Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Giz said:
Strongly disagree. The criminal justice system should (speaking in general here), consider the following when sentencing:

- Rehabilitation
- Protecting society
- Deterrence

It would be perverse to not consider whether a certain sentence would actually encourage more of the undesirable behaviour.
Click to expand...

I agree that the criminal justice system should consider deterrence, but I disagree that the jury should be the ones in this role. Other actors in the criminal justice system are in better positions to decide which penalties should be pursued and offered for the jury's consideration.
 
Cavemonster said:
Interests in this case are distinct from wants or desires.

My son may want ice cream for dinner every night, but it is in his best interest to eat a healthy meal, and my job as a parent to provide that regarless of what he wants.

I'm not sure of defense attourney's legal duties in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if death is considered against the best interest of the client regardless of what the client wants.
Click to expand...

There was nothing stopping Tsarnaev from refusing the services of lawyers who wouldn't represent him in the way that he wanted.
 
I'm up for putting him in a very slow pressure cooker. Assuming this is germane to the thread in this portion of it.....
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The thought I had was, this case was tried by federal prosecutors. If the U.S. Government had felt executing Tsarnaev would carry a high probability of triggering 'pay back' terrorist attacks than I think they would probably have communicated that to the U.S. Attorney's office that is handling the case.

Yet the Massachusetts' U.S. Attorney's office announced from virtually the start they would be seeking the death penalty. I would conclude from that either the U.S. Government does not believe executing Tsarnaev will necessarily trigger retaliatory terrorist attacks or, at minimum, does not believe it's something that should influence the decision to seek the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And they are in a better position to know than the members of a jury, none of whom are likely to have very extensive knowledge or expertise in such matters.
 
abaddon said:
Source?
Click to expand...

What are you under the impression that the trial was for? If he had pled "Guilty" there wouldn't have been a trial. You thought he pled "Guilty" and that then the jury had to go decide if he really was guilty? That doesn't make any sense.

He was last seen publicly in July 2013, pleading not guilty to the charges during a hearing in a federal courtroom in Boston.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...naev-to-appear-in-court/?tid=trending_strip_5
 
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly said:
What are you under the impression that the trial was for? If he had pled "Guilty" there wouldn't have been a trial. You thought he pled "Guilty" and that then the jury had to go decide if he really was guilty? That doesn't make any sense.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...naev-to-appear-in-court/?tid=trending_strip_5
Click to expand...
I hate to tell you but, his lawyers opening statement was he was guilty. He has not denied this from the start of the trial. The trial is to decide the penalty. By pleading not guilty the case could be made that he was not the mastermind and more a pawn under the control of his older brother. It was a play to save him from the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
Death penalty appeals could go on for decades. More punishment for victims. Bottom line is that the imposition of the death penalty always sounds good to people, until they realize its cost to their community in dollars and continuing pain for the surviving families and victims. Risk of generating a cult following for the scum is also present.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
Death penalty appeals could go on for decades. More punishment for victims. Bottom line is that the imposition of the death penalty always sounds good to people, until they realize its cost to their community in dollars and continuing pain for the surviving families and victims. Risk of generating a cult following for the scum is also present.
Click to expand...
I agree. Lock him up where he will be quietly forgotten.
 
From an article in Business Insider published last month entitled,
"Here's why the Boston bomber pleaded not guilty even though his lawyer told the court he did it":
The lawyer for the Boston Marathon bomber [Judy Clarke, one of the top death-penalty lawyers in the US] admitted at the start of her client's trial this week that he was guilty — even though he already pleaded not guilty two years ago...Legal expert and Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman told Business Insider that...Tsarnaev's not guilty plea isn't necessarily a claim of innocence but rather an expression that the defense wants to hold the government to its burden of proof in the case...
Click to expand...


I agree if Tsarnaev had pleaded guilty to all counts there would not have been a trial by jury since the defendant's guilt would have been established. Defendants do plead guilty, of course, and normally they go before a judge who asks if they understand the implications of what they are doing. If the defendant convinces the judge that they are in fact guilty and do not desire a trial the judge finds them guilty and the case goes to the sentencing phase.

I don't know if it has to work that way but it usually does.
 
DGM said:
I hate to tell you but, his lawyers opening statement was he was guilty. He has not denied this from the start of the trial. The trial is to decide the penalty. By pleading not guilty the case could be made that he was not the mastermind and more a pawn under the control of his older brother. It was a play to save him from the death penalty.
Click to expand...

No one has denied that the opening statement admitted guilt. The point was that abaddon claimed he had pleaded guilty, and Doghouse corrected this claim (and was then challenged for a source).
 
DGM said:
I hate to tell you but, his lawyers opening statement was he was guilty. He has not denied this from the start of the trial. The trial is to decide the penalty. By pleading not guilty the case could be made that he was not the mastermind and more a pawn under the control of his older brother. It was a play to save him from the death penalty.
Click to expand...

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. My point is that he pled "Not Guilty". The poster I was replying to claimed that he pled guilty. The jury still had to deliberate and decide whether or not he was guilty of the charges, since he legally claimed not to be, through his "Not guilty" plea.
 
My understanding was that the legal plea was "not guilty", while hoping to mitigate his admission of having been involved through a defense which holds the government to its burden. Opening with Clarke's admission that Tsarnaev and his brother were in fact the culprits does not legally establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Tsarnaev would have had to plead "guilty" and satisfy the judge's questions concerning coercion etc. to be convicted.

.... defense could be using the trial as a sort of test run to prepare for the penalty phase, which will decide whether Tsarnaev gets the death penalty.
Click to expand...


Tsarnaev's not guilty plea isn't necessarily a claim of innocence but rather an expression that the defense wants to hold the government to its burden of proof in the case, Berman said. Once the prosecution lays out its case, the defense will be better informed on how to argue against a death sentence in the penalty phase.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-...rnaev-pleaded-not-guilty-2015-3#ixzz3X0IdnOmH
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom