Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[Jodie]

The process is not hollow and meaningless. It ensures that everyone's rights are protected. The fact that you think the process is meaningless and/or useless in any specific case is a sign of poor/incomplete education, or an inability to accept the decent one you may have been provided. Again and again, we're a nation of laws that fails every time we set those laws aside in the interest of simple expediency, and serving expediency seems to be your only argument.

I think the original intent was good, but the judiciary system doesn't really represent or work equally well for every citizen as I pointed out above. Right or wrong, we preserve expediency everyday, and I don't have a problem with it in this case.

 

[Jodie]

Exile isn't an option for US citizens, as a punishment.

If they don't give him the death penalty then perhaps it is time for a land mark case that does.

 

[Jodie]

And your way to fix the system is to go with trial by media, followed by some mob justice? No, just no.

My way to fix this is to treat it the same way they handle other less note worthy individuals that get dragged into the judiciary system and convicted with little or no evidence.

 

[Rat]

If they don't give him the death penalty then perhaps it is time for a land mark case that does.

I'd like to know exactly what practical purpose you think would be effected by killing him, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

 

[Jodie]

I'd like to know exactly what practical purpose you think would be effected by killing him, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

What practical purpose would be served supporting him in prison for the rest of his life? If you think he should live, and I really have no strong feelings one way or the other about that, then sending him back to the country he was born in sounds like a good compromise to me, if they will have him. The point is to remove him from the society that he seems to be at odds with and to keep him from doing more harm.

 

[Border Reiver]

My way to fix this is to treat it the same way they handle other less note worthy individuals that get dragged into the judiciary system and convicted with little or no evidence.

Except those persons do get due process, meaning they get to answer the charges against them. What you're proposing is to rate a defendant on a s ale of worthiness then decide if they get their legal rights. And when they decide that perhaps what you have done is not worthy of legal protection, and you cry, "but I didn't do it!" And someone goes, "No, we looked at the evidence and decided you did, it is open and shut, and a waste of scarce judicial resources to give you a trial. We're going straight to sentencing."

To prevent that is why everyone gets a trial.

 

[Jodie]

Everyone doesn't though, they get plea bargains to do lesser time if they don't have the resources for a better defense.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

My way to fix this is to treat it the same way they handle other less note worthy individuals that get dragged into the judiciary system and convicted with little or no evidence.

No, it isn't. Your way is to treat him differently from everyone else because you think there is enough evidence of his guilty. The procedural rules are the same for Tsarnaev as for everyone else, noteworthy or not.

 

[linusrichard]

My way to fix this is to treat it the same way they handle other less note worthy individuals that get dragged into the judiciary system and convicted with little or no evidence.

If you really mean this, then it's a change from what you've said before.

Everyone, noteworthy or not, has a lot of safeguards in place to keep them from being convicted with little or no evidence.

Maybe some of these safeguards fail sometimes, and maybe some people are wrongly convicted, and maybe even a few people get convicted with little or no evidence. But the fact is, those safeguards (including the right to a trial) are there for all defendants. So if you want to treat Tsarnaev like all defendants, then you want him to have the right to a trial. Which is good, but it's not what you've been saying.

 

[Border Reiver]

Everyone doesn't though, they get plea bargains to do lesser time if they don't have the resources for a better defense.

Plea Bargains are a procedural tool that still require that a trial occur, the bargain is that, in exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecution is prepared to offer a lesser sentence for the primary offence, the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser included offence vice the more serious offence, or an opportunity to take certain punishments off the table. At the trial the accused is asked how they plead, they respond "guilty", and the judge may or may not require that the evidence against the accused be entrered into court - the judge is required to ascertain that the accused understands what a guilty plea means, and if the judge is not satisfied that the accused does understand may set the plea aside in favour of going through a trial.

 

[Border Reiver]

What practical purpose would be served supporting him in prison for the rest of his life? If you think he should live, and I really have no strong feelings one way or the other about that, then sending him back to the country he was born in sounds like a good compromise to me, if they will have him. The point is to remove him from the society that he seems to be at odds with and to keep him from doing more harm.

However, he is not a citizen of that country, and they have no obligation to take him. Tsarnaev is a US citizen and cannot be stripped of his ciitzenship to become stateless. Also how does sending him to another nation guarantee that Tsarnaev will not become a danger to the US again?

There are several objectives to judicial sentencing:

a. Retribution - you did bad and we will punish you for it;
b. Rehabilitation - while you are being punished society will attempt to modify your behaviour so that you do not do this again;
c. Protection - society doesn't have to fear you doing unsocial things, and the criminal is protected from extra-judicial sentencing; and
c. Education - a public method of saying that society does not approve of what this person did and the sentence is a measure of how much we disapprove of it.

 

[Jodie]

No, it isn't. Your way is to treat him differently from everyone else because you think there is enough evidence of his guilty. The procedural rules are the same for Tsarnaev as for everyone else, noteworthy or not.

But they aren't applied fairly and evenly, are they?

 

[Jodie]

If you really mean this, then it's a change from what you've said before.

Everyone, noteworthy or not, has a lot of safeguards in place to keep them from being convicted with little or no evidence.

Maybe some of these safeguards fail sometimes, and maybe some people are wrongly convicted, and maybe even a few people get convicted with little or no evidence. But the fact is, those safeguards (including the right to a trial) are there for all defendants. So if you want to treat Tsarnaev like all defendants, then you want him to have the right to a trial. Which is good, but it's not what you've been saying.

I don't see any reason to have a trial for him if he confessed and the evidence is there to back up the confession. Maybe a hearing to review the evidence, but for what reason would you give him a trial? The outcome will be the same.

 

[Jodie]

Plea Bargains are a procedural tool that still require that a trial occur, the bargain is that, in exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecution is prepared to offer a lesser sentence for the primary offence, the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser included offence vice the more serious offence, or an opportunity to take certain punishments off the table. At the trial the accused is asked how they plead, they respond "guilty", and the judge may or may not require that the evidence against the accused be entrered into court - the judge is required to ascertain that the accused understands what a guilty plea means, and if the judge is not satisfied that the accused does understand may set the plea aside in favour of going through a trial.

OK, but if the defendant is not guilty and doesn't have the resources for a prolonged trial then he has to weigh the pro's and con's of claiming a lesser plea and possibly doing less time for a crime he may not have committed. This happens frequently for many reasons.

One extreme example that comes to mind is the DNA analyst performing the insane bigfoot study that some of you may or may not have been following here on JREF. This person supposedly doing the research also did DNA testing for criminal cases. Now those results that put people behind bars are coming into question because of the conclusions/interpretations she drew trying to claim that bigfoot DNA had been isolated and identified.

These people may have gone the plea bargain route just to avoid a maximum sentence even though they might have been innocent. I'm not sure how many tests for criminal cases this person actually did, but if it happened in this situation, who is to say it hasn't happened to other defendants where the outcome relied on forensics analysis to make or break a defense? Just exactly what qualifications does a lab have to have to contract with the state or feds? Expert witnesses are also another bag of worms where it can be debatable as to just how much of an expert they might really be in their field. But I digress, I'm sure they will go through the motions with this on what is lawful and proper, but that's all it will be.

 

[linusrichard]

I don't see any reason to have a trial for him if he confessed and the evidence is there to back up the confession. Maybe a hearing to review the evidence, but for what reason would you give him a trial? The outcome will be the same.

"Why" isn't relevant. If you wanted to petition the government for redress of grievances, and I were in the government, and wanted to prevent you from doing so, I could not say, "Why should you be allowed to petition the government for redress of grievances? The government is just going to reject your petition, they're not going to listen to you, it's not going to do any good, it's just a waste of time, why should you be allowed to?" The First Amendment says you get to petition the government for redress of grievances, and it plain doesn't matter whether anyone thinks there's a good reason why you should or shouldn't be allowed to.

Same thing with right to trial. The Constitution doesn't require "determination of guilt by a reliable method." It doesn't require "trial when there hasn't been a confession." It requires due process of law. Due process of law means trial. We don't give defendants the right to trial because it is the most practical means to achieve a particular end. We give defendants the right to trial because it is an end in itself.

 

[triforcharity]

But they aren't applied fairly and evenly, are they?

Yes they are. If not there's an appeals court for exactly that reason.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

But they aren't applied fairly and evenly, are they?

That rather depends on who you ask. But the system does reach suspiciously disparate outcomes, unfavorable to the poor and minority groups. No one really knows whether this is down to wider social problems, bias within the system, a lack of funding or the disparate effect of particular procedures.

However, the "the system is unfair" argument is irrelevant here. What you want to do is make the system more unfair by saying that Tsarnaev should be treated differently. Either people who confession should have a hearing or they should not. You cannot treat Tsarnaev different because you don't like him or because you think the evidence is strong. That way only makes the system more unfair and more open to personal bias.

 

[newyorkguy]

The legal system does work unfairly to people with no money.

When I was in my early twenties I was arrested for possession of marijuana. I don't remember the circumstances, I do remember when I was arraigned. I was assigned a public defender. He told me the search was undoubtedly illegal. That if I made a "motion to suppress" the only evidence (the bag of marijuana) would be tossed out, meaning no case. Except...

The Legal Aid lawyer told me he would represent me if I wanted to plead guilty. He said he was juggling a bunch of cases and had no time to file a motion. He said if I wanted to protest the search I'd have to hire myself a lawyer. It would probably cost me $5,000. I had just gotten out of the service and it might as well have been $5 million.

I said to the public defender that I didn't think I was being treated fairly. He snorted: "You're guilty!" I told him I didn't want it on my record if I could avoid it. I had just gotten out of the Army "for crying out loud." He repeated, "Then hire a lawyer. If you want me it's going to be a guilty plea. Your choice."

Even the police say, you usually get as much justice as you can afford.

 

[triforcharity]

You should have asked to plea, get in front of the judge, and tell him the problem. Conflict attorney would have been assigned, and the lawyer in question would most certainly have been sanctioned by not only his boss, but also the courts.

 

[newyorkguy]

You should have asked to plea, get in front of the judge, and tell him the problem. Conflict attorney would have been assigned, and the lawyer in question would most certainly have been sanctioned by not only his boss, but also the courts.

Maybe. But being this was New York City I wasn't too sure that would work. (Sitting in Criminal Court for a couple hours was some education in the way the system works!)

Here's how they get you. I was arrested at midday. I was held overnight. No phone call. Nobody got a phone call. Everyone was complaining about that. When people asked the corrections officers at the detention facility about it they were ignored.

By the time I was brought into court, met my lawyer and "discussed" my case -- in the back of the courtroom a couple minutes before my case was called -- I was about to miss my second day of work without even calling my Boss. The lawyer told me if I pleaded guilty I'd get ACD -adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.

In other words, if I kept my mouth shut except for answering, "Guilty your Honor," when asked how did I plead...I was a free man. I'd be walking out of the courtroom in another ten minutes.

And that's what I did.