Poll: 70% of Americans Want Death Penalty for Tsarnaev if guilty 27% Oppose

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...547f96-b1c5-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html

A large majority of Americans support the death penalty for the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing should he be convicted in federal court, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall, 70 percent of those surveyed say they support the death penalty for 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. While most Democrats and Republicans alike say they would support the death penalty for Tsarnaev, there are deep racial divisions on the matter, reflecting a common gap in public views of the death penalty itself.

Most Americans, 74 percent, also back the decision to try Tsarnaev in the federal court system instead of a military tribunal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.

This is tricky for me because I do support the death penalty for murder with sufficient evidence, but I don't actually believe that this guy's guilty.

 

[brandon]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate time to use the death penalty than in this case, unless some new evidence comes to light during trial. Then again, leaving this guy in solitary for 60+ years would be a nice option too.


He should be tried in a state court though.

 

[Southron]

I would support the death penalty if there were at least 2 witnesses to him committing the crime.

 

[sailingaway]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.

This is tricky for me because I do support the death penalty for murder with sufficient evidence, but I don't actually believe that this guy's guilty.

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

 

[AGRP]

Ron Paul:

Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[181]

In September 2007, he elaborated:

You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you’re poor and you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there’s been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.[182]

He believes that opposing capital punishment is consistent with being pro-life; in his book, Liberty Defined, stating "It's strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war."[182]

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

 

[AGRP]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

We hope you learn more over the next 6 years and 10k+ posts.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Does the Federal government even actually possess authority to try anyone under the constitution? Massachusettes should be trying him.

Agree.

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

Yeah, that is a lame excuse. Crime happened in Boston, should be tried in Boston.

 

[Christian Liberty]

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

As far as I understand the constitution, even that excuse isn't good enough...

There is a difference between capital punishment and murder. Not because the government does it (Which is completely irrelevant) but because convicted murderers lose their right to life.

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

Yeah. Its also funny how Republicans (With obvious exceptions) seem to think Middle Easterners aren't people. Both sides are epic fails in different ways.

 

[Zippyjuan]

they are literally calling the pressure cookers 'weapons of mass destruction' to have it in federal court. I would appeal that big time.

But I don't think it should be a military tribunal for a domestic crime like this, obviously.

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We hope you learn more over the next 6 years and 10k+ posts.

Who's "we" and why do I need to learn anything from them?

One would think three years and over 4,000 posts on this website would help one to understand that not everyone here shares the same worldview. There are progressives, regular conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, etc.

 

[PSYOP]

I'm absolutely disgusted by this...

 

[tod evans]

I'd like to see the fate of the guilty decided by the families of the dead and those who were maimed..

Not the media, and certainly not the "Just-Us" department...

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

How much mass do you have to destroy before you become a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is there a minimum body count?

Criminal (civilian)

For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[29] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[30]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[31]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[32]

any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[33] pipe bombs,[34] shoe bombs,[35] and cactus needles coated with botulin toxin[citation needed] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

(a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Under the same statute, conspiring,attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if by death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.[36]

The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for the use of airplanes as WMD.

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was charged in April 2013 with the federal offense of "use of a weapon of mass destruction" after he and his brother allegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of Boston's most famous race. His alleged terrorist act resulted in three deaths and at least 282 injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

 

[Zippyjuan]

Thanks. Seems to qualify.

 

[The Free Hornet]

It is funny how Democrats seem to value the life of a convicted murderer more than an unborn baby.

Given the long list of innocent and exonerated put on death row, could you explain the 'ha ha'/"is funny" part?

Also, unlike an unborn baby, these people paid taxes for the privilege of being put on death row.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I would support the death penalty if there were at least 2 witnesses to him committing the crime.

Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. Most of the people exonerated were put in from witness testimony.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. Most of the people exonerated were put in from witness testimony.

Perhaps inaccurate isn't the word I'm looking for. Witness testimony can be reliable. You can run into issues with it and I would not support the death penalty should that be the only evidence of guilt, though. People are sometimes mistaken for what they saw, influenced or persuaded to say what they didn't see, (by the media, the cops, wanting to be a good witness) and sometimes it is a case of the mind playing tricks on you. Not 100% in any sense.

 

[Smart3]

The blood lust is horrifying.

The terrorist is a 19-year old stoner. he was corrupted by his loser-evil brother who is dead. Why does he deserve death or even life in prison? Just give him 60 years and be done with it. He won't be any threat to anyone by 80.