Should the jurors consider that in the case of the Boston marathon bomber, a death penalty sentence would be less severe than a life imprisonment one?

[meltzerboy]

My question concerns whether the sentence passed on the Boston marathon bomber should take into consideration the beliefs of the murderer, as well as other Islamic terrorists, namely, that the death penalty might be preferable as a sign of martyrdom, while a life sentence might be viewed as equivalent to a shameful death, having no purpose in satisfying his mission?

 

[LongingSoul]

The only consideration in allocating a penalty for a crime, has to be the welfare and good of the community harmed by the crime. How the penalty is viewed by the person receiving it has to be fairly irrelevant. It would mean calling for judgements that are impossible for human beings to make.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is actually one of the *practical reasons why I am firmly against using the death penalty on Islamic terrorists. I don’t want to create martyrs.

*I’m morally opposed to the death penalty for anyone.

 

[TofuFish]

My question concerns whether the sentence passed on the Boston marathon bomber should take into consideration the beliefs of the murderer, as well as other Islamic terrorists, namely, that the death penalty might be preferable as a sign of martyrdom, while a life sentence might be viewed as equivalent to a shameful death, having no purpose in satisfying his mission?

Yes. I have always held that death is more merciful than life imprisonment without parole.

 

[BartholomewB]

The Third World War has already begun, the Holy Father told us last year (link below). Unlike the two earlier world wars, in this one there are no trenches and no clearly marked front lines. It’s a war being fought in pockets. I hope the Boston judge and jury will carefully weigh the deterrent value of life imprisonment, on the one hand, and the death penalty, on the other, and will opt for whichever one of the two seems more likely to save innocent lives in the future by deterring other prospective Muslim terrorists from committing mass murder.

thetablet.co.uk/world-news/5/3207/we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-third-world-war-says-pope

 

[KLM789]

I think:
There is a lurking desire in Christians not wanting to end a person’s life until God alone picks the day. This is such a good feature of us - of our culture - that we want God and the individual to meet and be reconciled. If that is impossible, we don’t want the impossibility to be one we created. Its likely the deeper understanding of why we have the commandment not to kill.

 

[Catholic1954]

The jurors must come to their decision according to the LAW. Personal opinions, prejudices or severity of the sentence cannot be considered. If someone had reservations to sit on such serious case, they should have spoken up and been excused, at the beginning.

 

[Della]

Jurors need to consider the heinousness of the case, the reasonings of the prepetrator, the overall benefit to society. In this case he meant to kill as many innocent persons as possible, even going so far in his disregard for who would be killed by placing his bomb next to an 8 year old child. No doubt if he gets the death penalty radicals will use it as an excuse for more mayhem, but what wouldn’t they use for an excuse to do their filthy deeds? As for him being given the chance to be reconciled to God, death penalty cases are automatically appealed. He’ll no doubt have years of dickering before his sentence is actually carried out. If he has any desire to be reconciled to God and make amends, he’d have plenty of time to do so–far more time than he gave his victims.

The law cannot be wimpy with people who have no regard for the innocent lives they take. Being so sends the message that murder can be committed with impunity with no dire consequences. There ought to be dire consequences for the sake of justice. Even though we euphemistically call our justice system “correctional” that’s not the business of governments. Government exists to protect it’s citizens not to “correct” them. If criminals want to be corrected they have their faith leaders for that–if they want/have any.

 

[marymary1975]

Here in Massachusetts the vast majority of people, and by majority I really mean it, have extremely strong feelings of opposition to the death penalty. Because of that I would be extremely surprised of they choose the death penalty. Having lived in Massachusetts for a long time I doubt that they will give the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Jurors need to consider the heinousness of the case, the reasonings of the prepetrator, the overall benefit to society. In this case he meant to kill as many innocent persons as possible, even going so far in his disregard for who would be killed by placing his bomb next to an 8 year old child.

Indeed.*Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death *because *life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? *(J Budziszewski, Univ Texas)
Ender

 

[BartholomewB]

Here in Massachusetts the vast majority of people, and by majority I really mean it, have extremely strong feelings of opposition to the death penalty. Because of that I would be extremely surprised of they choose the death penalty. Having lived in Massachusetts for a long time I doubt that they will give the death penalty.

In that case, we need to pray that the judge and jury will have the strength of character to do what they think is right, rather than simply allow themselves to be steamrollered into compliance with the views that happen to be in fashion at the moment in Massachusetts.

 

[marymary1975]

Also let’s not forget that Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984. If the Federal authorities were to pursue death penalty in a non death penalty jurisdiction like Mass that would create a massive conflict. Because of that I doubt that it will actually be pursued.

 

[starshiptrooper]

My question concerns whether the sentence passed on the Boston marathon bomber should take into consideration the beliefs of the murderer, as well as other Islamic terrorists, namely, that the death penalty might be preferable as a sign of martyrdom, while a life sentence might be viewed as equivalent to a shameful death, having no purpose in satisfying his mission?

On the other hand, terrorists have taken hostages in the past to secure the release of incarcerated terrorists.

 

[Della]

Also let’s not forget that Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984. If the Federal authorities were to pursue death penalty in a non death penalty jurisdiction like Mass that would create a massive conflict. Because of that I doubt that it will actually be pursued.

Wouldn’t he be moved to a Fed. facility outside of MA? Besides, the jurors are all from MA. If they decide he deserves the death penalty the Feds will carry out the sentence no matter who might object. I believe only the president could rescind such a sentence, and he’s not likely to–although you never know what the present administration might do to placate terrorists. But that’s another topic for another thread.

 

[Robert_Sock]

My question concerns whether the sentence passed on the Boston marathon bomber should take into consideration the beliefs of the murderer, as well as other Islamic terrorists, namely, that the death penalty might be preferable as a sign of martyrdom, while a life sentence might be viewed as equivalent to a shameful death, having no purpose in satisfying his mission?

Whether Jew or Christian, I think both would ideally want do what is better for his soul, and I believe that means life in prison in this case.

 

[BartholomewB]

Whether Jew or Christian, I think both would ideally want do what is better for his soul, and I believe that means life in prison in this case.

What is better for the murderer’s soul is a very minor consideration. The overriding consideration is saving the lives of innocent people by deterring prospective Muslim terrorists from committing atrocities in the future.

Which of the two – life imprisonment or the death penalty – is the more effective deterrent is a question for specialists to answer. Psychologists, criminologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scentists, among others, would all probably have arguments of their own to put forward, drawing on their knowledge of the objective reality of their specialist fields.

 

[Ender]

What is better for the murderer’s soul is a very minor consideration. The overriding consideration is saving the lives of innocent people by deterring prospective Muslim terrorists from committing atrocities in the future.

The overriding principle in any punishment is justice: finding a punishment that fits the crime, a concept we have completely lost touch with as we wring our hands about what to do with a person who placed a bomb in a crowd of people with no other intent than to kill and maim as many as possible.

How does his crime differ from what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City or what was done on 9/11? I think this is the worst effect of 2267 and the church’s opposition to capital punishment: we no longer understand the nature of punishment, what it means, and what justifies it.

Ender

 

[Della]

What is better for the murderer’s soul is a very minor consideration. The overriding consideration is saving the lives of innocent people by deterring prospective Muslim terrorists from committing atrocities in the future.

Which of the two – life imprisonment or the death penalty – is the more effective deterrent is a question for specialists to answer. Psychologists, criminologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scentists, among others, would all probably have arguments of their own to put forward, drawing on their knowledge of the objective reality of their specialist fields.

Muslim extremists are serial killers who don’t have to have a “reason” to kill others. They kill their own with as little conscience as they kill “infidels.” They may claim the execution of an extremist for doing further atrocities, but it’s not really a reason–it’s an excuse to do what they had already planned to do because they are hell-bent on killing as many people as possible. They are filled with blood-lust not patriotism or religious fervor. We don’t need specialists to tell us what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What is better for the murderer’s soul is a very minor consideration. The overriding consideration is saving the lives of innocent people by deterring prospective Muslim terrorists from committing atrocities in the future.

Which of the two – life imprisonment or the death penalty – is the more effective deterrent is a question for specialists to answer. Psychologists, criminologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scentists, among others, would all probably have arguments of their own to put forward, drawing on their knowledge of the objective reality of their specialist fields.

I am a psychologist. But my religious beliefs take priority here, and as a Catholic, I feel it my duty to seek to save all souls.

 

[Della]

I am a psychologist. But my religious beliefs take priority here, and as a Catholic, I feel it my duty to seek to save all souls.

It is not necessary to give him life in prison to save his soul. It only takes a moment of perfect contrition to save a soul. He’s old enough to know that murder is wrong and to know that what he did isn’t excusable on religious or patriotic grounds. He doesn’t need years to repent of what he already knows is sin. I’m not advocating for either sentence here, I’m just stating the facts.