Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Boston Mangler

If there was ever a guy who deserved the death penalty, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would the guy. And that was the verdict in Boston yesterday:
A jury's ruling today to sentence marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death is "justice" and a warning Boston "will not tolerate terrorism," survivors and police said after the verdict.

"This is nothing to celebrate. This is justice," said first-responder Michael Ward. “He wanted to go to hell and he’s gonna get there early."

The verdict against Tsarnaev, who'll turn 22 in July, was announced by U.S. District Court Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.'s courtroom clerk Paul Lyness. Tsarnaev showed no emotion as the verdict was read.
It's easy to see why the verdict came down. Tsarnaev placed a backpack bomb down in the crowd and he killed people, including an 8-year old boy named Martin Richard:

Indiscriminate
Martin is circled on the left of the picture. Tsarnaev lurks in the background, in the white cap. If you look carefully, you can see the backpack to Martin's right, also along the railing, in between Martin and the mailbox.

Here is what the scene looked like after the bomb went off:

Killing field
 I oppose the death penalty. I still do. Cases like this are the sort that test one's assumptions.

6 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

I've always favored the death penalty when the perpetrator's guilt is certain and when cases are as egregious-- i.e. multiple first-degree murder-- as this one. I'm still a bit inclined to want more in this case, though. Most "martyrs" (not sure if this is one of them, they didn't stay with their bombs) are happy to die, to get to their 72 white raisins. So one thing you could do is incarcerate them for life to forestall that. The other thing you could do is to shoot them in a pig sty and make sure they NEVER get there. That might be a deterrent?

Bike Bubba said...

What Jerry says. You have reasonable doubt, don't convict. Can't prove malice? No death penalty. This case? The only reason not to do with Jerry suggests is that it would recognize some of the theology of Islam.

jerrye92002 said...

"... recognize the theology of Islam."

That's an interesting objection. If these terrorists are motivated by theology, it makes some sense to me that they might better be deterred by theological consequences than by more worldly concerns. On the other hand, our judges routinely pronounce a death sentence followed by "and may God have mercy on your soul." We recognize our theology, apparently, why not theirs?

Bike Bubba said...

Hmmm.....my take is that (a) we will have a Supreme Court case soon on "May God have mercy" pronouncements, and (b) almost all religions recognize a God who will punish extreme wickedness.

My objection with the pig blood/strangling them with chitterlings soaked in whisky/etc.. is that it would be an abomination specific to Islam. to use it would be to recognize a fairly unique truth claim.

And it would be a waste of good whisky and sausage casings. :^)

R.A. Crankbait said...

I wouldn't waste the casings and whisky. I might, however, tell the guy as he was getting the injection that the syringe also contained hog's blood.

jerrye92002 said...

No, I think that misses the point. General Pershing took care, according to legend, to leave one of the terrorists alive to report what had happened to the others, and the others had hours to anticipate the death of their immortal souls (or whatever their term is) before their death. Telling one guy what will surely happen in two minutes is not sufficient punishment, nor sufficient deterrent to others.