What is your opinion of prosecutors refusing a plea deal in the trial of the Boston bomber?

Bloodthirsty, bloodsucking, blood money.

What’s the benefit to the prosecutor to make a deal? It’s obvious why the Tsarnaev wants the deal, he gets to live. But – other than money saving – what’s the benefit to the state? For a deal to be a sensible deal, both sides have to benefit. That’s not the case here.

What the brother did was commit an act of terrorism – premeditated, designed to hurt as many as possible, and utterly ruthless. And they were successful.

The population (i.e. the voters) want retribution. Boston was violated by these guys and three people were killed. There is a huge political need for vengeance.

I have no problem with the prosecution’s decision. Let the kid fry.

Retribution has different flavors. Some believe life without parole is not a sufficient form of punishment so they demand execution. It is considered unjust if there is no execution. Execution comes in different flavors too. Some demand a more agonizing death penalty while others believe the punishment should be as painful as the crime.

I condemn the death penalty and its supporters in all cases, so of course I disagree with that purely political decision.

why make a plea deal? If you are so concerned about money a trial would cost do you have any idea how much more it will cost to house this killer the rest of his life in Prison? I hope he gets the death penalty. Even that is too good for that piece of crap.

he will die on a table by injection while his innocent victims (including a 6 yr old child) was blown to pieces without even being able to kiss his parents good bye. Not to mention the people who lost limbs. It amazes me sometimes how people show mercy for the terrorist but not for the victims. .

@BeenThereSaidThat: “It amazes me sometimes how people show mercy for the terrorist but not for the victims.”

elaborate

@hominid I don’t discuss with you. there are some people here that I don’t waste my time with.

@chyna Kinda like the villagers with the torches and pitchforks.

@BeenThereSaidThat: ”@hominid I don’t discuss with you. there are some people here that I don’t waste my time with.”

Compelling argument.

Maybe you could ask someone else to elaborate on your assertion that sometimes “people show mercy for the terrorist but not for the victims”. I am really curious.

Because of the nature of this crime there should be no plea negotiations whatsoever. Also there is no reasonable doubt that that low life is 100% guilty. The prosecution doesn’t need to bend to liberal pressures either. I and millions of others want to see the day that scum-bag is taken out (which will likely take anther 20 years).

You talk about a waste of money. What about the money that will be wasted to keep that lowlife SOB alive for the next 40–50 years?

And now apply that same caveman blood lust to the bush regime, the current obama regime, every single torturer at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and every single soldier that has killed innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians.
Because they are all guilty.
But you will not do that, no.
You will not even acknowledge their guilt.
Instead you will exalt them as “heroes” and “protectors of freedom”.
What exactly makes you any different from all those who have lost family members to the colonial war machine and because of it, now support ISIS and Al Qaeda to somehow get their, in their mind, rightful vengeance?

Yeah I kind of do see the point. The Boston bombing was the 2nd worst terrorist attack on Americans since 911. Killing and injuring innocent people in order to make a political statement is just wrong. Some of the victims who lost limbs had their lives changed forever and some of the victims are wanting the death penalty as punishment for what they endured. I can totally understand their views.

Disgusting, and illogical. Why do people continue to believe a life sentence is anything less than horrible? Your life. In prison.

I’d let the bomber decide. If he wants to die, that is fine in my opinion. If he doesn’t, guess what? Nobody has any right to kill him. We do, of course, have the right to keep him away from other people.

@BeenThereSaidThat Isn’t the death penalty much more expensive than a life in prison? Also, why do you think people here show mercy for the terrorists, but not the victims?

@ragingloli War is crazy. Terrorism is crazy. There is always a price to pay. The Boston bomber should now pay for what he has done. He likely knows that he deserved the death penalty but he is likely too much of a coward to man-up and accept it.

Thank you for proving my point.

I just got through a 2hr documentary about the hunt for the bombers on the Nat/Geo channel.
One thing that struck me was the community pulling together in Watertown after they were locked down as the net closed in on the surviving brother.
I still strongly disagree with the bloodthirsty majority clamouring for the death penalty, but a lot of people suffered in those 5dys & emotions are bound to run high, understandably so.

@ragingloli You are so welcome my dear sweet baby kitten.

As a rule of thumb I don’t agree with negotiating with terrorists. I am conflicted because I seldom agree with the death penalty.

@longgone

Why shpuld the bomber get the right to decide if he wants to die? He deprived all his victims of that choice so I’m not getting why he gets special rights here.

Normally, I’m opposed to the death penalty due to so many cases still being uncovered of people wrongly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. The Innocence Project has shed a lot of light upon this.

But in this case there’s not the slightest doubt as to his guilt. He killed innocent people just to make a political point. And exactly what was that point?

It doesn’t get more cold-blooded than that. So, I can understand the reasoning of the prosecution in this case. Why should he be granted any special favors at all. He certainly had zero mercy for any of the innocents he harmed.

When I first heard that he and his brother were Chechneyans, my first thought was “what did the US ever do to them? Isn’t their beef with Russia? How does killing American civillians further their cause? All our country ever did was give them unearned and undeserved educational and financial opportunities? So killing innocents is about the cruelest most purposeless response as could be imagined.”

So, if the prosecution is refusing to give them any unearned breaks or plea bargain, so be it.

If that robs him of the opportunity to spend the rest of his life crusading for his “cause” by trying to garner converts in prison, that would me just fine. We don’t need any more of his sadistic ilk spreading their poison and hatching future plans for more destruction.

The only acceptable alternative to the death penalty here would be to deport him to Russia. I would imagine death would be preferable to him over that alternative.

But he forfeited his rights to have any say in the matter when he chose to deprive innocents of their choice to live just to make his political point.

I think it confirms the worst beliefs the rest of the world has of the US. Killing him serves no purpose whatsoever. It will not bring back those who died. It will not deter others of a like mind to him and will probably result in his martyrdom thus inspiring other attacks to avenge his death.

I agree with @elbanditoroso, @prairierose, @BeenThereSaidThat and @Buttonstc.

Haha, typical American neanderthals.

What @rojo said.

A case like this is also a good exercise in determining how committed people are to values they claim to possess. Everyone is an advocate of free speech – until we find that they are not. Similarly, we find that there is much less opposition to the death penalty than previously expressed.

Nothing proves we’re above the barbarism of the 3rd world like acting like 3rd world barbarians.