or six decades in solitary confinement at Supermax. If it were me I'd rather be executed. That's one of the many reasons I'm opposed to capital punishment for Tsarnaev or anyone else for that matter.

Given a choice between Gitmo and Supermax,I would probably choose Gitmo.....

 

[Toke]

I don't think wealth distribution has ever distinguished a "Third World" country from a developed country.

The U.S. has the 5th highest Ginni coefficient (higher value means more income inequality). First and second place goes to two African "Third World" countries but but third and fourth goes to Denmark and Switzerland, respectively.

I think you found a table with a typing error.
Here is a different one. With Denmark in its customary position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you found a table with a typing error.

Nope. Go to the table in my link, then click twice on the last column (which gives the Ginni coeffient for distribution of wealth--clicking twice sorts the table in descending order of Ginni coefficient.) This gives you a ranking of countries on distribution of wealth from greater to lesser inequality of distribution.

Your list is a ranking of countries by distribution of income.

I was responding to the claim that the distribution of wealth identifies "Third World" countries.

ETA: I did err in parenthetically defining the Ginni coefficient as a measure of income inequality.

 

[Hazel]

I think you found a table with a typing error.
Here is a different one. With Denmark in its customary position.

Such numerical charts always throw me into a tizzy. However, I like this:

"Because the underlying household surveys differ in method and in the type of data collected, the distribution data are not strictly comparable across countries."

 

[Jodie]

Irrelevant. That is the price that we pay to protect the rights of ALL who live in this country.



And what about the victims here, who now get no justice, no closure. Nothing.



This just amazes me. Wow. I'm really hoping you work nowhere near our justice system. This cannot happen.

I work next door to the court house Why not? The judicial system doesn't work anymore, why not be creative with guys like this one where it is pretty clear cut?

 

[Jodie]

If you are subject to the death penalty in the USA for walking in the streets, I can understand your concern about the state of things in your country. That is indeed a "forfeiture of rights". I had no idea things have gone that far! I hope you get a fair trial before they strap you in the the Chair for such an offence. I must admit I didn't. From here on the other side of the Atlantic the USA still looks like a mighty economic empire.

If convicted silly, you do forfeit your rights to live freely.

We are a nation floating on credit and what amounts to monopoly money. Sounds like the fast track to becoming a third world nation to me.

 

[Jodie]

BTW, the media are making much of the issue of him not having received his Miranda Warnings. It's not a sign that he will be tried as an enemy combatant, or any such a thing. It's most likely because he was unconscious when they took him into custody, and since then has been sedated and intubated (so can't speak). I doubt the issue will come up, because the case against him isn't likely to hinge on a confession or other self-incriminating statement from him. There's certainly a lot we'd like to know from him (the how and the why), but there's ample evidence to convict him without him ever saying a word.

[ETA: And before anyone questions him, you can bet he will be informed of his rights. I blame TV for the misperception that if Miranda Rights aren't read the moment a person is taken into custody, that the suspect can't possibly be informed of those rights in a timely manner.]

And it's a high enough profile case that we certainly won't proceed without making sure he has adequate legal counsel. This is exactly the type of case where you want to dot every i and cross every t before going forward.

The voice of reason and common sense, of course we would, hence the reason I thought people were being silly for worrying about it. In either case, if for some flukey reason that it wasn't done, then we will say they were anyway, so it really isn't relevant to what happens next to this guy.

 

[Jodie]

I was going to ask Jodie what specific characteristics of a third world country (or third world economy) we were displaying, but I think you're right. It's just meaningless bluster. I think she might mean nothing more that the U.S. might someday stop being the largest and most influential national economy on the planet. There's a lot of space between that status and being a "third world country".

I work in public health, trust me, the have-nots are growing, we are very much on our way there.

 

[Rat]

I work next door to the court house Why not? The judicial system doesn't work anymore, why not be creative with guys like this one where it is pretty clear cut?

Specifically not any more? Meaning that it used to work better. Can you define a way in which it is now worse than it was at a given time in the past?

 

[Jodie]

Even persons convicted of crimes, while incarcerated, still have some rights.

Link

It's baffling to me how many Americans somehow never quite seem to fully grasp what our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the basic beliefs of our democratic society, are all about.

Some years ago a survey was done with a group of American citizens. They were read passages from our Bill of Rights and then asked if they knew what document the passages were from. Many did not. They were then asked to identify the most likely source from a list of choices. Most chose, "Communist manifesto."

Depending on what the crime was, that can vary, ask a prisoner what rights they think they still have.

We know what it says on paper but it rarely lives up to reality.

 

[Jodie]

No, sorry. Just that it was in some big city. I read of it years ago and was reminded by the demands here for swift justice without all that troublesome paperwork and rights.

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.

 

[Jodie]

That raises an interesting question in my mind, something I have wondered about: did the Tsarnaev brothers plan additional bombings? Sounds like they might've.

Link to Times' article

That was my take on things based on what little I read and saw of this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Where to start with answering this one?

There's Blackstone's formulation. This principle is related to the idea that two wrongs don't make a right, which of course is connected to the point I raised earlier that revenge is not justice.

A bad guy having done a bad act does not justify we the people doing something bad.

Since our system is based on the application of rules, even if your only goal is to make sure the guy is never a danger to the public again, it's vitally important that we observe all the rules to make sure he never walks free.

Also, I'm not so sure the case will be so clear cut. There have been many cases where the question wasn't whether or not the accused did the deed, but whether or not the deed was a crime given any number of possible affirmative defenses. (One example--just on my mind because someone mentioned it recently--is the Patty Hearst case. There was no question that she did what she did, it was on film! The defense didn't question that. They argued that she'd been brainwashed by her captors; it was far from a "clear cut" case.) In this case, we might see anything from some type of insanity defense to something related to the influence of the older brother. Who knows? And of course, since he's pretty badly injured, there's also a chance that he could be ruled incompetent to stand trial. From what I've read, it's pretty clear cut that he was involved in the bombings and the acts involved in the chase and firefight, but I seriously doubt that will be what is in question in any trial.

 

[Jodie]

Imagine that?

Imagine this thread was about, Was There an Bomb Explosion in Boston Monday? We might be arguing, did the explosion -- if there really was one -- have any connection to the Boston Marathon? Some people would say they doubt it, other people would say it must've been connected as it was at the same time and reportedly near the route of the marathon.

Maybe the State Press Bureau would release a statement that there was an electric transformer under the street that short circuited, causing a loud noise and some smoke. That no one was injured. Maybe there'd be rumors swirling about that many bloodied people were seen being brought to downtown hospitals Monday afternoon. Not too long after the reports of an explosion.

That there was a police gun battle in Watertown Friday morning and another one that evening. We'd be arguing whether the events were all connected in some way but wondering, how?.

Scary to think that, but for many millions of people around the globe that's reality.

It's reality in the work day world, don't most of you work in a need to know environment?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sometimes the wrong thing is the right thing to do.

No, that's a logical contradiction. I think what you mean is that sometimes doing the wrong thing is justified. But two wrongs don't in fact make a right. If an act is wrong, pointing to another wrong act will not make the first act into a right act.

That's where I think you're confusing revenge and justice.