Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

The presumption of innocence isn't there to protect the guilty, it's to protect the falsely accused. It's a cornerstone to our system of laws.

A right has to be absolute -- extended to everyone accused of a crime -- or it isn't a right.
 
Well you have just proven my point, blow **** up and you lose your rights. There is no doubt he is guilty, so I see no problem in expediting the justice.
 
Jodie said:
Well you have just proven my point, blow **** up and you lose your rights. There is no doubt he is guilty, so I see no problem in expediting the justice.
Click to expand...

What would be your procedure for that?
 
Jodie said:
If the guy confessed and was caught escaping what makes you think there is any doubt we have the right person?
Click to expand...

He confessed?

Jodie said:
There is no doubt, the guy is a foreign immigrant that came here, I assume for a better chance at getting an education since he was in college, and blew up pedestrians.
Click to expand...

He was 8 - he probably came because his parents did.

Jodie said:
He forfeits any rights he might have had being a law abiding non citizen.
Click to expand...

But he was a citizen.

I'm skeptical of people who get lost in the details looking at bark on the trees in the forest when plain common sense will suffice.
Click to expand...

I'm not against common sense but I wonder where you are getting your facts - I admit I haven't followed this closely. It does seem like there is plenty of evidence to secure a conviction, and no reason not to follow that process.
 
Jodie said:
Well you have just proven my point, blow **** up and you lose your rights. There is no doubt he is guilty, so I see no problem in expediting the justice.
Click to expand...


The problem in skipping the legal process is twofold. First, if you establish the principle that a citizen can "lose" their right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial then they're no longer rights, are they?

Second. if you even once give some government official the power to take away someone's legal rights -- because we all agree the defendant is guilty anyway -- then you've made it possible for a future government official to take away someone's legal rights in a case where maybe everybody doesn't agree the defendant is guilty.

This is how people lose their rights. It always starts with stripping away the rights of the least popular.

Anyway, I have trouble believing someone is seriously arguing this. The bottom line is, there is zero chance that this is going to happen. So in that sense this argument is entirely abstract.
 
Jodie said:
No, I didn't get that he was a citizen but even so, if I kill someone then I don't deserve my rights as a law abiding citizen. If I can't play fair why should I expect fair treatment?

Not really surprised, but I wonder how generous they would be with their prayers if it was one of their family or friends that was hurt or killed?
Click to expand...
Jodie, do you not believe that the USA or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is capable of fairly trying a person accused of heinous crimes, and if he is found guilty, of punishing him? Having rights doesn't absolve a criminal from punishment, if that's what's worrying you. People whose friends or family were killed will not be on the jury, because civilised states impose justice and punishment and avoid any encouragement of personal vengeance and retribution, an understandable desire for which can be an obstacle to finding the truth.
 
In the strictest sense we actually don't know the man police arrested Friday evening in Watertown was involved in the Boston Marathon bombings at all. Think about.

Jodie were you there? You saw the two brothers plant the backpacks and then saw those same two backpacks blow up moments later? You're certain that one of those two men is the same as the one taken into custody Friday night?

What do we know as opposed to what we've been told. Please don't misunderstand me. I too believe the police have the right man. But I don't know that. How could I know? I wasn't there.

I'm fairly confident that the police do have the right suspect and if they do have the wrong man, because he will be afforded the basic protections our system offers, that fact will become known and he will be either released or acquitted.
 
CORed said:
The one that has always amused me is consecutive life sentences. I guess it makes sense if you believe in reincarnation.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if a life sentence is not really a life sentence. If they have to be served sequentially, it does keep the bad guys in the hole much longer.
 
ravdin said:
I'm not worried that Tsarnaev hasn't been Mirandized at this time, as there's a precedent for questioning a suspect without reading him his rights if public safety is at stake, and there's a plausible case to be made for it. I couldn't agree more however that he should be given due process and tried in a criminal court. It will be messy and extremely frustrating given that there seems to be very little doubt about his guilt, but in my view he's won something if we allow ourselves to allow ourselves to be intimidated into giving up the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Hear! Hear!
 
Jodie said:
Why not just send him home to Russia and let them handle it as they see fit? If he forfeits his rights here then he doesn't need to be here.
Click to expand...
How would you feel if he ended up in Chechnya and was greeted as a hero? You really haven't thought this one through.
 
Jodie said:
No, I didn't get that he was a citizen but even so, if I kill someone then I don't deserve my rights as a law abiding citizen. If I can't play fair why should I expect fair treatment?
Click to expand...

Are there not constitutional rights regarding due process of law and all that?

Whether people are guilty or not legal proceedings are still supposed to be based on due process of law rather than, "let's lynch the scumbag!"
 
Jodie said:
I guess driving through neighborhoods and dropping bombs off on the street and hiding in a boat in someone's backyard wasn't a tip off? I believe they got the right person.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. You either have due process or you don't. Lots of countries bundle people in a truck and you never see them again. Who wants to live in a country like that?

Of course the indications are that he is 99.99% guilty so why worry about following due process? I can only assume you are playing Devil's Advocate for habeas corpus.
 
To deny him due process allows allows law enforcement not to do a proper job of investigation.

They have him in jail now, so they have to come up with proof that he needs to stay there.

If they can just throw him in Gitmo and be done with him, there is less incentive to make sure that they have covered this thing from every angle.
 
Minoosh said:
What would be your procedure for that?
Click to expand...


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.

Of course, if he isn't too naive then he will see the big picture and how things really work. If he is smart he'll apply games theory to get the best possible outcome for himself. The best he can hope for is a nash equilibrium in what appears to be a zero sum game. I certainly wouldn't trust an attorney to do it for me.
 
newyorkguy said:
The problem in skipping the legal process is twofold. First, if you establish the principle that a citizen can "lose" their right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial then they're no longer rights, are they?

Second. if you even once give some government official the power to take away someone's legal rights -- because we all agree the defendant is guilty anyway -- then you've made it possible for a future government official to take away someone's legal rights in a case where maybe everybody doesn't agree the defendant is guilty.

This is how people lose their rights. It always starts with stripping away the rights of the least popular.

Anyway, I have trouble believing someone is seriously arguing this. The bottom line is, there is zero chance that this is going to happen. So in that sense this argument is entirely abstract.
Click to expand...

You lose your rights when you go through the trial process and are found to be guilty. This guy is already guilty, I can't see how a good outcome can result from this point on. Going through the legal process would be going through the motions. It won't mean anything in this guy's case. Execution or permanent incarceration will result whether we go through the legal process, or not, slowly or expediently. In other words, it's a done deal. It depends on what this guy perceives as the better outcome and how he, or his attorney's, play this as to how it turns out.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The police chief in Watertown Mass told CNN that a helicopter-mounted thermal imager was used to verify that the second Marathon bombing suspect was in a boat in a Watertown backyard and that he was alive, moving. The Watertown Chief said shots were exchanged with the suspect as officers moved in. A police negotiator, in the second floor of the home overlooking the boat in the backyard, then attempted to get the suspect to surrender. Which he finally did. Chief Ed Deveau said officers ordered the suspect to stand up and open his shirt because they feared he might be wearing an explosive device. He was not. Link
Click to expand...

That doesn't appear there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom