As the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial is coming nearer each day, complications have not been slight. One of the greatest obstacles heading into the trial is picking a jury that will be unbiased and balanced in its feelings. This trial is extremely controversial not only because Tsarnaev's supposed actions were within the vein of terrorism, but also because he murdered 3 people (including an 8-year-old boy) in a state that does not have capital punishment. However, because of Massachusetts' past, many are starting to believe that exceptions will be made.
Massachusetts abolished the death penalty more than 30 years ago and last carried out a death sentence in 1947. But a dark cloud hangs over the state's history and is very prevalent in the minds of any citizen that may become a juror in the trial. Massachusetts was the first colony to carry out capital punishment in 1630, hanging murderer John Billington in Plymouth. Mary Dyer and the three other "Boston Martyrs" was executed in 1660 under a law that banned Quakers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Salem Witch Trials of the late 1690s killed a total of 19 women accused of practicing witchcraft. Massachusetts was also the state to execute the Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, a killing that is still believed unjust to this day. In all, Massachusetts has executed 345 people. Many state residents believe that first-degree murder always results in a death sentence, even though this rule was only in effect until 1951.
Besides this, there is still ambivalence about capital punishment in Boston, and this makes picking a jury for the Tsarnaev trial extremely difficult. Though Massachusetts law does not allow the death penalty, the federal government does. It is clear that the federal government thinks Tsarnaev is a "poster boy" for capital punishment, because his crimes were so heinous and cruel.
At the moment, potential jurors for the trial are being "quizzed" and widdled down a group that will reach a fair and unbiased verdict. When asked whether they'd be able to sentence Tsarnaev to die by lethal injection, the answers from potential jurors range from "absolutely" to "no way" to somewhere in the middle. One juror responded, "I'm not wicked opposed to the death penalty." The people with the strongest opinions (those on the extreme ends of the juror questionnaire rating scale) are the least likely to make the jury. The city as a whole is also divided. A 2013 poll conducted by the Boston Globe showed that just a third of Boston's residents favor the death penalty for Tsarnaev, while the other two-thirds would choose life in prison as his sentence.
Despite this, there is a strong and emotional rally against Tsarnaev that spans most of America (for good reason). His defense lawyer has told the press many times that he is concerned that the "Boston Strong" sentiment will make finding an unbiased jury impossible, and also complicate reaching a truthfully fair punishment for Tsarnaev.
The main issues here are that the public's response to Tsarnaev's crimes and Massachusetts' history seem to be calling for an exception to the state law abolishing capital punishment. Also, there is talk about the federal government simply taking over the trial so that the death penalty can be incurred, as this is still legal in federal court. I am personally for the death penalty, but understand how it is believed that Tsarnaev will not receive a fair trial because of all the bias. Though the bias is definitely warranted, the rallying "Boston Strong" slogan is, in a way, obstructing justice to some degree. I also think that Massachusetts' history of "eye-for-an-eye" killings will also be a factor in the decision of this case.
Does Tsarnaev deserve to die? Can a fair jury ever be selected in a situation like this? Should the feds take over this case and allow for capital punishment? Is "Boston Strong" obstructing justice?
SOURCES
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/tsarnaev-venue-hearing/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/us/tsarnaev-13th-juror-selection-history/index.html
8 comments:
Kristin,
There's no doubt that what Tsarnaev's actions were heinous and extremely violent. But, I do not believe that he deserves to die. No one deserves death, no matter the circumstance. Killing him would just end it, he would not have to suffer for his actions. Then again, he might not suffer. Clearly he does not value the sanctity of life and perhaps he is at the point where he doesn't care about his own. Nonetheless, I think that he he should stay in jail for the rest of his life. You also bring up a very crucial part of this whole case, which is the jury. Unfortunately, I don't think that there will not be a biased jury. What Tsarnaev did was a complete act of terrorism that affected everyone across the nation. As a result, it makes finding a "clear headed" jury nearly impossible. You can find "Boston Strong" t-shirts and bumper stickers almost everywhere.This will greatly contribute to the mind of the jury. He will most certainly be found guilty in all charges, regardless of the jury's judgement. Just last week I launched an article about the death penalty and how controversial it has become in the last few years. It costs more to have someone on death row than it does to keep them in jail and the approval rate for it has significantly decreased. That being said, if Tsarneav were to be put on death row, it would take years for the final act to happen. Even more, killing him won't solve the issue of terrorism. It is clear that after one terrorist is killed, another will soon take their place. If anything, Tsarnaev should be kept alive. Although this may anger the citizens of Boston, it will ultimately prove that killing a killer is not truly justified.
While I do not believe that every murderer or criminal should be placed on death row, there is a significant difference between killing someone in their house and blowing people up in the middle of a crowded city. What Tsarnaev did was not just murder, it was urban terrorism. He created an atmosphere of fear and panic that gripped an entire city and an entire nation. What he and his late brother did psychologically to the nation was bring back the emotions and fear like those that haunted everyone after 9/11, only on a smaller scale. In terms of finding an impartial jury to try Tsarnaev of his crimes, I think that finding one is not likely going to happen. This, I do not believe is a bad thing because what Tsarnaev did cannot be overlooked or swept under the rug as insignificant enough to not bring about serious punishment. While what Lilly said is true about the death penalty not solving the issue of terrorism, realistically, I don't think anything ever will. There will always be people who hate the United States and everything it stands for. That being said, that basic fact does not change the fact that we live in a world in which nations, cultures, and ideologies are eternally battling for influence and power. If the United States truly wants to be the role model for the rest of the world, we have to show that crime on this scale is completely unacceptable and inexcusable. To do this, we must show that urban terrorism like this will not be tolerated and that there are serious consequences for serious actions. If, for example, the 9/11 terrorists somehow survived their attacks. Would we pardon them? Would we let them live after killing thousands of people and terrifying millions more? As much as killing killers seems medieval or Hammurabi-esque, it is a system that needs to be in place to deter most, or at least some, attacks on this scale. For this reason, I firmly believe that Tsarnaev should pay for his crimes in this way.
Dear Kristin,
I would have to say that I agree with your stance on the idea that Tsarnaev should receive capital punishment for his actions. Considering he killed three people, injured about 260, and made people feel terror on their own soil, he should not be allowed to just got to jail. By him being kept alive, it can be seen as if he did not commit one of the worst types of crimes against the American people. This sort of terrorism should not be treated lightly by only putting him in jail, instead he should not be able to become a symbol by being kept alive in jail.
If you think about how much media attention the Boston bombing attracted, it is highly unlikely that a fair jury can be selected. Tsarnaev committed an act of terrorism and I do not think that theory will sit well with jurors who are at the age that they lived through past terrorist attacks on America. It is hard to imagine that people will have an unbiased and level-minded view on the situation. I understand that the lawyers are looking for people who have moderate views on the issue of capital punishment, but everyone does have an opinion, especially about something this controversial. Also, even if the lawyers are able to choose people will moderate views on the issue, there is no telling how people will react in Tsarnaev’s case. Obviously, capital punishment should only be employed for the worst of crimes, and under most circumstances I would not support capital punishment because it is such a serious consequence. What I cannot just help but think is how the families of the victims feel about the situation. I honestly believe that they might support the death penalty. It has almost been two years since the bombing and now the bomber is finally going to go on trial, and I obviously cannot speak for them, but I do feel as if they just want this whole ordeal to be done with, and by him staying alive in jail they will always know that he is still out there. To add on, it would be understandable if the idea of capital punishment was dismissed if there was any doubt in whether Tsarnaev was behind the attack. But he was caught days after the bombing by the FBI, and there is a substantial amount of evidence tying him to the bombing.
In the matter of whether or not the federal government should intervene in this case, I firmly believe that they should take charge. I understand that times have changed and even though Massachusetts was the first colony in 1630 to use capital punishment, they did eradicate it thirty years ago. In most matters the federal government triumphs over the states, and in this case, the government should. The government needs to show that they do not have any tolerance for this kind of behavior and that those responsible should be punished for their actions. However, the federal government might need to control the situation because of the “Boston Strong” rallying. The people want justice and if their view of justice is not upheld, it could end up in dangerous escalation.
Ultimately, this trial will most likely be dealt with in Massachusetts and by their laws and whatever the jurors decide will be the end result. Either way, Tsarnaev will be punished for his horrid crimes and will never be able to consider himself a free man ever again.
A couple years back in the state of Connecticut a pair of burglars broke into a home. They knocked the father out and proceeded to rape the daughters and wife of the man. They then killed all of the family except the father. The state of Connecticut did not at the time allow for the death penalty. However, in this specific case the state decided to push for legalizing the death penalty just so these two men could be put to death. I bring up this case because I feel that we might see a strikingly similar case occur with Tsarnaev. Massachusetts although currently against the death penalty does have the power to change the law to allow for the execution of Tsarnaev. Subsequently, after he has been sentenced to die, the state can decide to once again get rid of the death penalty. This will not remove Tsarnaev from death row, it will only prevent other people from being sentenced to death as well. Personally I believe this process is rather lengthy and the case should instead be thrown into the federal courts that way Tsarnaev can be put to death without having to change the state law. His actions were unforgivable and the harshest punishment should be taken to make up for what he did. I think a message needs to be sent to other people who might be considering committing acts of terrorism. It is ridiculous to think that we could allow a person who committed an act of terrorism the gift of life. Sure his life may be limited to four walls, but it is a life nonetheless. And in my opinion that is just too much for a man like Tsarnaev.
I believe he deserves to die, what he did was unforgivable and doesn’t deserve to live. Although Boston strong might be obstructing justice, I believe it is a fair obstruction; he doesn’t deserve a fair trial for what he has done. Whoever takes their pure hatred out of innocent people deserves to die. I think he should go to the federal court since this was a terrorist attack on United States soil so the US should deal with it. At this point, almost 2 years later I don’t believe it would be possible to pick a fair jury who has not been influenced in some way to decide the outcome, but that’s irrelevant in my opinion. Anyone who has the mental capability to cause so much pain to innocent people is a prime example of why we should keep the death penalty legalized. My question for those who do not believe he deserves the death penalty is what if you had a loved one who was affected by the attack? Would you still think he deserves to live? For me at least these questions are how I came to my opinion on why I think he deserves the death penalty.
Tsarnaev absolutely deserves to die. If not for the consequences of his actions, then most definitely for the purpose of eradicating evil of his kind from the Earth. Problem is, the death penalty has been watered down to the point of minimal punishment. No longer are executions by hanging or electric chair, but by a painless lethal injection. I would be willing to wager that any murderer on the scale of someone like Tsarnaev would be afraid of death, so the idea of a painless passing is not frightening to a person like him. Life in prison is not as much of a punishment either. Recreational activities are common in prisons now, and have reduced "imprisonment" to the point of a daycare that you can't leave. In fact, during the recent recession, people used to get intentionally arrested in order to have suitable living conditions. Unless Tsarnaev will be spending his sentence in a gulag, it is a waste of tax dollars, and just as much of a reprieve as a painless death. This boy is an urban terrorist, and the death penalty should definitely be incurred in a special exception. He killed a child and shows no remorse. Human rights should only apply to people who act humanely, and people like Tsarnaev do not.
*a person like Tsarnaev WOULD NOT be afraid of death.
I believe that the main issue here is the fact that an unbiased jury is necessary for this trial, but it is very hard to find due to the fact that this event affected so many people. Finding a group of people that have balanced feelings on the subject and can decide the fate of these terrible criminals takes time and patience, as well as specific tests and quizzes to make sure that it is the best group of people possible for the job. Also, the fact of the matter is that Tsarnaev, like Tyler said, is a man who would be better off executed for the horrible crimes he committed and the lives he took. This type of cowardly attack on United States soil is something that sticks with so many people and makes them resent the man who committed the crime. To take so many innocent lives and just run from the scene is such a cowardly act that the only just punishment is death. To allow him to live in prison for the rest of his life is not enough punishment for what he did in Boston. There should be an exception to the state that does not have capital punishment for this type of trial for this type of crime. When dealing with such a deadly human being, one of the most cruel beings on the planet, there needs to be adequate repercussions.
Post a Comment