http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/sentence-reached-for-dzhokar-tsarnaev-in-boston-marathon-bombing.html?_r=0

Moments after I've posted this, on May 15th, 2015, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old man responsible for the Boston Bombing back in 2013 was finally sentenced.

It was unanimous; The sentence was death.

There are many factors that went into this: The aggravating factors and the mitigating factors. I won't go into those, though; check them out yourself.

It was said that Tsarnaev was completely stoic and emotionless throughout the whole trial, and only teared up a little bit when his aunt took the stand and was cry-talking about Tsarnaev's childhood. His CHILDHOOD. Not the BOMBING.

Other than that, he showed emotion outside the courtroom. That is, he was laughing and joking with his attorneys.

What do you think? I think he's a grade-A sociopath. I do wonder what type of death it'll be, though I assume lethal injection.

About time the monster gets the execution.

So where the fuck are all those Dollars who were against the death penalty! Huh??? Wheres you're outrage?

Where are all those comments about human lives being precious, you hypocritical douchewads.

>>3 There's really no point anymore. People want revenge even if it accomplishes literally nothing. Keeping him out of the public, that does accomplish something. Killing him does not.

>>3 There was one comment when you posted that.
It's probably how this thread's gonna turn out, but your reaction seems unfounded.

>>4 is right, I think. A large part of the reason is because the public wants revenge and sees his death as the ultimate form of it.

Anyway, fuck this guy.
I'm not against the death penalty, but I am skeptical as to its level of punishment. Everybody fears death, but surely the thought of having to live out the rest of your life constrained, worthless and expendable. In my eyes he's lost his right to life, but that doesn't mean he should die. The guy's 21 years old, and chances are, he has more than double those amount of years ahead of him in his natural life.
Let him live them out in absolute misery.

Could have been more carnage.

do you really think death is the most horrible sentence for him?

>>7 No, letting the guy live, and rot in jail for life is more horrible, because the prison is wasting resources to keep his ass in there and or make shit food for his ass, where a simple gunshot to a head takes less.
The less people the better.
The leech vs. death

Such a horrible thing that man has done! >.<

If it's any consolation the majority of death penalties, if not all of them, in the U.S. nowadays are of lethal injection.

Basically it just slowly shuts down the organs via the injection of three poisons.
It doesn't hurt, and doctors even think the subject simply feels like they're falling asleep.

>>10 That doesnt help... That doesnt help at all.

There is for the majority part, two sides: People who wanted this kid to get the death penalty and want him to die slow and/or painfully, and then there is the other side of the fence who know that the death penalty costs more, and wish him to live with his decision for the rest of his life surrounded by prison men who would love to get their hands on the Boston Bomber.

Or you could simply kill him in a more rapid manner. In example a Shotgun or another cheap alternative. I don't mean to sound jaded or mean but he did do something terrible to the people of Boston.

>>12 Come on, man! The lethal dose itself obviously isn't the problem!

"Death penalty cases cost more than ordinary cases because all the lawyers, judges, and other personnel will put more hours into preparing, trying, and reviewing the issues, given that a life is at stake. Jack D’Aurora (pictured) of the Behal Law Group, writing in The Columbus Dispatch, described the time put in by just one federal judge in Ohio reviewing a capital case towards the end of its appeal, including the lethal injection process: “Hearings are attended, at a minimum, by three assistant attorneys general, three attorneys for the inmate, the Lucasville prison warden, the director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, counsel and other officials from the department, [the judge] and his two law clerks. These people all are paid by either the state or the federal government. Hearings can last from a few hours to multiple days.” The judge estimated that he and his staff spend 40 to 60 hours per month on some aspect of the death penalty. D’Aurora noted that recent cases took an average of 21 years between sentencing and execution date. "The cost likely is millions per case,” he noted. “Life sentences without parole would serve us much better, but we are fixated on a process that drains government resources," he concluded."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-why-death-penalty-costs-so-much

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

>>12 Yeah, it's actually cheaper keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their life. I've done some research on this too.

But imagine the numbers if execution were televized.
Also, just putting it out there: Bring back Ol'Sparky(the chair)

>>14 Not to mention how easy it is for our system to fuck up.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-law/fact-sheets/dna-exonerations-nationwide

>>13 And this is why a large human pop is never good, all these individuals with ideas and idiocy and greatness get mixed up and it become hard to manage the fools from the good ones. I can tell ye, the further away i get from this world the better.

>>17 Now that's just cynical thinking. I find having idealistic people to be much better than everybody being like-minded. As long as they're critical thinking, I encourage!

But from what you said about there being too many people on this planet. If I sound like I'm preaching the words of he 3rd Antichrist tell me haha.
Not to sound like a Georgia Guidestone fanatic or 3rd antichrist, but damn the planet would be so much better off if the majority of the world's population didn't exist.
Reduce the population to 500 million, and we have
A) More resources to go around
B) Less nonrenewable resources being used
C) Smaller and fewer government(s) means less political problems
And these are to just name a few,
The bigger problem is the moral of it.
A) This would mean the 6.5 billion+ deaths of humans across the world, which I'm sure few people are even a bit OK with.
B) For a while there'd probably be total anarchy.
C) No genocidal mastermind has ever been successfully able to slaughter a half-decent fraction of the quota, the closest being Stalin I believe.

My conclusion: To fix everything, we need to find a way that THIS many people would die WITHOUT it being the direct fault of any one group of humans.
I say we melt some ice caps. People would blame nature.

>>18 Depends on what to think, i would offer my opinions, but i would not put much thoughts into it, again depends on what it is to say about.

But indeed the planet and entirety of it would be better off with less people, cause that population growth limit thing from biology. We have yet to hit it, and if we did, total ruins will come.

It would be either death, or colonizing as in, improve our tech for space travel. And as far as i seen, i dont see much news about space travel, nor much companies vouching for it, just those wanting to deal with the planet they are on.
Again, i havent looked into this that deeply about companies and all that jazz.

>>19 fear not dear sir there's plenty going on in space travel studies. Hehe

>>20 Are they significant studies?

>>21 They're hopeful. I'll give you a link to a youtube video which gives about 10 examples (I'm going to go read the rules thingy after I post this but if you tell me it's not allowed I'll delete this)

Here ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJC8XFywBc
I'm pretty sure all these methods are being professionally looked into by scientists.

>>22 Most excellent indeed, am still rooting for the warp drive. Kehehehe, soon soon, maybe in a hundred years or when am 50, that is if the world hasnt gone deeper into shit yet.