Maximum penalty is life sentence solitary confinement.

 

Its objectively provable that solitary confinement is terrible.

 

There is a possibility that dieing is great. I dont want to take that risk.

What a fool Donald Trump is. Good god.

The thing I will find interesting is if they will send him to prison or will they deport him back to Russia...

 

I believe he is a us citizen....

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by Soxbadger

I believe he is a us citizen....

 

i don't know if he is or isn't a citizen, but there's no way this guy is going to simply be deported.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by mr_genius

Legend.

 

Far more remembered than Ted Kacysnki. I wasnt even sure if he was dead or alive.

 

McVeigh isn't far more remembered than Kaczynski because he was executed. He's far more remembered because he killed over 150 people.

I believe he is a us citizen....

Well that makes it easy then... I thought he was only here for school and only for a couple years.

Legend.

 

Far more remembered than Ted Kacysnki. I wasnt even sure if he was dead or alive.

 

Totally disagree.

Maximum penalty is life sentence solitary confinement.

 

When you become a Senator or President, you're more than welcome to argue that point, but the current Federal penal code lists execution as the maximum penalty and the government would be negligent to accept anything less than the maximum penalty in this case.

McVeigh isn't far more remembered than Kaczynski because he was executed. He's far more remembered because he killed over 150 people.

 

I get that you like the death penalty and killing people.

 

I just think that is a gift, and I dont give terrorists gifts.

 

Maybe you do, but I dont. You are assuming death will be worse than life, I am saying, why make that assumption hes going to die anyway, cant I get to punish him as long as he lives?

 

Its just silly.

When you become a Senator or President, you're more than welcome to argue that point, but the current Federal penal code lists execution as the maximum penalty and the government would be negligent to accept anything less than the maximum penalty in this case.

 

lol

 

Negligent?

 

Are you kidding?

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but acting like your opinion cant be wrong is pretty damn hilarious.

I get that you like the death penalty and killing people.

 

I just think that is a gift, and I dont give terrorists gifts.

 

Maybe you do, but I dont. You are assuming death will be worse than life, I am saying, why make that assumption hes going to die anyway, cant I get to punish him as long as he lives?

 

Its just silly.

 

No, I'm really ambivalent about the death penalty and I'm not assuming that death is worse than life, but I understand that the current laws dictate death to be the maximum penalty and I understand from a legal standpoint why it's a terrible idea to accept anything less than the maximum penalty in this case.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by HickoryHuskers

lol

 

Negligent?

 

Are you kidding?

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but acting like your opinion cant be wrong is pretty damn hilarious.

 

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the legal profession and taking less than the maximum would be considered negligent. It's not an opinion on the death penalty--it's the reality of the law.

 

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the legal profession and taking less than the maximum would be considered negligent. It's not an opinion on the death penalty--it's the reality of the law.

Prosecutorial discretion allows for just that discretion in what type of penalty to pursue. It is not negligent to pursue less than death.

By the way, he's listed in serious condition.

lol

 

So every prosecutor who takes a plea deal is negligent?

 

I have no idea what you mean from "a legal standpoint".

 

If you offer no deal and execute, why would anyone ever surrender again? Why wouldnt they just kill as many people as possible?

 

You have to give some incentive to not just kill everyone and yourself.

 

Its pretty simple and to act otherwise is ludicrous.

 

 

Prosecutorial discretion allows for just that discretion in what type of penalty to pursue. It is not negligent to pursue less than death.

 

Discretion is to be used when circumstances dictate that something less than the maximum penalty might be appropriate. As of right now, there are no circumstances that would dictate anything less than the maximum penalty.

Discretion is to be used when circumstances dictate that something less than the maximum penalty might be appropriate. As of right now, there are no circumstances that would dictate anything less than the maximum penalty.

And here there are clearly circumstances that could warrant less than the death penalty (i.e. avoiding a trial, getting his cooperation, etc.)

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by maggsmaggs

Im not even sure if you can actually plea guilty to the death penalty.

lol

 

So every prosecutor who takes a plea deal is negligent?

 

I have no idea what you mean from "a legal standpoint".

 

If you offer no deal and execute, why would anyone ever surrender again? Why wouldnt they just kill as many people as possible?

 

You have to give some incentive to not just kill everyone and yourself.

 

Its pretty simple and to act otherwise is ludicrous.

 

No every prosecutor who takes a plea deal is not negligent. Most cases have significant risk of not even getting a conviction, so plea deals are often the best route.

 

What I mean from a legal standpoint is that the seriousness of the crime dictates the maximum penalty should be pursued and that the extremely low probability of acquittal dictates that the government should not move from the maximum penalty. It is the rare perfect storm where the government has to go for the max.

 

If the maximum penalty were defined as life in prison would you be in favor of cutting a deal to give him less than the max?

 

And here there are clearly circumstances that could warrant less than the death penalty (i.e. avoiding a trial, getting his cooperation, etc.)

 

Based on what we know now, the probability of acquittal is so low that avoiding a trial is not incentive enough to take a deal.

 

Now, if he cooperates and actually has valuable information, then that most certainly is incentive to cut a deal.

 

Sure Id consider 100 life sentences without parole instead of 150 life sentences without parole.

 

Remember with both execution and life imprisonment he dies in jail at the end. Its merely about how quickly it happens. Life imprisonment is technically a death sentence, its just slow and painful.

Im not even sure if you can actually plea guilty to the death penalty.

 

You can plead guilty without an agreement from the government to not seek the death penalty, in which case you move directly to the sentencing phase where you can choose whether or not to challenge the government's recommended sentence.

You can plead guilty without an agreement from the government to not seek the death penalty, in which case you move directly to the sentencing phase where you can choose whether or not to challenge the government's recommended sentence.

 

Right so the US govt can not even say you either plea to death penalty or no deal.

 

Its he pleas guilty with or without a recommendation.

 

Which is why your hypothetical was funny.

Sure Id consider 100 life sentences without parole instead of 150 life sentences without parole.

 

Remember with both execution and life imprisonment he dies in jail at the end. Its merely about how quickly it happens. Life imprisonment is technically a death sentence, its just slow and painful.

 

I understand that and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm saying that from a legal standpoint, the crime is so serious and the chance of acquittal is so low that the government has an obligation to seek the maximum penalty as currently defined, regardless of anybody's opinion of whether or not the maximum penalty is actually worse than a lesser penalty.

 

Based on what we know now, the probability of acquittal is so low that avoiding a trial is not incentive enough to take a deal.

 

Now, if he cooperates and actually has valuable information, then that most certainly is incentive to cut a deal.

It's not about probability of guilt or acquittal, it's about creating a media frenzy with a month-long trial, re-kindling all the horrible emotions that resulted from the attack, creating risk for people wanting to kill this 19-year-old when he is transported to and from the courthouse everyday during said trial, etc.