|
Post by Californian on Apr 23, 2015 8:07:15 GMT -6
Interesting piece for Boston Globe writer Jeff Jacoby.
Death or Life for Tsarnaev? Jeff Jacoby 4/22/2015 11:54:00 AM - Jeff Jacoby
THE PENALTY phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial is underway, and federal prosecutors have been getting some well-publicized advice about the penalty they should seek for the Boston Marathon terrorist.
In a statementfeatured on the Boston Globe's front page last week, the parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard — the youngest victim murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers — said they would be in favor of the Justice Department "taking the death penalty off the table" in exchange for a life sentence and the waiver of any right of appeal. On Monday, the Globe spotlighted a similar call by Jessica Kensky and Patrick Downes, newlyweds who both lost legs in the 2013 bombing.
To their credit — and in keeping with the grace and decency they have shown from the beginning of this terrible ordeal — Bill and Denise Richard emphasize that they speak only for themselves. Kensky and Downes likewise acknowledge that their views are theirs alone, and "promise to continue to listen thoughtfully to opposing views as this public discourse continues." Prosecutors, for their part, have responded with compassion and courtesy. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz said she cares deeply about the views of the Richards, just as she does about those of other survivors and victims she has heard from, on all sides of the issue.
But the prosecutors' job is not to carry out the wishes of victims and their families. It is to bring the murderer to justice. And in our legal system, justice requires a fair trial, an impartial judge, and a jury to weigh the evidence and come to a considered verdict — in short, due process of law. The desire to let a criminal's fate be decided by those he harmed most directly can be overwhelming. But "justice" without due process is perilous. Leave punishment in the hands of victims and their kin, and the results are often blood feuds and revenge killings and vigilante violence.
The prosecution of the marathon bomber is styled "United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" precisely to make clear that it is the interests of the public that are to be vindicated. The crimes committed by Tsarnaev were horrific. The suffering he inflicted on so many innocent human beings was unspeakable. No one with a heart begrudges the survivors their right to express an opinion — any opinion — about the penalty the guilty man should be made to pay.
But in a civilized society, that penalty must be fashioned by the public, not by victims. The ongoing anguish of survivors may bring us to tears. We may be stirred beyond words by the dignity with which they bear their losses. We may yearn for them to be granted whatever they think will bring them closure and peace of mind.
Nonetheless, the survivors don't get a vote. Only the jurors do — jurors empaneled in the first place only after elaborate scrutiny and questioning to be sure they aren't biased. It goes to the very essence of due process that victims, or anyone with a personal connection to a case, not be permitted to render a verdict or to determine how guilt should be punished.
Inevitably, the prosecution of Tsarnaev has been tangled with the never-ending debate about capital punishment. All the familiar compass points of that debate have been represented. There are those who think that execution is the only just response to a massacre so cruel and heinous; those who are convinced that life in prison would be an even more excruciating fate; those who believe that the death penalty is never justified, regardless of the crime. Some argue that letting Tsarnaev live would amount to an ongoing mockery of his victims. Others claim that putting him to death would reward him with the "martyrdom" he craves. Everyone is entitled to a point of view, no matter how emotional or irrational or whimsical. In the court of public opinion no attitude is out of bounds, and there are no rules to determine which arguments prevail.
But in the federal courthouse on the South Boston waterfront where Tsarnaev's destiny is being decided, there are rules aplenty. Each one is meant to ensure a verdict grounded not in rage or revenge, but in fairness and integrity. Tsarnaev will not be sentenced to death unless 12 jurors unanimously agree that that is what justice requires. He may deserve no more than the wanton brutality he showed his victims. What he will get instead is due process of law.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 23, 2015 10:13:33 GMT -6
Timothy McVeigh was an American home grown terrorist, we executed him.
These clowns are terrorist too, hate America so, in my book if we execute our own terrorist this guy should also get the DP for sure.
Since it only takes one juror out of 12, it is the same odds as winning the lotto he will end up getting ONLY LWOP not the DP. That to me is not justice !!! Unfair balance to the max.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 23, 2015 11:25:33 GMT -6
What is wrong with rage or revenge?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 23, 2015 11:53:32 GMT -6
What is wrong with rage or revenge? Not a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on May 11, 2015 18:09:01 GMT -6
Like I care about Sister Helen Prejean opinion, but it is a part of this subject so I posted it. Sister Helen Prejean Says Tsarnaev Shows Remorse for Boston BombingBOSTON — In a dramatic flourish at the end of the defense case, Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent opponent of the death penalty, testified Monday that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had expressed remorse for killing and maiming people at the 2013 Boston Marathon. She met with him in prison five times, starting in March and, most recently, a few days ago. She said she had read up on the Quran and the Muslim faith and had been able to establish a relationship of trust with him. “He said emphatically, no one deserves to suffer like they did,” she testified. She said she believed he was “absolutely sincere.” Asked how his voice sounded as he said that, Sister Prejean, 76, said: “It had pain in it, actually, when he said what he did about nobody deserves that. I had every reason to think he was taking it in and he was genuinely sorry for what he did.” The nun’s testimony was the first hint that the jury had heard that Mr. Tsarnaev, 21, had expressed any regret for his actions. Since jury selection began in January, Mr. Tsarnaev’s demeanor in court has been impassive. He has slouched in his chair and has seldom looked at witnesses, including those maimed by the bombs, or those whose loved ones were killed. He never took the stand himself. The jury convicted him last month of all charges against him in connection with the attack, in which three people died and 264 others were wounded, including 17 who lost legs. In this second phase of the trial, the government, which rested its case last month, wants the jury to sentence Mr. Tsarnaev to death. The defense is seeking a sentence of life in prison without parole. The defense rested its case Monday after Sister Prejean’s testimony. The defense and prosecution are expected to make their closing arguments Wednesday, and the jury could begin deliberations Wednesday. There was considerable debate over whether Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of Federal District Court, who is presiding in the case, would allow Sister Prejean to testify. When the defense lawyers indicated last week that they wanted to call her, the prosecution said it would object. Its reasons for doing so were not made public. Legal experts said the prosecution was likely concerned that someone with Sister Prejean’s moral authority could influence anyone on the jury who might be uncertain about the death penalty; the objection of a single juror would stop a death sentence. The experts also said that Judge O’Toole had to weigh the possibility that barring her from taking the stand could form the basis for the defense to appeal the outcome. The judge abruptly sent the jury home last Thursday as he mulled his decision. The lawyers continued to argue privately to him Monday morning, and his decision was not known until the moment Sister Prejean was called to the stand. Wearing street clothes, the short, stout nun, who stands barely five feet tall, had a broad smile on her face. A Louisiana native, she spoke with a distinctive Southern accent, and she conveyed an amiable manner. When asked if she saw Mr. Tsarnaev in court, she said in a clear strong voice: “I do. Right there,” and she beamed at him. Asked if the defense was paying for her testimony, she responded, “Not a dime.” The prosecution objected to several questions, and her testimony was fairly proscribed. At one point, Sister Prejean asked the court if she could talk about discussions she had had with other prisoners. Told no, she smiled and said: “I didn’t think so. Just checking it out. O.K.” www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/sister-helen-prejean-says-tsarnaev-shows-remorse-for-boston-bombing.html?_r=0
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Jul 26, 2015 2:35:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 27, 2015 11:15:59 GMT -6
Agree, death.
Agree with Obama one big mistake America
Agree again, nobody dies as easily as convicted murderers in this country.
Tracy- High five
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 27, 2015 20:03:26 GMT -6
Agree, death. Agree with Obama one big mistake America Agree again, nobody dies as easily as convicted murderers in this country. Tracy- High five Just for sh!ts and giggles, we should crucify him.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 28, 2015 9:16:26 GMT -6
Agree, death. Agree with Obama one big mistake America Agree again, nobody dies as easily as convicted murderers in this country. Tracy- High five Just for sh!ts and giggles, we should crucify him. Use a nail gun Put his remains in a crock pot, & send that back to where ever he is from. Krygyzstan? Krygyzstan is considering bringing back the DP for terrorist at this time, & for those who kill children.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 31, 2015 18:41:45 GMT -6
Krygyzstan is considering bringing back the DP for terrorist at this time, & for those who kill children. Remind me why you abolished it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Aug 9, 2015 1:39:56 GMT -6
LWOP what a joke. They would have to keep him in protective custody, or he will face what Jeffrey Dahmer did. That would be quicker than the amount of time on Death Row in Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 9, 2015 10:19:12 GMT -6
Look at the bright side, he did that because he hates America, now he can spend his life/death in an American prison.
|
|