How can that not be worth if there is any chance it would increase his cooperation? An American college kid who became persuaded that his cause gave him an acceptable reason kill innocent children (and now is apparently at least somewhat remorseful) is possibly uniquely qualified to help explain to authorities what makes terrorists (who come from his type of background) terrorists tick. And maybe even what can be done to change their minds. If the only downside is that he now gets life without parole (or even possibly the chance of parole in thirty years or so) its surely worth the gamble.

The idea is fine but the political backlash in doing it may be problematic. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes.

This has to be the Sklanskiest thread of all-time.

Not a law enforcement expert or psychologist but it isn't it usually sufficient to improve the inmate's jailhouse living conditions in exchange for cooperation rather than commuting the sentence? Inmates often crack in exchange for like a half hour more of TV a week and some extra exercise time. If he's indeed remorseful as you say, it's hard to imagine why this would take much at all.

I'm sure we could really learn a lot from some stupid kid who was dragged along by his big brother. Definitely some deep insight to be gleaned here.

Like the kid is going to give the Konami code to terrorism or something?

It reminds me of his "The Mossad taught Navy SEALs how to shoot Bin Laden" thread in terms of just sheer myopic disbelief in the idea of anyone else knowing ****.

We already have sociologists to talk to terrorists all the time

Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists by Scott Atran

Why We Talk to Terrorists

What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters

They’re drawn to the movement for reasons that have little to do with belief in extremist Islam.

Oh boy an exciting DS hot take, how exciting

The OP should have said what makes "some" terrorists tick (I'm changing it.) Those that are not poor and lived in the west. I realize that we have a few of those type of people in custody but how many of them could be expected to be completely honest? And even if there are a few, having one more wouldn't hurt given the price I suggest is so little.

I have written about several ideas in my life (that are now accepted) that you would have thought the experts in the field would have already thought of but didn't. And there are countless other examples of ideas, even in math, where the concept could easily have been thought of sooner but wasn't because the run of the mill practitioners apparently aren't smart enough to do much more than learn what others have discovered.

I wish this thread got the death sentence.

I can't tell if there's much value but there's no downside.

If you change your OP to include the assumption that some credible person wants his input then it's a lock.

Tell us more about how dumb other people are and how smart you are

People who do these acts are very vocal in why they do them so that, they hope, they aren't seen as just murders or run of the mill bombings, but justifiable political acts.

The same with the Weather Underground, Black Liberation Front, anarchist bombings, eco terrorism, white supremacy groups, etc etc etc.

The Boston Marathon guys aren't unique snowflakes outside the realm of human comprehension and therefor need themselves to explain themselves, but are squarely within the human experience and are perfectly willing to explain their rationals.

The Boston Marathon bomber wrote a confession/manifesto on a boat for Christ's sake.

Was going to write something like this but didn't have the time or inclination. Nice work.

Ted Kaczynski, who had a doctorate and was a competent mathematician, already published a monograph on the subject in the New York Times.

No objections to my idea actually make any sense. Why, because there is no real downside. If there is even a .1% that a commutation would spur him on to offer useful information that may save lives few people would think its not worth it. Changing a death sentence to life is a tiny price to pay if it is a price at all.

I don't think he can be of any help whatsoever.

Free the Boston bomber in exchange for David Sklansky never telling us again what he thinks.

Sick level Sir Sklansky

But to answer seriously I don't think this kid has enough worthwhile information to make it worth paying tens of thousands of dollars a year (upwards of a million+ if he lives into his 70s-80s) to house and care for this jerkoff.

As the Queen of Hearts would say "off with his head" and the sooner the better so our tax dollars stop going to house and fed this bastard IMO.

I want some examples of this, please. Gimme some of those ideas (that are now accepted) that you were the first to come up with, please.

I'm sure there are plenty of individuals within the government that want to do everything they possibly can to stop any kind of terrorist attack, but the government as an institution benefits greatly when one happens, so any kind of cheap/effective/common sense type solution will face a lot of unexplainable resistance. Better to put some brand new barely-functional scanners in the airports or invest more heavily in building bigger stronger faster drones.

Assume a priori for the sake of the argument that we all seek the worst possible punishment for him and that death is worse than life in prison.

Your argument is not complete.

1. Can you get him to talk for less than commutation? You indicated he's remorseful. Why not appeal to the better angels of his nature and offer him nothing but the chance to act on his remorse?

2. Assuming he needs to be offered anything, why offer commutation of his sentence instead of improving his living conditions while he remains in prison until his execution is carried out? I indicated before I am not an expert but I am confident this in fact is what law enforcement typically does and achieves success with it. It seems like you are needlessly reinventing the wheel, giving too much to Tsarnaev when less would work.

3. Will getting him to talk produce the desired outcomes? "If there is even a .1% that a commutation would spur him on to offer useful information that may save lives few people" is a conditional.

The main objection multiple posters ITT have had is with the condition; essentially arguing that he's already said everything valuable that he has to say, or that new information wouldn't be valuable. It seems like you have to refute that notion to get people to be compelled by your argument.

4. What about alternatives? Why not just offer a reward (some kind of cash plus immunity) to prospective terrorists who can demonstrate they are far along in advanced planning but have yet to execute their attacks, and interview them? Then you presumably prevent a very specific attack while gaining all of the same relevant information you could have received from Tsarnev. I do not know that this would be effective but by the same token, you implicitly acknowledge the same about Tsarnaev ("If there is even a .1% chance...").

I agree if your conditionals are true the downside is low. Which you seem to think is the trump card in this argument. But it's not clear that your conditionals are true or that other alternatives (offer Tsarnev less than commutation of his death sentence, or nothing, or offer rewards to others motivated to commit terrorism instead) wouldn't be more effective.

Whole premise makes no sense; if he's already remorseful and has been interviewed endlessly, what more is there?

"If there is even a .1% that a commutation would reduce the deterring effects of punishment so as to raise the risk of terrorist attacks few people would think its worth it."

Made up counterfactuals are easy.