Mike the Usurper wrote:

After seven days of deliberation, the nine men and three women rebuffed the government's appeal for death for the only person charged in this country in the four suicide jetliner hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Good for the jury. He doesn't get to be a martyr. He gets the privilege of being someone's bitch in prison for a while before someone decides he doesn't have a "purty mouth" and shivs him.

Let's look at this pragmatically for a second, divorced from the emotional. He'll likely have to be put into special protection, to keep him from the general population, since he would most assuredly be killed and rather quickly by any general population in any US prison anywhere. That raises the dollars needed to incarcerate him significantly. You could compare the dollars necessary to send him up to death row and the years associated with the appeals process for doing that, with life in prison with special protection. Which is cheaper? Do you think it's correct or a good use of funds to spend on someone who was proven to cause the most destructive act on US soil?

flynn23 wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

After seven days of deliberation, the nine men and three women rebuffed the government's appeal for death for the only person charged in this country in the four suicide jetliner hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Good for the jury. He doesn't get to be a martyr. He gets the privilege of being someone's bitch in prison for a while before someone decides he doesn't have a "purty mouth" and shivs him.

Let's look at this pragmatically for a second, divorced from the emotional. He'll likely have to be put into special protection, to keep him from the general population, since he would most assuredly be killed and rather quickly by any general population in any US prison anywhere. That raises the dollars needed to incarcerate him significantly. You could compare the dollars necessary to send him up to death row and the years associated with the appeals process for doing that, with life in prison with special protection. Which is cheaper? Do you think it's correct or a good use of funds to spend on someone who was proven to cause the most destructive act on US soil?

For part 1, it sounds like he's being sent to supermax, which means the only human beings he'll see on a regular basis for the rest of his life will be the bulls.

For part 2, it's long been established that it is cheaper to lock someone up forever than execute them.

Part 3, if you think he had anything to do with 9/11, you're living in W's fantasy world. He's a total bastard who would have loved to have been involved, and would cheerfully be a suicide bomber I'm sure, and if he could have been a part of the 9/11 group would have loved it. Kahlid Sheihk Mohammed and Ramzi bin alShaibah kept him out of it because he was a total loose cannon, and he demonstrated it at his trial. Hell if he'd kept his mouth shut he might have been found not guilty. Instead, He WANTED to be found guilty and WANTED to be executed so he could become a martyr, and did everything he could to see that it happened.

Frankly, I think he should be stuck in genpop at Marion and when he's found dead in the shower some morning, the people incarcerated there can feel like they've done something good for the country.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

After seven days of deliberation, the nine men and three women rebuffed the government's appeal for death for the only person charged in this country in the four suicide jetliner hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Good for the jury. He doesn't get to be a martyr. He gets the privilege of being someone's bitch in prison for a while before someone decides he doesn't have a "purty mouth" and shivs him.

Let's look at this pragmatically for a second, divorced from the emotional. He'll likely have to be put into special protection, to keep him from the general population, since he would most assuredly be killed and rather quickly by any general population in any US prison anywhere. That raises the dollars needed to incarcerate him significantly. You could compare the dollars necessary to send him up to death row and the years associated with the appeals process for doing that, with life in prison with special protection. Which is cheaper? Do you think it's correct or a good use of funds to spend on someone who was proven to cause the most destructive act on US soil?

For part 1, it sounds like he's being sent to supermax, which means the only human beings he'll see on a regular basis for the rest of his life will be the bulls.

For part 2, it's long been established that it is cheaper to lock someone up forever than execute them.

Part 3, if you think he had anything to do with 9/11, you're living in W's fantasy world. He's a total bastard who would have loved to have been involved, and would cheerfully be a suicide bomber I'm sure, and if he could have been a part of the 9/11 group would have loved it. Kahlid Sheihk Mohammed and Ramzi bin alShaibah kept him out of it because he was a total loose cannon, and he demonstrated it at his trial. Hell if he'd kept his mouth shut he might have been found not guilty. Instead, He WANTED to be found guilty and WANTED to be executed so he could become a martyr, and did everything he could to see that it happened.

Frankly, I think he should be stuck in genpop at Marion and when he's found dead in the shower some morning, the people incarcerated there can feel like they've done something good for the country.

I see your points and agree with you, but I guess what I was really asking was "is this justice?" Here's our chance to actually say to the world that we are a just and cultured society. It sends a strong message on how we handle this. Sure, we can torture and demean people in concentration camps on the battlefields, but this might actually help to balance that out depending on what we choose to do.