Boston Marathon - explosion

vant0037 wrote:

It's a scary proposition to argue that justice should be based largely on what the victim desires to see happen. Yes, it's an important part of the equation (in Minnesota, victim's are entitled to input, but prosecutors are not obligated to follow their wishes). But it's not and can't be the biggest part of our decision-making. Trust me: I see husband-wife domestic assaults on a day-to-day basis where the husband thinks he should've hit her harder and the wife wants to cut his balls off. How could impartial and uniform justice ever been dispensed if the sentencing was victim-driven?

To clarify, I wasn't making a prescriptive claim about the U.S.'s criminal justice system (i.e. not arguing how it should be), but rather arguing how I see it actually operating. Criminal justice is, and should be, less about vengeance and more about punishment and deterrence. I'm not going to rehash why I believe that to be the case (and the correct one, at that).

Nobody is saying that the victims should dictate cruel and unusual punishment if they are so inclined. What I am saying is that in very rare instances does the punishment come close to matching the crime. Using the same example I refered to in my response to you for consistency's sake, I'm not saying Shearing should be shot, raped repeatedly, and burned six times over... but I am saying 30 years for slaughtering a family and then parole opportunities every two years (arm-in-arm with his wife he met in prison) is a far far cry from justice. This is not an isolated case either: there are countless misjustices that have had people understandably outraged following weak sentences. This alone warrants consideration and I'm happy to report that Canada is in the intial stages of making some changes so that punishments can better fit the crimes we are tired of.

We can agree to disagree, but victims receiving a sense of justice for their loss should be very significant. In other aspects of law, it is about the person who is wronged. For example, if somebody damages my property, I take them to court for damages, and I prove my case... the courts will look to adequately compensate me. Given this appropriate and logical attitude, why is it so wrong to think that survivors should not be entitled to reasonable compensation as well?

Thane Rosenbaum (the law professor cited in the link butterjam provided) suggests that you are not correct when you declare "criminal justice is, and should be, less about vengeance and more about punishment and deterrence." He says they are essentially the same thing: "The distinction between justice and vengeance is false. A call for justice is always a cry for revenge." I posted this earlier... and I tend to agree with him.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

What I am saying is that in very rare instances does the punishment come close to matching the crime.

I mean no disrespect, but I can say with confidence that this is an extreme and unsupported exaggeration. In "very rare instances" does the punishment fit the crime? That might have more to do with your own worldview than it has any basis in reality.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

This is not an isolated case either: there are countless misjustices that have had people understandably outraged following weak sentences.

This is precisely the point we've been arguing about. Does people's outrage mandate that we do something different? If so, at what cost? My point has been the same: dispassionate reason should trump emotional appeals every time. Period.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Given this appropriate and logical attitude, why is it so wrong to think that survivors should not be entitled to reasonable compensation as well?

No one's argued this. Ever. What we've been arguing about is whether suggestions such as the defendant here "eating shit sandwiches daily" or taking rifles to the face - prior to his being charged, tried and convicted through a fair and impartial process (which is likely coming) - is really just blowing off steam, and where that type of thinking fits into our criminal justice system.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Thane Rosenbaum (the law professor cited in the link butterjam provided) suggests that you are not correct when you declare "criminal justice is, and should be, less about vengeance and more about punishment and deterrence.".

Lawyers disagree with lawyers all the time. The fact that one might have a different view than me is of no consequence here. I would, out of curiosity, like to know if Mr. Rosenbaum would agree that the bloodthirsty calls for the defendant's head fit within his view of justice. My guess? Not a chance in hell. Arguing that justice is really about retribution is not at all synonymous with arguing that we should inflict retribution prior to due process.

My point is not and has not been to argue about what appropriate justice is. That's a whole other issue, one you've raised in response to an argument I didn't make. My point is and always has been about whether or not emotional pleas for violence against an untried defendant is a good, healthy or just thing. I submit that they are not. I don't care how guilty the person looks. You may cite all the examples of inappropriate sentencing you wish, and you may quote any number of law professors you believe will endorse that view (if they exist at all, I can virtually guarantee they are in the minority).

So whether the criminal justice system in civil societies is or should be about retribution or restoring order is ultimately irrelevant. I engaged you on two levels to prove the same point each time: emotional pleas for violence against an untried defendant, whether said just to "blow off steam" or whether said in all sincerity, is a very dangerous form of mob mentality, and one that should be resisted at all costs.

Indifference wrote:

Interesting:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/lo ... e_benefits?

In early 2011, Tamerlan Tsarnaev first came to the attention of the FBI when the Russian FSB intelligence service contacted the U.S. agency to warn that he was suspected of being a dangerous radical and sought information.

yeah..very very intresting..

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if u are a person lived in a country that usa went to war and bomb them.,.well,i understand the hate for usa..
maybe u lost relative,friends at war..i get it,to have hate.,.no matter is right or wrong the hate....
but live in usa,go to school,work,have benefits,be american citizen..well..to put bombs to kill civilians..
i dont get it..

i know alot think is that muslim have hate for usa..but still..
you live there..have friends,u talk all day english,deal with people..
i dont get it..why you are there in the first place??

Exactly. I am not one to argue that the US is perfect because we are not, or that there are not those in the world who have a right to be pissed at us because there are. But if you are not only living and here and enjoying all the freedoms that we enjoy but living off the government while you do it...then you are not someone who has any reason to be upset with America.

And there is no justification in this world for deliberately targeting spectators at a road race. None.

JimmyV wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if u are a person lived in a country that usa went to war and bomb them.,.well,i understand the hate for usa..
maybe u lost relative,friends at war..i get it,to have hate.,.no matter is right or wrong the hate....
but live in usa,go to school,work,have benefits,be american citizen..well..to put bombs to kill civilians..
i dont get it..

i know alot think is that muslim have hate for usa..but still..
you live there..have friends,u talk all day english,deal with people..
i dont get it..why you are there in the first place??

Exactly. I am not one to argue that the US is perfect because we are not, or that there are not those in the world who have a right to be pissed at us because there are. But if you are not only living and here and enjoying all the freedoms that we enjoy but living off the government while you do it...then you are not someone who has any reason to be upset with America.

And there is no justification in this world for deliberately targeting spectators at a road race. None.

ofcourse,there will never be a logic reason to put bombs to kill civilians..
the crazy is that they didnt come last 2 weeks to usa with the goal to kill people cos they are in a war with usa..
they are usa citizens..how can u live in a place that you hate??that isnt home?that u dont believe to it??

seems the benefits was great to make you love what you hate..

JonnyPistachio wrote:

nice story and pic:

"True hero Jeff Bauman gives 18th birthday gift to fellow victim"

http://now.msn.com/jeff-bauman-gives-a- ... iral-photo

So inspiring.

unsung wrote:

There is no excuse for targeting civilians, ANYWHERE. That includes drone strikes in Pakistan just to get one guy.

No one wants to see civilians killed but unfortunately we're dealing with cowards who use them as shields to protect themselves. If we locate a terrorist who is hiding out with his family should we do nothing?

Would you rather we send a seal team in and risk the lives of American soldiers to take out these terrorists when a air/drone strike will do the same thing albeit with the possibility of collateral damages of the people that choose to shelter them?

vant0037 wrote:

Lawyers disagree with lawyers all the time. The fact that one might have a different view than me is of no consequence here. I would, out of curiosity, like to know if Mr. Rosenbaum would agree that the bloodthirsty calls for the defendant's head fit within his view of justice. My guess? Not a chance in hell. Arguing that justice is really about retribution is not at all synonymous with arguing that we should inflict retribution prior to due process.

My point is not and has not been to argue about what appropriate justice is. That's a whole other issue, one you've raised in response to an argument I didn't make. My point is and always has been about whether or not emotional pleas for violence against an untried defendant is a good, healthy or just thing. I submit that they are not. I don't care how guilty the person looks. You may cite all the examples of inappropriate sentencing you wish, and you may quote any number of law professors you believe will endorse that view (if they exist at all, I can virtually guarantee they are in the minority).

So whether the criminal justice system in civil societies is or should be about retribution or restoring order is ultimately irrelevant. I engaged you on two levels to prove the same point each time: emotional pleas for violence against an untried defendant, whether said just to "blow off steam" or whether said in all sincerity, is a very dangerous form of mob mentality, and one that should be resisted at all costs.

My point is not and has not been to argue about what appropriate justice is. That's a whole other issue, one you've raised in response to an argument I didn't make.

I need to take a step back here. I have been in poor form.

I'm going to agree with you regarding violence against an untried defendent is a very dangerous form of mob mentality. I did twist the argument and spin it to something else. I apologize for that.

btw..this thread remind me the conversation i had this morning at work with a coeorker....
we was on a F-16 Aircraft and talking about the pressure the wings gets during flight,and we start talking about the pressure during fireing missles..and what damage a missle can do and how many could be killed from the blast..
and then i said,how lucky was at Boston,cos the bombs could kill away more people that killed ..
and then the guy i was with said"well,how many Americans would be alive today if the last 20 years USA didnt involved to any wars at middle east and stay in peace in their country??"
well.i dint have an answer..but im sure..the right answer must be Thousands...