A pretty big thing happened with the Boston Marathon Bomber trial earlier today...
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the co-bomber of the Boston Marathon Bombings, was sentenced to death.
There have been much debate over whether he deserves death or life in prison but I'm not worried about that part as he is merely inspiring my thread over being the subject of it. What I would like to know is this...
Take away all the red tape. There is a 100% chance that the person in question is guilty. There is NO chance that they did not do it. There will be NO red tape at all; if sentenced to death, it will be right then and there with no appeals and no time (eliminating one of the biggest problems a lot of people have in that it's cheaper to let them rot then it is to go years and years of appeals). If it helps your decision, you get to decide how he dies (whether you want to save money and just slit the guys throat or whether you want it to be painful like lighting him on fire) but they HAVE to die (so no beating him to the point of death and letting him live). Did I cover everything in terms of arguments against the death penalty? If I did not, pretend I did and assume it's not a problem.
Like the death penalty option where you would choose their mode of death, you also get to choose the prison if you go prison for life as your option. The prison does have to be a "First World" prison so no going The Dark Knight Rises and sending them to The Pit. Similar as well to the death penalty, take away the financial part so if "paying to support the prisoner in prison" is a problem for you in real life, don't worry about that here.
My question; is it a bigger punishment to put someone to death or is it a bigger punishment to have them rot in a maximum security prison?
On one hand, there are maybe three people in the world that are TRULY AND 100% unafraid of death. Even the few who are not afraid of dying, most people are hardwired to want to survive and will do whatever it takes for it to happen (even if their life is a prison room with a few chances a day to go be active). Death is final; life gives at least a slimmer of hope...
On the other hand, life in prison (I imagine at least for I've never been to a maximum security prison) is not exactly a great life. Your world is a small cell with minimal to do. Maybe you get a book to read, some exercise time every so often, and three meals a day but ultimately it's not a good life. For someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it could have been decades of sitting in that small room with nothing to do...
TLDR (you wound me D; taking away the politics and red tape, what's the worse punishment; life in prison or death penalty?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the co-bomber of the Boston Marathon Bombings, was sentenced to death.
There have been much debate over whether he deserves death or life in prison but I'm not worried about that part as he is merely inspiring my thread over being the subject of it. What I would like to know is this...
Take away all the red tape. There is a 100% chance that the person in question is guilty. There is NO chance that they did not do it. There will be NO red tape at all; if sentenced to death, it will be right then and there with no appeals and no time (eliminating one of the biggest problems a lot of people have in that it's cheaper to let them rot then it is to go years and years of appeals). If it helps your decision, you get to decide how he dies (whether you want to save money and just slit the guys throat or whether you want it to be painful like lighting him on fire) but they HAVE to die (so no beating him to the point of death and letting him live). Did I cover everything in terms of arguments against the death penalty? If I did not, pretend I did and assume it's not a problem.
Like the death penalty option where you would choose their mode of death, you also get to choose the prison if you go prison for life as your option. The prison does have to be a "First World" prison so no going The Dark Knight Rises and sending them to The Pit. Similar as well to the death penalty, take away the financial part so if "paying to support the prisoner in prison" is a problem for you in real life, don't worry about that here.
My question; is it a bigger punishment to put someone to death or is it a bigger punishment to have them rot in a maximum security prison?
On one hand, there are maybe three people in the world that are TRULY AND 100% unafraid of death. Even the few who are not afraid of dying, most people are hardwired to want to survive and will do whatever it takes for it to happen (even if their life is a prison room with a few chances a day to go be active). Death is final; life gives at least a slimmer of hope...
On the other hand, life in prison (I imagine at least for I've never been to a maximum security prison) is not exactly a great life. Your world is a small cell with minimal to do. Maybe you get a book to read, some exercise time every so often, and three meals a day but ultimately it's not a good life. For someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it could have been decades of sitting in that small room with nothing to do...
TLDR (you wound me D; taking away the politics and red tape, what's the worse punishment; life in prison or death penalty?