Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I see wrath as will to harm on the basis of some justification, independent of emotional baggage.

For example, the conversations I got to hear all day between co-workers about the Boston marathon bomber being handed the death penalty.  No one there had any personal connection to the situation or expressed any emotional investment in it.  No anger that I could tell.  But there was still this whole circle jerk about taking us back to the middle ages ("Ok so he's guilty and we have the verdict, so just hang the guy or shoot him and get it over with.  I don't understand this flowery shit about making it all humane or whatever. ")

That's wrath, because I don't know any better word for it.  Willingness to inflict harm and reap personal satisfaction from doing so, whenever the personal feeling or belief exists that it is justified.

[misko27]

I see wrath as will to harm on the basis of some justification, independent of emotional baggage.

For example, the conversations I got to hear all day between co-workers about the Boston marathon bomber being handed the death penalty.  No one there had any personal connection to the situation or expressed any emotional investment in it.  No anger that I could tell.  But there was still this whole circle jerk about taking us back to the middle ages ("Ok so he's guilty and we have the verdict, so just hang the guy or shoot him and get it over with.  I don't understand this flowery shit about making it all humane or whatever. ")

That's wrath, because I don't know any better word for it.  Willingness to inflict harm and reap personal satisfaction from doing so, whenever the personal feeling or belief exists that it is justified.

Something about that definition rubs me the wrong way.

But on that note, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death.

[Zrk2]

But on that note, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death.

Now how many appeals before it happens?

[Lord Shonus]

But on that note, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death.

Now how many appeals before it happens?

Either 1 or 2, to my understanding. Because it was a federal conviction, it will go straight to the US court of appeals, and possibly to the Supreme Court. After that point, the sitting President will have the option to reduce the sentence or issue a pardon, neither of which is likely in this case unless a very anti-capital-punishment candidate wins and does so as a matter of principle - Tsarnaev never denied setting the bomb (the defense was an affirmative one, basically "you shouldn't convict me of what I did because..."), and shows no sign of mental illness.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That said, between the backlog and the time appeals require, it will take several years to burn through those two appeals and the condemned in front of him. The death penalty is currently suffering a persistent loss of popularity.

It is still obscene that you must be in favor of the death penalty to serve as a juror in these cases.

[Bauglir]

I cannot imagine how that screening process, especially in a case with this much cultural presence, doesn't predispose the jury toward a guilty verdict. And that's a hell of a problem.

[Lord Shonus]

I cannot imagine how that screening process, especially in a case with this much cultural presence, doesn't predispose the jury toward a guilty verdict. And that's a hell of a problem.

The screening is "can you, in good conscience, hand down a sentence of death if the evidence shows the circumstances warrant it under the laws of the United States" or similar. If you answer no, you are dismissed from the jury pool in the exact same manner you would if you admitted prejudging the case - the purpose is to ensure that the verdict and sentence are passed according to the law, not the personal beliefs of the juror, as well as to avoid forcing a juror into a moral dilemma.

[Frumple]

I cannot imagine how that screening process, especially in a case with this much cultural presence, doesn't predispose the jury toward a guilty verdict. And that's a hell of a problem.

They (the folks that pass the screening in question) are statistically more likely to convict, to the best of my knowledge, yes. Insofar as the numbers go, the juries in question do appear to be predisposed towards a guilty verdict. Now, whether that's due to the people involved or the cases involved is a different question, but...

[misko27]

It is still obscene that you must be in favor of the death penalty to serve as a juror in these cases.

Not, really? I mean they have that with all cases: if you aren't willing to inflict the penalty for the crime, you shouldn't be judging the case. I mean if you were a hard core libertarian who opposed any punitive action, you wouldn't ever be on a jury.

I cannot imagine how that screening process, especially in a case with this much cultural presence, doesn't predispose the jury toward a guilty verdict. And that's a hell of a problem.

Oh no, the Guilty verdict was absolutely inevitable from the very beginning in this case. The defense's opening statement includes the phrase "he did it", and they never contested that he had actually committed the crimes of which he was accused. The sentencing though is an interesting issue.

Details I know of:

• He was sentenced to death for 6 of the 17 capital crimes which he was charged with (He was convicted of all 30 charges)
• Jury was seven women and five men.
• Three jurors believed his brother was responsible for his radicalization, two believed he had shown remorse.
• Tsarnaev showed no emotion at the sentencing. He bowed his head as it was read out.

Appeals will take so long that we will forget about it in due time, unless he opts to not appeal (which happens sometimes).

[smjjames]

Yeah, it was a bit odd that his defense immediately threw him under the bus so to speak since you don't expect your defender to do that.

[Zangi]

Yeah, it was a bit odd that his defense immediately threw him under the bus so to speak since you don't expect your defender to do that.

There is not enough money out there in the world to turn it into Not Guilty.  Everyone knows he done it.  The whole trial was just a formality.  The Lawyer, from the beginning, was focused on getting the kid a life sentence, rather then the death penalty.


As for the jury needing to support death penalty, I reckon its simply cause they don't want people deciding on the penalty based on predisposed ideological reasons, rather, they want it based on the 'merits' of the criminal in question.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I know that in this case guilty was obvious and a Not Guilty plea would be outrageous nonsense. More of what I mean is that screening for people who are willing to hand down harsher punishments is going to also screen for people who are more likely to hand down harsher punishments. I suppose I've not got any statistics to back that up, so this whole thing is more "my expectation" than "a clear statement of fact", but... it's worrying. With the growing unpopularity of the death penalty, I find it hard to believe that willingness to consider it sorts independently of other attitudes toward accused criminals, such as the vindictive "This criminal doesn't deserve compassion" perspective.

This is especially true when the jurors are inevitably going to have an opinion on the matter going into this, making sure everybody is willing to consider the death penalty seems almost certain to poison the outcome right from the start. But it's still a concern I have about the system in general.

[mainiac]

Someone made a database of slush money spending in Afganistan:
https://projects.propublica.org/cerp/

While the whole nature of bribe money is to be inefficient, I'm still kinda amazed by this one:
https://projects.propublica.org/cerp/projects/C2910E5C-EA93-3081-8359414E86025CB4

$125 for a set of plastic beads.  That's almost $1 a plastic bead.  I feel like there is a joke to be made about native american soldiers but I can't quite figure it out.

Actually look at this one:
https://projects.propublica.org/cerp/projects/5D06C657-D2DA-C40B-71656B9D9277C77E

$5000 means that coalition forces were responsible for two deaths.  So they killed two people and that's all the paperwork.  We dont even have the names or date of death, just "yuuuuuuup, two new corpses but the family dont mind."

[FearfulJesuit]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled thread to bring you this OKCupid profile picture of Herman Cain with juggalos.

[Rose]

There is no way that is not homestuck related.

In before Betty Crocker takeover.